Razgovor o dodatku:Popis rimskih careva

Nova kategorija category:rimski carevi

Posto je kategorija category:rimski imperij postala jedna od najvecih, otvorio sam kategoriju rimski carevi.

Trebalo bi otvorit svaku pojednu stranicu do koje vode linkovi sa Dodatak:Popis rimskih careva i osigurat da na kraju svake od njih pise

[[category:rimski carevi]]

.

U principu, treba zamijenit dvije kategorije:

[[category:rimski imperij]] i [[category:državnici]]

sa ovom jednom. Ako je jos koja kategorija nrimski caravedena (pisci i dr), to nek ostane.

Eto, pa tko nadje vremena...

--Ante Perkovic 21:02, 21 July 2005 (CEST)

Ma kakav Lucije Ve? Valjda Lucije Ver.

Uzurpatori

Predlažem da se uzurpatori izbace. Ovo bi trebao biti popis rimskih careva, a ne nekakvih tipova koji su u Germaniji ili Siriji dizali pobune a da nikad nisu ni sjeli na carsko prijestolje. --Zmaj 13:28, 11. srpnja 2006. (CEST)

Sad vidim da stoje i na en:wiki. Valjda je situacija složenija nego što mislim. OK, neka ostanu, zaboravite ovo gore. --Zmaj 13:46, 11. srpnja 2006. (CEST)

Imena careva

Zbog velikih grešaka u imenima careva, trbalo bi cijeli popis rimskih careva pregledati i ispraviti greške. Evidentno je potpuno nepoznavanje latinskog jezika i kroatiziranja rimskih imena.

Sabin Julijan je zapravo Julijan Panonski , bio je uzurpator i vladao je u Sisku i u Sisku je kovao novce davor 23:45, 10. ožujak 2007. (CET)

Otrovani carevi

Da li možda netko zna zbog ćega mnogi tvrde da je polovica rimskih careva otrovana? Pretražio sam brojne izvone te pronašao samo nekolicinu. Ako netko zna nešto o trovanju neka napiše ovdije.

Uređivanje

Uredio sam popis careva tako da sam dodao par ali i izbrisao neke koje nitko ne svrstava u tu listu, tako da netko zna razlog zašto su neki uzurpatori izbrisani. Aztenoch 23:33, 17. ožujak 2007. (CET)

Translation/Übersetzung

Der Großteil des Artikels scheint eine Übersetzung von de:Liste der römischen Kaiser der Antike zu sein. Das sollte zum Beispiel auf der Diskussionsseite angegeben werden. -- 87.160.34.63 15:27, 15. ožujak 2008. (CET)

Most of the article is apparently a translation of the de.wp article. You should give the possible source, for example on this talk page. -- 87.160.34.63 15:27, 15. ožujak 2008. (CET)

The article has quite a long history which involves various users, and doesn't seam to be a simple translation. The graphic design is obviously from the de.wp, but I wouldn't agree for the rest. The subdivision of the Roman history is the same in Croatian and German historiography and it could have been based on Croatian history textbooks.--Donatus 15:41, 15. ožujak 2008. (CET)

Well, these edits look very much like a translation to me. Of course, the article has been changed after that, but the current article is still very much based on the apparent translation. -- 87.160.34.63 16:46, 15. ožujak 2008. (CET)

PS: Changes after apparent translation. -- 87.160.34.63 16:51, 15. ožujak 2008. (CET)

I must admit I don't see the point. The article was there before the presumed translation and I can't find any sign that it has been translated from German. It is possible that the user (or users) used to a certain degree the de.wiki. On the other hand, if you compare the first revision of this article on hr.wiki[1] and the contemporary revision of the de.wiki article[2], you will agree that the Croatian article already uses some items which would be introduced into the German version only later (the unification of the Adoptivkaisertum and the Antoninische Dynastie; Didius Iulianus, present in hr version already as Didije Juilijan and in de version as Julian I. and only later changed to Didius Julianus; the mention of the crisis of the III century in hr.wiki and only late adition of such heading in the de.wiki; mention of Principat in hr.wiki and its later adition in de.wiki; the mention of Dominat in hr.wiki which remaind until now in this article, and was never introduced into the de.wiki, etc). As you can see, I could even find some bases to a conclusion that de.wiki copyed the hr.wiki article. So, let's just leave the things as they are.--Donatus 17:18, 15. ožujak 2008. (CET)

Well, that’s not the solution I hoped for. I don’t think that the IP user used the German layout and got very similar annotations by not translating the annotations in the German article. But so be it. -- 87.160.55.250 08:02, 16. ožujak 2008. (CET)