Razgovor o dodatku:Popis rimskih careva

Izvor: Wikipedija
Skoči na: orijentacija, traži

Nova kategorija category:rimski carevi[uredi]

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[uredi]

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[uredi]

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[uredi]

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[uredi]

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[uredi]

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)