![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2020 March 22. The result of the discussion was "do not merge". |
I do not understand why there are the Gallic & Brittannic emperors in this template. The Gallic Empire was a separate authority, actually another empire. As regards the Brittanic Emperors, who are them?-- Panairjdde 09:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Currently this uses a non-standard template. I changed it to a standard format here] but this was reverted by User:Francis Schonken who kindly explained his reasoning on my talk page. I feel strongly that the template should be standardised. It currently looks very confusing and is unnecessarily complex. All templates have to balance precision with easy-of-use and I feel this template must move towards the latter. With regard to the points on my talk page I suggest adapting the standardised version by:
Although its present incarnation may better reflect the complexities, I think very few people are inclined to engage with it because it looks so confusing. Please give your thoughts Andeggs 11:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
{{ Epochs of Roman Emperors/Temp}}
You can work on it, others can work on it, you and others can comment on it here, and when we reach some sort of consensus that it's an improvement, we merge it to the "Epochs of Roman Emperors" template page. Would that be OK as mode of operation? -- Francis Schonken 14:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, since my second and third round of changes have been reverted, perhaps I ought to explain that the present format that Francis Schonken seems to prefer leaves a really ugly horizontal rule (joining up with the vertical line separating the fifth column) and blank space underneath the left four columns. I'm pretty sure this is a result of the "border=1" around the table-within-the-table which includes the first four columns. Ideas to fix it are very welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, turning off the "border-collapse" of the nested four-column table gives a slightly more coherent look in IE, but less elegant in Firefox; Konqueror doesn't seem to be aware of the difference. I don't change yet, because not knowing what other solutions might be possible, and the improvement for IE is not all that spectacular. -- Francis Schonken 20:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it correct to say "Four emperors", when there were only three between Nero and Vespasian, both of whom belong to the adjacent dynasties? -- Simonf 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Should the czars of Russia be mentioned as "successors" to the Bizantine Emperors, as they claimed it? Their claim is no more nutty than the claim of the Holy Roman Emperors. Albmont ( talk) 10:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2020 March 22. The result of the discussion was "do not merge". |
I do not understand why there are the Gallic & Brittannic emperors in this template. The Gallic Empire was a separate authority, actually another empire. As regards the Brittanic Emperors, who are them?-- Panairjdde 09:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Currently this uses a non-standard template. I changed it to a standard format here] but this was reverted by User:Francis Schonken who kindly explained his reasoning on my talk page. I feel strongly that the template should be standardised. It currently looks very confusing and is unnecessarily complex. All templates have to balance precision with easy-of-use and I feel this template must move towards the latter. With regard to the points on my talk page I suggest adapting the standardised version by:
Although its present incarnation may better reflect the complexities, I think very few people are inclined to engage with it because it looks so confusing. Please give your thoughts Andeggs 11:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
{{ Epochs of Roman Emperors/Temp}}
You can work on it, others can work on it, you and others can comment on it here, and when we reach some sort of consensus that it's an improvement, we merge it to the "Epochs of Roman Emperors" template page. Would that be OK as mode of operation? -- Francis Schonken 14:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, since my second and third round of changes have been reverted, perhaps I ought to explain that the present format that Francis Schonken seems to prefer leaves a really ugly horizontal rule (joining up with the vertical line separating the fifth column) and blank space underneath the left four columns. I'm pretty sure this is a result of the "border=1" around the table-within-the-table which includes the first four columns. Ideas to fix it are very welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, turning off the "border-collapse" of the nested four-column table gives a slightly more coherent look in IE, but less elegant in Firefox; Konqueror doesn't seem to be aware of the difference. I don't change yet, because not knowing what other solutions might be possible, and the improvement for IE is not all that spectacular. -- Francis Schonken 20:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it correct to say "Four emperors", when there were only three between Nero and Vespasian, both of whom belong to the adjacent dynasties? -- Simonf 18:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Should the czars of Russia be mentioned as "successors" to the Bizantine Emperors, as they claimed it? Their claim is no more nutty than the claim of the Holy Roman Emperors. Albmont ( talk) 10:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)