Template talk:Roman emperors

message: I see that Mezezius (a usurper) is included, but several 5th century usurpers (e.g. Constans II (usurper)) are not included in the template. What is the criterion for inclusion on the template?--FeanorStar7 07:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cleaned up/revised this template from a previously messy version without knowing much about many of the later "emperors"; I think any usurpers should be added, especially if they have coins, LOL. Seriously, the template is meant as a navigation tool, and usurpers have a place there too. TAnthony 08:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No; consider the  number of usurpers, most of whom have coins. This template is already enormous without the Thirty Tyrants (Roman) and the Emperors of Britain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Include usurpers on list?

message: I reverted The President of Cool's 26 April edit, which he made citing that "during most of this time no one person ruled the entire empire". But the problems here are:
1. Dates aren't always precise when it comes to the Roman Emperors, so at least something in his edit will probably be wrong
2. There are overlapping reigns throughout all periods of the Empire, so by his logic all sections should be changed like this. This template has rulers sorted by the date they first became Emperor, which works!
3. Look what it does to the size of the template!
- rst20xx (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to recent edit 

message: I have restored the common names of some emperors. Claudius I is rare and unnecessary; if the use of Claudius II causes confusion, the right solution is to move him to Claudius Gothicus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Claudius I

message: He was never Emperor by himself, and is not usually included in the list of Emperors. Several sons of Emperors are in the same position, and we don't include them. Why him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lucius Verus

message: What about adding emperors of the now so-called Latin Empire here as they called themselves Roman Emperors in fact?--Dojarca (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin Empire 

message: This is probably only a few cases, but I've noticed some inconsistency between the template and the articles themselves about when joint rule occurred (such as the Tetrarchy under Diocletian) at various times, and when the office was held exclusively again after such various times. This should be rectified based on outside (by which I mean written by actual experts and not just anyone with a Wikipedia Account) sources. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.187.29 (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of joint rule 

message: This template differentiates the periods of Principate (27 BC – 235 AD) and Crisis (235–284). However, the article on the Principate says that it lasted until the end of the Crisis period (27 BC - 284 AD). So, isn't the template incorrect in this regard? Shouldn't we include the emperors from the "crisis" section to the "Principate"?--RR (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Principate lasted until the institution of the Tetrarchy under Emperor Diocletian in 286 (284 being the year he came to power). I'm fairly certain the Principate and the Crisis of the Third Century are separated here because the large number of "Crisis" emperors during a relatively short timespan and the main method of succession of this time becoming usurpation. Historiographically I'm pretty sure the Crisis of the Third Century is considered part of the "Principate"-era. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principate and crisis of the 3rd century

message: Could we maybe use bold for them instead of underlining? It's a little confusing when hovering over the names when they're already underlined.★Trekker (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: With the question raised, should they be included at all? Do infoboxes of other "monarchies" include usurpers as well? In either case, bolding might be more appropriate for actual ruling emperors if differentiation is to be applied as it definitely makes something stand out more. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But most of the "usurpers" were reigning emperors, holding large territories. Usurpation was just the method by which they ceased the throne. Dimadick (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way I don't care for the underlining.★Trekker (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

text: This is of course true, but the same can surely be said of some other examples of historical usurpers? Something to note is that the usurpers are left out of the List of Roman emperors. Another thing that complicates it a bit, I suppose, is that legitimacy is difficult to determine without a legal line of succession, especially for something as muddled as the Crisis of the Third Century. There are also examples where emperors seen by contemporaries as usurpers, e.g. Romulus Augustulus, have been regarded as full emperors in later historiography. In either case, I don't think making the usurpers bold in this template is a good solution though I agree that underlining isn't very good either. In the british monarchs template, disputed monarchs are in italics which I think looks quite good but that is already used for co-emperors here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can bold common emperors and leave the usurpers regular?★Trekker (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That would of course mean bolding a vast majority of the names. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I'm aware, just pointing it out. There is also a point to be made that there are several Roman usurpers left out of going by the List of Roman usurpers and that Byzantine usurpers are left out entirely. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usurpers: bold vs underlining 

message: Ulpia Severina seems to have actually ruled in her own right, while Eudokia Makrembolitissa's article doesn't mention any such thing. Why does Ulpia need to be removed but Eudokia not?★Trekker (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Eudokia's article is incomplete then. Though it's not universal (neither are some of the emperors included), there are several published lists of Byzantine monarchs and reference works (including the ODB) that include Eudokia as empress regnant. Certain Byzantine sources (such as the Mutinensis gr. 122) appear to include her as well. I agree that Ulpia Severina ought to also count but unless there are scholarly sources that consider her empress regnant I don't think we can include her. If those sources exist it isn't a problem. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As a sidenote I've rectified Eudokia's article so that it mentions this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ulpia and Eudokia 

message: The category :Category:Byzantine Empresses regnant was added to Sophia's article recently. Is there any basis for the addition?★Trekker (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: She was added there by the same person who added her to this template - there is considerable basis in WP:RS for calling Theodora and Eudokia empresses regnant, I don't think there is for Sophia so it constitutes WP:OR add her. I've removed her from the category. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sophia (empress) 

message: A random thought I had. Tintero21 (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they should but there seems to be a bit of a difference in how scholars of ancient Rome and Byzantium treat co-emperors; Diadumenian and Philip II (as well as some of the other clearly junior rulers) are counted among the other emperors in a lot of sources whereas Byzantine co-emperors typically aren't. Since we follow this in the list I think we should do so here as well. It's inconsistent but what can you do. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't Diadumenian and Philip II count as "junior co-emperors"? 

message: If the Palmyrene and Brittanic Emperors are linked to then so should the Gallic Emperors. Include Gallic Emperors by updating the linked to section as follows:
* Gallic emperors (260-274)
* Palmyrene emperors (267–273)
* Britannic emperors (286–296)
* Trapezuntine emperors (1204–1461)
* Thessalonian emperors (1224–1242)
* Empresses
* Augustae
* Usurpers
** Classical
** Eastern 212.129.85.83 (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2022