![]() | Roman emperor is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As can be seen at Talk:List of Roman Emperors, my extremely complicated listing of Roman Emperors is far from a finished or satisfactory project. I would greatly appreciate any input as to how it ought to be refined or made more gooder. Pubicus
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:
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)?:
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
What do you think? (As it happens, I'm glad someone was amused by my "byzantine" pun.) Publius 18:13, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hmmm... pretty good but some connections of lesser significance should perhaps be clarified to avoid confusion. How about:
Constantius I was married twice. First to St. Helena and then to Theodora, daughter to Maximian by Eutropia and sister of Maxentius. He had a single son by the former known as Constantinus I and by the later two more sons (Dalmatius and Julius Constantius) and two daughters (Eutropia and Constantia). Constantine also married twice. First to Minervina and then to Fausta, a sister of his step-mother. The former was mother to Caesar Crispus and the later to three sons (Constantinus II, Constantius II, and Constans I) and two daughters (Constantia and Helena). Julius Constantius in turn became father to two sons: Caesar Gallus and Julian. Their sister Constantia was wife to Licinius. Constantia the younger was wife to Gallus and Helena to Julian. An even younger Constantia, daughter to Constantius II later became consort to Gratianus (see below), son of Valentinianus I (see below).
I am in turn glad to see someone trying to clarify the various conceptions and misconceptions about the Roman and "Byzantine" Emperors. User:Dimadick
What is your opinion of the current revisions (up to but not including Theodosius and his successors)? I'm not entirely satisfied with the Tetrarchical and Constantinian sections, but do you feel that they adequately convey what was happening with the Imperial dignity at the time? Or is more clarification necessary for the average reader? Publius 13:53, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, it's finally finished. I have completed the systematic upgrade of the article, including dynastic relationships and other topical information (like economic backgrounds and increasingly non-Italian origins of the Emperors), but I'm afraid I won't be around to discuss further improvements. I can only hope that the article is informative, and that others enjoy reading it as much as I have enjoyed writing it. Publius 06:58, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This page is really, really long (67kb right now; over twice the recommended maximum length). Would anyone object to splitting it up? Four sub-articles seem rather obvious to me:
What does everyone else think? Binabik80 20:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are we really going to insinuate that the HRE was a legitimate continuation of the actual Empire, and not merely an imitator? - Chris5369 18:15, 20 Apr 2005
The idea that it is treated by historians as a separate institution might be okay to say. But as it stood it just mucked up the meaning of an already existing sentence, which was saying that historians called them Holy Roman Emperors. At any rate, it seems POV to say that the HRE was not a legitimate continuation of the actual empire - it considered itself to be, certainly. But something talking a bit more about how to distinguish the two might be in order. john k 03:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I somewhat disagree with the statement that the HRE was continued through the Austrian (1806-1867) and Austro-Hungarian (1867-1918) Empires. Francis explicitly laid down the HR crown in 1806, having *previously* created the Austrian Emperorship for himself (1804), i.e. carryign two imperial titles in the period 1804-1806. Therefore, the Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Emperorship is clearly not a continuation of the HRE. Neither, by the way, is the German Empire of 1871-1918, where the title "German Emperor" was merely a name for the President of the Federation of German states within the Reich. Thus, I have deleted the passage in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 ( talk) 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Is 'determinating' a word? Would 'determinator' be better? -- darklilac 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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?
RE: imperator as exclusive use of emperor and the basis of imperial power
I think it has to be mentioned that the use of the titles 'imperator' as well as 'caesar' both evolved sgnificantly over the period of the eraly empire. For example, under Tiberius, it was common to refer to Germanicus as 'Caesar' as in Tacitus' Annals in describing Germanicus German campaigns. Tacitus also mentions here Germanicus being saluted as 'imperator' by his troops. Something which did not apparently bother Tiberius greatly. Contrast to later, even around AD 69.
I would also say that "what makes an emperor, emperor", is in fact this title. For example, Vespasian dated his imperial rule from the time he was saluted as Imperator by his troops in the East (July 69) not his formal accession after the defeat of Vitellius. Second the possession of this title meant command of the Army, the ultimate guarantor of imperial power. (Tacitus' "Secret of the Empire").
Also at no point does the page mention anywhere the concept of "imperial provinces" commanded by men the Emperor appoints (and not the Senate). Another key concept which demarks both the powers and the office of Emperor.
-SM
Since writing that I seem to have solved it by removing this tag (Please click Edit because it is clipping the text again here): <ref name="OCD">, the identical tag (pasted) which I had used earlier in the text.
Why is the second word of this article capitalized? Spa toss 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It clearly should NOT be capitalized, and ought to be fixed. It's like writing 'He was an English King' instead of the correct 'He was an English king'. Alpheus ( talk) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
Disagree. The title of the Roman Emperor was Basielues for the greatest part of the Roman Empire's life. If it should be merged to anything it should be Basileus but that would exclude the period when the title was in fact Imperator so it is also inadvisable.-- Xenovatis ( talk) 14:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
>> 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)
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)
I think it is worth discussing whether we should consider the roman emperors monarchs or not. It seems to me that if you describe the emperors as a monarchy, you need to describe a lot of other people as monarchs who aren't normally considered monarchs- such as many presidents-for-life and dictators in many republics in history. In what sense are we using the word "monarchy"? 212.42.188.177 ( talk) 16:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 20:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Roman Emperor → Roman emperor –
Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
It seems I was wrong about this; Andrew Gillett, in "Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors" (Papers of the British School at Rome 69 [2001], pp. 131-167) has done a thorough study of the imperial court in the fifth century and concluded "that the western imperial court occupied Rome for significant periods, including between 401–408 and 440–449, and that Rome was the court’s primary residence between 450 and 476, the last generation of imperial rule in the West. The later years of the reign of Valentinian III and the rule of Anthemius in particular illustrate the role of Rome as the imperial residence." Languagehat ( talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
This title ("Semper Augustus") is not mentioned.-- 2A02:2168:83F:8428:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 11:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Should Cyriades be added to the list? Amir El Mander ( talk) 18:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
It should honestly be renamed as Roman Emperor. EmperorAlexander99 ( talk) 16:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
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
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6 § Imperator Romanorum until a consensus is reached.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
12:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Roman emperor is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As can be seen at Talk:List of Roman Emperors, my extremely complicated listing of Roman Emperors is far from a finished or satisfactory project. I would greatly appreciate any input as to how it ought to be refined or made more gooder. Pubicus
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:
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)?:
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
What do you think? (As it happens, I'm glad someone was amused by my "byzantine" pun.) Publius 18:13, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Hmmm... pretty good but some connections of lesser significance should perhaps be clarified to avoid confusion. How about:
Constantius I was married twice. First to St. Helena and then to Theodora, daughter to Maximian by Eutropia and sister of Maxentius. He had a single son by the former known as Constantinus I and by the later two more sons (Dalmatius and Julius Constantius) and two daughters (Eutropia and Constantia). Constantine also married twice. First to Minervina and then to Fausta, a sister of his step-mother. The former was mother to Caesar Crispus and the later to three sons (Constantinus II, Constantius II, and Constans I) and two daughters (Constantia and Helena). Julius Constantius in turn became father to two sons: Caesar Gallus and Julian. Their sister Constantia was wife to Licinius. Constantia the younger was wife to Gallus and Helena to Julian. An even younger Constantia, daughter to Constantius II later became consort to Gratianus (see below), son of Valentinianus I (see below).
I am in turn glad to see someone trying to clarify the various conceptions and misconceptions about the Roman and "Byzantine" Emperors. User:Dimadick
What is your opinion of the current revisions (up to but not including Theodosius and his successors)? I'm not entirely satisfied with the Tetrarchical and Constantinian sections, but do you feel that they adequately convey what was happening with the Imperial dignity at the time? Or is more clarification necessary for the average reader? Publius 13:53, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, it's finally finished. I have completed the systematic upgrade of the article, including dynastic relationships and other topical information (like economic backgrounds and increasingly non-Italian origins of the Emperors), but I'm afraid I won't be around to discuss further improvements. I can only hope that the article is informative, and that others enjoy reading it as much as I have enjoyed writing it. Publius 06:58, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
This page is really, really long (67kb right now; over twice the recommended maximum length). Would anyone object to splitting it up? Four sub-articles seem rather obvious to me:
What does everyone else think? Binabik80 20:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are we really going to insinuate that the HRE was a legitimate continuation of the actual Empire, and not merely an imitator? - Chris5369 18:15, 20 Apr 2005
The idea that it is treated by historians as a separate institution might be okay to say. But as it stood it just mucked up the meaning of an already existing sentence, which was saying that historians called them Holy Roman Emperors. At any rate, it seems POV to say that the HRE was not a legitimate continuation of the actual empire - it considered itself to be, certainly. But something talking a bit more about how to distinguish the two might be in order. john k 03:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I somewhat disagree with the statement that the HRE was continued through the Austrian (1806-1867) and Austro-Hungarian (1867-1918) Empires. Francis explicitly laid down the HR crown in 1806, having *previously* created the Austrian Emperorship for himself (1804), i.e. carryign two imperial titles in the period 1804-1806. Therefore, the Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Emperorship is clearly not a continuation of the HRE. Neither, by the way, is the German Empire of 1871-1918, where the title "German Emperor" was merely a name for the President of the Federation of German states within the Reich. Thus, I have deleted the passage in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 ( talk) 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Is 'determinating' a word? Would 'determinator' be better? -- darklilac 20:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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?
RE: imperator as exclusive use of emperor and the basis of imperial power
I think it has to be mentioned that the use of the titles 'imperator' as well as 'caesar' both evolved sgnificantly over the period of the eraly empire. For example, under Tiberius, it was common to refer to Germanicus as 'Caesar' as in Tacitus' Annals in describing Germanicus German campaigns. Tacitus also mentions here Germanicus being saluted as 'imperator' by his troops. Something which did not apparently bother Tiberius greatly. Contrast to later, even around AD 69.
I would also say that "what makes an emperor, emperor", is in fact this title. For example, Vespasian dated his imperial rule from the time he was saluted as Imperator by his troops in the East (July 69) not his formal accession after the defeat of Vitellius. Second the possession of this title meant command of the Army, the ultimate guarantor of imperial power. (Tacitus' "Secret of the Empire").
Also at no point does the page mention anywhere the concept of "imperial provinces" commanded by men the Emperor appoints (and not the Senate). Another key concept which demarks both the powers and the office of Emperor.
-SM
Since writing that I seem to have solved it by removing this tag (Please click Edit because it is clipping the text again here): <ref name="OCD">, the identical tag (pasted) which I had used earlier in the text.
Why is the second word of this article capitalized? Spa toss 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It clearly should NOT be capitalized, and ought to be fixed. It's like writing 'He was an English King' instead of the correct 'He was an English king'. Alpheus ( talk) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
Disagree. The title of the Roman Emperor was Basielues for the greatest part of the Roman Empire's life. If it should be merged to anything it should be Basileus but that would exclude the period when the title was in fact Imperator so it is also inadvisable.-- Xenovatis ( talk) 14:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
>> 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)
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)
I think it is worth discussing whether we should consider the roman emperors monarchs or not. It seems to me that if you describe the emperors as a monarchy, you need to describe a lot of other people as monarchs who aren't normally considered monarchs- such as many presidents-for-life and dictators in many republics in history. In what sense are we using the word "monarchy"? 212.42.188.177 ( talk) 16:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 20:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Roman Emperor → Roman emperor –
Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
It seems I was wrong about this; Andrew Gillett, in "Rome, Ravenna and the Last Western Emperors" (Papers of the British School at Rome 69 [2001], pp. 131-167) has done a thorough study of the imperial court in the fifth century and concluded "that the western imperial court occupied Rome for significant periods, including between 401–408 and 440–449, and that Rome was the court’s primary residence between 450 and 476, the last generation of imperial rule in the West. The later years of the reign of Valentinian III and the rule of Anthemius in particular illustrate the role of Rome as the imperial residence." Languagehat ( talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
This title ("Semper Augustus") is not mentioned.-- 2A02:2168:83F:8428:0:0:0:1 ( talk) 11:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
Should Cyriades be added to the list? Amir El Mander ( talk) 18:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
It should honestly be renamed as Roman Emperor. EmperorAlexander99 ( talk) 16:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
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
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6 § Imperator Romanorum until a consensus is reached.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
12:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)