Talk:Roman emperor

message: As I mentioned elsewhere, I think it would be an amazing idea for this page's list of the Emperors to focus on dynastic and non-dynastic changes (so as to justify its separate listing of the Emperors). I put together an example of how this might be done with the Julio-Claudians as an example:
:Julio-Claudian Emperors:
:*Caesar Augustus ("Imp.  Caesar Augustus"; b. C. Octavius), d. 14
:**M. Vipsanius Agrippa, 18 BC – 12 BC
:**Ti. Claudius Nero, 6 BC – 1 BC, 4 – 14 (as "Ti. Iulius Caesar")
:*Tiberius I ("Ti. Caesar Augustus"; b. Ti. Claudius Nero), 14 – 37
:**Note: Tiberius had been co-Emperor with Caesar Augustus from 6 BC to 1 BC, and again from AD 4 until his own accession to the purple
:*Gaius "Caligula" ("C. Caesar Augustus Germ."; b. C. Iulius Caesar Germ.), 37 – 41
:*Claudius I ("Ti. Claudius Caesar Augustus Germ."; b. Ti. Claudius Drusus), 41 – 54
:*Nero ("Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germ."; b. L. Domitius Ahenobarbus), 54 – 68
:Dynastic Relationships:
:Caesar Augustus's first wife Livia Drusilla (subsequently "Iulia Augusta") had previously borne two children by her first husband, Tiberius Claudius Nero: Tiberus and Drusus. Tiberius's second wife was Iulia, Marcus Agrippa's widow (his first wife had been Vipsania, Agrippa's daughter by his first marriage); Caesar Augustus adopted Tiberius on June 26, 4, whereupon Tiberius himself adopted his brother Drusus's son by Marcus Antonius's daughter, Germanicus Iulius Caesar. Germanicus married Vipsania Agrippina, Agrippa's daughter by Iulia and Tiberius's stepdaughter, and had by her one surviving son, Gaius "Caligula" ("Bootkins"), and a daughter, Iulia Agrippina, whose second husband was Germanicus's brother by blood, Claudius (she was his first wife); Agrippina had already borne a son (Lucius) by her first husband, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus. Claudius adopted Lucius under the name Nero in 40; Nero married Claudius's daughter Octavia in 53. 
What does everyone think about using this as a general model for the article's second part? It will of course take some time to modify the whole article, and will necessarily make the article somewhat lengthier, but I think it would go a long way toward demonstrating the complicated (dare I say, "byzantine"?) often-familial personality of the Roman Emperor's succession. Comments? Publius
It sounds an interesting idea. But speaking of "byzantine", the familial connections get more complicated from the Tetrarchy and till Anastasius I. Any ideas how to cover the following connections (from a modern Greek encyclopedia)?:
*Diocletian (284 - 305) was father-in-law to Galerius.
*Maximian (286 - 305, 307 - 310) was father to Maxentius, father-in-law to both Constantius Chlorus and Constantine I of the Roman Empire, grandfather-in-law to Licinius, grandfather to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II, and Constans, great-grandfather to Julian and great-grandfather-in-law to Gratian.
*Galerius (305 - 311) was son-in-law to Diocletian and father-in-law to Maxentius.
*Constantius Chlorus (305 - 306) was son-in-law to Maximian, father and brother-in-law to Constantine I of the Roman Empire, father-in-law to Licinius, grandfather to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II, Constans and Julian, and great-grandfather-in-law to Gratian.
*Constantine I of the Roman Empire (306 - 337) was son and brother-in-law to Constantius Chlorus, son-in-law to Maximian, brother-in-law to Maxentius and Licinius, father to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II and Constans, uncle and father-in-law to Julian and grandfather-in-law to Gratian.
*Maxentius (306 - 312) was son to Maximian, son-in-law to Galerius, brother-in-law to both Constantius Chlorus and Constantine I of the Roman Empire, uncle by marriage of Licinius, uncle by blood of Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II and Constans, great-gradfather to Julian and great-great-uncle by marriage to Gratian.
*Licinius (308 - 324) was grandson-in-law to Maximian, son-in-law to Constantius Chlorus, nephew by marriage to Maxentius, brother-in-law to Constantine I of the Roman Empire, uncle by marriage to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II, Constans and Julian, great-uncle by marriage to Gratian.
*Constantine II of the Roman Empire (337 - 340) was grandson to Maximian and Constantius Chlorus, son of Constantine I of the Roman Empire, nephew by blood of Maxentius, nephew by marriage of Licinius, older brother of Constantius II and Constans, first cousin and brother-in-law to Julian, uncle by marriage of Gratian.
*Constantius II (337 - 361) was grandson to Maximian and Constantius Chlorus, son of Constantine I of the Roman Empire, nephew by blood of Maxentius, nephew by marriage of Licinius, younger brother of Constantine II of the Roman Empire, older brother of Constans, first cousin and brother-in-law to Julian, father-in-law to Gratian.
*Constans (337 - 350) was grandson to Maximian and Constantius Chlorus, son of Constantine I of the Roman Empire, nephew by blood of Maxentius, nephew by marriage of Licinius, younger brother of Constantine II of the Roman Empire and Constantius II, first cousin and brother-in-law to Julian, uncle by marriage to Gratian.
*Magnentius (350 - 353's widow was later second wife to Valentinian I.
*Julian (361 - 363) was great-grandson to Maximian, grandson to Constantius Chlorus, great-nephew to Maxentius, nephew by blood to Constantine I of the Roman Empire, nephew by marriage to Licinius, first cousin and brother-in-law of Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constantius II and Constans, uncle by marriage to Gratian.
*Valentinian I (364 - 375) was married to the widow of Magnentius, brother to  Valens, father to Gratian and Valentinian II, father-in-law to Theodosius I, grandfather-in-law to Constantius III, great-grandfather to Valentinian III and great-great-grandfather-in-law to Olybrius.
*Valens (364 - 378) was sister to Valentinian I, uncle by blood to Gratian and Valentinian II, uncle by marriage to Theodosius I, great-uncle by marriage to Constantius III, great-great-uncle to Valentinian III and great-great-great-uncle by marriage to Olybrius.
*Gratian (375 - 383) was great-grandson-in law to Maximian and Constantius Chlorus, grandson-in-law to Constantine I of the Roman Empire, grandnephew by marriage to Maxentius and Licinius, nephew by marriage to Constantine II of the Roman Empire, Constans and Julian, son-in-law to Constantius II, son to Valentinian I, nephew by blood to Valens, half-brother to Valentinian II, brother-in-law to Theodosius I, uncle by marriage to Constantius III, great-uncle to Valentinian III and great-great-uncle to Olybrius.
*Valentinian II (375 - 392) was son to Valentinian I, nephew to Valens, half-brother to Gratian, brother-in-law to Theodosius I, uncle by marriage to Constantius III, great-uncle to Valentinian III and great-great-uncle to Olybrius.
*Theodosius I (379 - 392) was son-in-law to Valentinian I, nephew by marriage to Valens, brother-in-law to Gratian and Valentinian II, father to Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius, father-in-law to Constantius III, grandfather to Theodosius II and Valentinian III , grandfather-in-law to Marcian, great-grandfather-in-law to Olybrius.
*Arcadius (395 - 408) was son to Theodosius I, brother to Flavius Augustus Honorius, brother-in-law to Constantius III, father to Theodosius II, father-in-law to Marcian, uncle to Valentinian III, great-uncle by marriage to Olybrius.
*Flavius Augustus Honorius (395 - 423) was son to Theodosius I, brother to Arcadius, brother-in-law to Constantius III, uncle to Theodosius II and Valentinian III, uncle by marriage to Marcian and great-uncle by marriage to Olybrius.
*Theodosius II (408 - 450) was grandson to Theodosius I, son to Arcadius, nephew by blood to Flavius Augustus Honorius, nephew by marriage to Constantius III, brother-in-law to Marcian, first cousin to Valentinian III and uncle by marriage to Olybrius.
*Constantius III (421) was grandson-in-law to Valentinian I, great-nephew by marriage to Valens, nephew by marriage to Gratian and Valentinian II, son-in-law to Theodosius I, brother-in-law to Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius, father to Valentinian III, uncle by marriage to Theodosius II and Marcian, grandfather-in-law to Olybrius.
*Valentinian III (424 - 455) was great-grandson to Valentinian I, great-great-nephew to Valens, grandson to Theodosius I, great-nephew to Gratian and Valentinian II, son to Constantius III, nephew to Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius, first cousin by blood to Theodosius II, first cousin by marriage to Marcian and father-in-law to Olybrius.
*Marcian (450 - 457) was grandson-in-law to Theodosius I, son-in-law to Arcadius, nephew by marriage to Flavius Augustus Honorius and Constantius III, brother-in-law to Theodosius II, first cousib by marriage to Valentinian III, father-in-law to Anthemius, uncle by marriage to Olybrius, grandfather-in-law to the daughter of Leo I of the Byzantine Empire.
*Leo I of the Byzantine Empire (457 - 474) was brother-in-law to Basiliscus, father-in-law to the son of Anthemius, Zeno of the Byzantine Empire and Anastasius I of the Byzantine Empire, grandfather to Leo II.
*Anthemius (467 - 472) was son-in-law to Marcian and father-in-law to the daughter of Leo I of the Byzantine Empire.
*Olybrius (472) was great-great-grandson-in-law to Valentinian I, great-great-great-nephew by marriage to Valens, great-grandson-in-law to Theodosius I, great-great-nephew by marriage to Gratian and Valentinian II, grandson-in-law to Constantius III, great-nephew by marriage to Arcadius and Flavius Augustus Honorius, son-in-law to Valentinian III, nephew by marriage to Theodosius II and Marcian.
*Leo II (474) was grandson to Leo I of the Byzantine Empire, great-nephew to Basiliscus, son to Zeno of the Byzantine Empire, nephew by marriage to the son of Anthemius).
*Zeno of the Byzantine Empire (474 - 475, 476 - 491), was son-in-law to Leo I of the Byzantine Empire, nephew by marriage to Basiliscus, brother-in-law to the son of Anthemius, father to Leo II. His widow married Anastasius I of the Byzantine Empire.
*Basiliscus (475 - 476) was brother-in-law to Leo I of the Byzantine Empire, uncle by marriage to the son of Anthemius, Zeno of the Byzantine Empire and Anastasius I of the Byzantine Empire, great-uncle to Leo II.
*Anastasius I of the Byzantine Empire (491 - 518) was son-in-law to Leo I of the Byzantine Empire, nephew by marriage to Basiliscus, brother-in-law to the son of Anthemius and married to the widow of Zeno of the Byzantine Empire.
As you can see those Emperors are connected to each other but far from consitute a single Royal House. Any ideas of how to indicate this in the article? User:Dimadick
:Yes, I've been working on upgrading the whole article to my new proposed format, and the Tetrarchy and beyond is definitely a snag. I've been thinking that perhaps we ought to delineate the later houses into separate lines based on Constantinian, Valentinian, Theodosian, and Leonine lines, and add clarification as to how the lines are related. Something along the following lines:
::Constantius I's first wife St. Helena bore him a son, Constantinus I, whose second wife Fausta (sister of Maxentius and daughter of Maximian by Eutropia, mother of Constantius's second wife Theodora) bore him three sons (Constantinus II, Constantius II, and Constans I) and two daughters (Constantia and Helena). Constantius II's daughter Constantia married Gratianus (see below), son of Valentinianus I (see below), while Helena married her half-cousin, Julianus "the Apostate". 
What do you think? (As it happens, I'm glad someone was amused by my "byzantine" pun.) Publius 18:13, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus on dynastic/non-dynastic changes

message: Is 'determinating' a word?  Would 'determinator' be better?  --darklilac 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determinating? 

message: There are many statements in the article which quote no sources and thus cannot be verified. Can anyone provide adequate references for them?   --Nehwyn 15:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case use the  tag, not the  one.--Panarjedde 17:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there are too many "citation needed" tags in this article, especially as we have a similar tag at the head of the article. Some are also in awkward spots that makes the article hard to read. I'm removing some. Master z0b (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced statements

message: Half the Roman emperors are regularly claimed to have been "poisoned", some people say, but this article names onely several potential poison victims, why?, and who are the emperors often cited as being poisoned?
:Yes, who are they? I'd never heard that "half the Roman emperors are regularly claimed to have been poisoned" before! FilipeS (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a personal count (OR! Don't use) from an oldish history book, giving a natural death frequency not more than 10%, the rest killed in any way, most usually murdered, but sometimes killed in war. I believe the future prospects of any Roman Emperor was as bad as high nazi functionary before 1945 which seems to be an equally dangerous profession. Said: Rursus ☻ 05:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I.e. much much worse than vulcanologist, a decidedly dangerous research profession. Said: Rursus ☻ 05:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poisoned emperors 

message: Why is the second word of this article capitalized?  Spa toss 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Emperor is a title. (Romanorum Imperator (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So capitalize it when it is being used as part of  a title - and not otherwise. It's not a proper noun, after all. By way of analogy, we write "Pope John", but "pope" is not capitalized generally. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Roman emperor" 

message: Strongly disagree. The title Imperator has meanings separate from Roman Emperor. "Imperator" in its original form means something along the lines of "great commander," or "commander of the army," or terms along those lines to suggest a great general. As I understand it, Imperator came to be associated with "emperor" after only lengthy precedent in the matter, in which the original(and very important) meaning of the word was lost.
P.S. - How long has that been there? There seems to have been no discussion on it.
69.142.30.188 (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with ''Imperator'' 

message: I'm wondering if this section is contradicting itself. At one point it says: "However, Julius Caesar, unlike those after him,[citation needed] did so without the Senate's vote and approval"
Emphasis on -without-. A bit later it says: "again he did not gain these positions without the majority of a vote by the people and senate" -> So, which is it? With or without approval? First sentence suggests without, second sentence with. (I'm no expert on the matter, but I always thought he did all that he did with approval)
Vince (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "First Roman Emperor" 

message: >> His "restoration" of powers to the Senate and the people of Rome was a demonstration of his auctoritas and pious respect for tradition. godly. <<
Whatever this read before, "godly" should either be deleted or made a sentence.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaoQiBao (talk • contribs) 10:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Godly

message: I removed the veritable rash of tags requesting citation, particularly in the early sections of the article - please note that some have been embedded here for three years - because they served no purpose (QED) other than making the text even harder to read. I replaced them all with a general header. The entire article lacks appropriate sources. Currently, it provides two dictionary definitions (handy, but not really citation), one reference to Dio and an offsite link to Constantine Paleologus. My point here is that the text as a whole offers little or no differentiation between primary, secondary and tertiary sources or sources of argument, opinion (scholarly or otherwise) and critical interpretation. Some parts are more lucid than others - the lede is pretty clear - but overall, the article rambles wordily, and I rapidly got lost in it. I've clarified and simplified a tad but only in subject material I know to be broadly uncontentious and available from virtually any well-written general history of the period. 
Regarding sources - otherwise expressed as "what sources?" - a great deal of this article seems based on the online encyclopedic essay series to be found at De Imperatoribus Romanis. I've not gone through this in any great detail, but DomitianDiocletian's so-called Dominate as an "outright oriental monarchy" stands out in particular as a dubious or at least contestable appraisal, sourced from the online de Imperatoribus article. I believe - and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong - that we should not uncritically use other Encyclopedias as building blocks for this one. Haploidavey (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut part in intro, re "Emperor" as follows - "The first to bear that title was Michael I Rhangabes in the early 9th century, who was styled Basileus Rhomaiôn, "Emperor of the Romans"—if appreciating that by that time the meaning of "Basileus" had changed from "Sovereign" to "Emperor")". Needs placing chronologically, with citation; "meaning" can be a tricksy thing. Haploidavey (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Some article issues

message: It occurred to me to wonder who was the last Roman emperor to rule in Rome itself; you'd think this would be easy to find out, but it's not.  As far as I can tell from the biographies of the emperors of this period, Carinus was the last to rule from the city of Rome; does anyone know if this is correct?  If so, it should be mentioned in the article as a fairly significant fact; note that the article currently includes the statement "Constantine XI was the last emperor to rule from Constantinople."  (I originally posted this in Talk:Carinus, but I have since realized that nobody is ever likely to see it there.) Languagehat (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The last West-Roman Emperor to rule in Rome would probably have been Honorius. He was the one who moved the capitol of the West-Roman Empire to Ravenna. He and his successors didn't rule IN Rome but they continued to rule OVER Rome. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to his article, "At first Honorius based his capital in Milan, but when the Visigoths under King Alaric I entered Italy in 401 he moved his capital to the coastal city of Ravenna"; i.e., he did not rule from Rome.  As far as I can tell, none of the emperors ruled from Rome after Diocletian established the multiple-capital system; the Western emperors ruled from Milan and later Ravenna.  And of course "He and his successors didn't rule IN Rome but they continued to rule OVER Rome"; that goes without saying.  I'm interested in who was the last to rule IN Rome. Languagehat (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

text: The last emperor in power over Rome was Constantine V. He was in power 741-775. In 751 Lombards invaded Exarchate of Ravenna and captured it. Only Rome duchy remained from the Exarchate's prevous two total duchies. In 752 pope Stephen II went to Paris and switched alegiance from Constatine V to Frankish king Pepin the Younger because the Emperor turned out to be incapable to defeat the Lombards. In 754 Pepin invaded Italy, defeated Lombards and installed his power there.--2A02:2168:83F:8428:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last emperor to rule from Rome? 

message: This title ("Semper Augustus") is not mentioned.--2A02:2168:83F:8428:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semper 

message: Isn't Roman Emperor a proper noun, the title of a position or office, as per Holy Roman Emperor, Emperor of China and British Emperor?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The citizenry of the the Roman Empire were Romans. The "highest" Roman in the state was the emperor of the Romans. To that ends, their title was Roman emperor. However, historians have since referred to holder of the office (as one was appointed to it) as the Emperor of the Roman Empire to differentiate it from the absolute shit show that happened with title usage throughout the centuries succeeding Augustus. Different times, different semantics. LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the poster was querying the capitalisation (or otherwise) of "emperor". For the rest, see below. Haploidavey (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  E for emperor 

message: I've reverted quite a lot of sourced material, added over the last few days by an enthusiastic editor. Some of it seems usable; any opinions regarding selective reinstatement would be useful, in consideration of the article's woeful under-sourcing. Haploidavey (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Haploidavey, I am indeed surprised to see such a uniform removal of my content. I am also a bit shocked to see that most of them were whole sale reverts. My goal was only to clean up formatting and add sources. My sincere apologies if I stepped on anyone's work. My foremost intention was to trace what the respective TPs were on about before adding anything. I thought I was just clarifying what was concluded on this talk page with my edits. I certainly didn't mean to go against any consensus. Please do let me know what I can do to improve my contributions. All the best and thank you for looking after those pages. LivinRealGüd (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: LivinRealGüd, thank you for your positive response; mass reversions of one's work are pretty horrible experiences. You've not breached any consensus. Your general good faith and wish to improve the article is very evident. Your grasp of Wikipedia formatting mark-up seems excellent to me (not that I know much about it) and you've not stepped on anyone's toes - at least, not mine; I've done very little work on this article. I wish I'd been able to disentangle some of your edits from the article history, and retain or restore them; it was just too much to handle. As for the other matters you've raised here, I'll address them at your talk page, some time today (I'm an old geezer, and I write very slowly, so it'll take me some time). Regards, Haploidavey (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds great. My edits are all in the edit history, feel free to take/leave out what you find improves the article. Let me know if you have any questions about them or would like anything else from me. As for my other edits, all of them were done were done to fix an edit that went against a Wikipedia policy. I would more than happy to cite the policy I was thinking of when I made the edit. For example: 100th Emperor of the Roman Empire --> 100th Emperor of the Roman Empire as per LINKDIRECT. Cheers. LivinRealGüd (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't be numbering the Roman emperors. It's not the practice on Wikipedia, to number monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it was a practice on Wikipedia, how might one deal with joint reigns? No need to introduce complications where none existed. I'm not sure what's meant by policy regarding "LINKDIRECT" (which I've been unable to find in the WP:MOS). Per the offered example (Emperor of the Roman Empire) why would one link from one name for a topic to another name for the same topic? Isn't that the function of a redirect? Piped links can usefully link to subsections of the same article. Haploidavey (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Co-emperors are already mentioned in the respective infoboxes, where present. Therefore, Joint numbering isn't required. For an non-Roman example? see Mary II of England & William III of England articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition to what was said above, the policy I was referring to was: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. The example I gave links directly to a page that specifies the office. Just like we link President of the United States all together instead of  President of the United States is to have a direct link to the office. When clicked on it gives the reader information about the office, what it governs (the Roman Empire), and all other information. Same thing with Consul, etc. LivinRealGüd (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What you descibe is not an equivalent to this particular case. Emperor of the Roman Empire is clearly a WP:SELFLINK, because both terms refer to the same information on the same page. It would be far more helpful if this article explained, with support from reliable sources, why "Emperor of the Roman Empire" is sometimes used as an alternative to "Roman emperor". Haploidavey (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely. You're right in saying that Emperor of the Roman Empire is a  self link, but what I was doing when I made the edit was following the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking's MOS:SPECIFICLINK. This policy makes a similar comparison with the flag of Texas and the flag of Texas. But I see that it has actually been corrected already so we can move on to your second topic. I agree with you that an explanation of how Roman emperor and the Emperor of the Roman Empire relate would be very beneficial to this article. If you wouldn't mind renaming this section to "Roman emperor to Emperor of the Roman Empire" or "Roman emperor discussion" so that it be referenced later (in case other editors try to make the similar edits to mine). My contributions regarding it here (left side). I added two notes to both titles to explain what was discussed on the TP and the literature I reviewed. Do you think it should be more spelled out in the lead? What are your thoughts? LivinRealGüd (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't yet know the weight this merits - possibly very little - but we have a start (your reverted text, per your link to the article history). It might merit bolding in the lede, as an alternative topic title; a linked footnote might be useful. Let's just see how things pan out. The article needs a hell of a lot of work all round; for a core article, it's in sad shape. PS: presuming you were talking about renaming this talk-page section, I think it best not to retitle. We can still link to it, and a few (a very very few) might have already done so. Unlikely, but one never knows. Haploidavey (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

text: LivinRealGüd, I've looked at your sources. Can you please give all the relevant page numbers? I can't find any scholarly discussion of "Roman emperor" and "Emperor of the Roman Empire" as context-dependent terms. Haploidavey (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah I looked for scholarly sources as well but came up short. What I cited in the notes (next to the bolded titles) either specifically spell out that the Roman emperor title was used or had textual evidence of the title "Emperor of the Roman Empire" used. Just a quick google search of "Emperor of the Roman Empire" will yield numerous references to it. Unfortunately, I could not find any context-dependent terms. All I could find was links like  this, this, and this. They all use the title "Emperor of the Roman Empire" or of 'Rome'. Should we retitle the offices to read Roman, emperor, instead? LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  We've been caught up on a rather insubstantial matter here. As you know, we follow WP: COMMONNAME for article titles, and WP: RS for article content; in this subject area, that means (ideally, at any rate) using reliable, peer-reviewed scholarly sources from reputable, specialist publishers. Your search examples are not reliable scholarly sources, but they do help confirm common usage; "Roman emperor" and "Emperor of the Roman Empire" is used in non-scholarly and scholarly sources alike. They're commonplace English terms; neither one is a translation of early or late Imperial titles. If reliable scholarly sources don't suggest any significant difference or claim that one is more appropriate than the other when dealing with a particular context or time period, then nor do we.  We already have a redirect from "Emperor of the Roman Empire" to this article, and in my opinion, that's enough. Any reader with even the most basic English will assume they mean the same thing, and they'd be right. Haploidavey (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds good to me. LivinRealGüd (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted material 

message: Should Cyriades be added to the list? Amir El Mander (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the article on Cyriades it is not only made clear that was he a usurper but also that the claim that he proclaimed himself emperor is only found in one notoriously unreliable source. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyriades 

message: this article is available in many languages but it is not available in Hindi so please kindly translate this article to Hindi Ankush official (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  translate in hindi 

message: The preferred scholarly designations for dating are BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era).  BC and AD are Christian terms, imposing that world view on a supposedly neutral article.  Is there a fast way of updating and changing  offending abbreviations ?
-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ERA, a truce between those who would remove all uses of BC/AD and those who would remove all uses of BCE/CE. and for the impossibility of making one or the other our norm, see the repeated discussions in the archives of WT:MOSNUM or even the current discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Article titles for years: BC/AD or BCE/CE. NebY (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why still BC/AD ? 

message: It should honestly be renamed as Roman Emperor. EmperorAlexander99 (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Roman emperor to Roman Emperor 

message: The redirect Imperator Romanorum has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Imperator Romanorum]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]