User talk:LVDP01

Hello, what was "rebuked" exactly? We are still talking about ethnic Croats so i don't see where is the supposed "switch". And their numbers are definitely too small to warrant an inclusion into the infobox. They could/should be mentioned in the rest of the article but if we add them to the infobox then we can basically put any religion because there is no criteria. This would just paint a wrong picture and ruin the point of infoboxes to be a brief overview of the topic. SerVasi (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct — we are talking about ethnic Croats. Croat Muslims, Orthodox Croats and Protestant Croats are and remain ethnic Croats, regardless of wether they are Croatian citizens or not (Croat Muslims in particular had a great influence on the Ottoman Empire and Croatia in the long run). This also disregards literal dozens, upon dozens, upon dozens of other ethnic infoboxes that also contain religious minorities (as part of a brief overview of the topic, like you said). I do not see the problem. LVDP01 (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Why havent u added any jews,hindus etc then? Ur setting a way too arbitrary and inconsistent cut off line. Also saying "other things have bad so me no fix this bad" is just bruh. SerVasi (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You can also say that to me without the aggressive-sounding undertone. Regardless, as it doesn't look like we can convince the other, it might be worth getting a third opinion. LVDP01 (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah maybe we should. And i suppose we will still keep the inserted info during that time? How convenient. Also don't play the victim, I was as direct as you at best. SerVasi (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Answering the 3O. From the 2011 census it seems that there is a large gap between the majority religion, and minority religions. Less than 1% of Croats fall in any of the other categories. If a minority is mentioned, it should probably be irreligion, which is 10x as big as protestantism. Pinging as the discussion here is a bit old: @SerVasi. Femke (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

And remember to WP:focus on content :). Femke (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

So we done? SerVasi (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we are. LVDP01 (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not a big issue really but where are you seeing the scull and crossbones used to denote executed? I've never seen it used that way. Netanyahuserious (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's an actual template:   -- Template:Executed.

Quoting the template page:

This template is used to indicate commanders who were either captured or surrendered, and were subsequently executed. Use in {{Infobox military conflict}} and similar infoboxes.

LVDP01 (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, I hope you are fine. Well, I think it's about time to discuss this. Do you think we should have two separate lists for Roman and Byzantine emperors? I guess my position here is pretty obvious, yeah, I would support a merge. This is a discussion that has been going on, albeit with some breaks, for several years. The last discussion on the matter ended with all Byzantines being added to the Roman list, something which was also applied to the list of Roman ("and Byzantine") empress.

The Byzantine list has varely changed in the last 10 years, with the only notable difference with the Roman being that "notes" section. These are supposed to be consice lists of rulers, not a list of small biographies. I mean, I think this is the only list with such format. Ok, let's say that we summarize the biographies... then we'll just end up copying the "life details" of the Roman list, almost certainly with the same sources (PLR, ODB, PBW, PLP). My solution would be to redirect "Byzantine emperor" to the "Later eastern emperors" (I don't mind if the section is renamed as "Byzantine emperors"), which would need to start with the Justinian dynasty, since Justinian is mostly known as a Byzantine emperor... I remember that one of the conclusions of the last discussion was that "At the moment, we have two good lists", which is no longer accurate since one of them is clearly (and by far) much better.

Another option would be to revert back to the original status quo. Have the Roman list end with Romulus or Anastasius, and have all the Byzantines moved to their respective list. I would prefer a merge, but I would understand if the final outcome is this. L

What do you think about the matter?. Tintero21 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello there, thanks for reaching out to me.

Personally I agree with you on merging the lists. Byzantine emperors are also Roman emperors, and like you said, the page List of Byzantine emperors is largely redundant now because all Eastern emperors are also on the List of Roman emperors. The former page is essentially just a selection of emperors from the latter with more details about their life, which I believe is unnecessary on this page. So I support your proposal in full. LVDP01 (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I'll wait a few weeks (or even months) before proposing the merge. I was really hoping to reach Ichthyovenator for help (he started the redesign of the Emperor list), but he's been mising for months and I doubt he'll show up again. Tintero21 (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

All good, take your time. Feel free to let me know when you propose the merge. LVDP01 (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@LVDP01: Iazyges has already started a discussion on the matter, if you are interested. Tintero21 (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Tintero, Happy New Year to you. Thank you for letting me know – I have left a comment on the discussion in question. LVDP01 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, LVDP01 I have seen that you were repeatedly removing the link of reference for the article on the star engine on the cristian whitehead wiki page. This was a confusing mismanagement because the star engine named wiki exists on the article with same name which must confuse the users. Please add a paranthesis title to make it look distinct; Please feel free to look up at my talk page. Sys64wiki (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem is basically that Evening star (Star engine) is also called Star engine which is an engine developed by the Cloud Imperium Games for Star citizen. This is the reason the confusion between two arrived. However it must be noted in the article that the Star engine developed by Cristian was previously known as Evening star. Sys64wiki (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The issue was that you kept trying to link to Whitehead's Star Engine, even though no article for it exists on Wikipedia (and it likely won't, due to WP:N). This meant that Whitehead's article first had redlinks, and then links to an unrelated game engine to which Whitehead has no connections. Since the other Star Engine article seems likely to be deleted, there should be no links to it on Whitehead's page, and the redirect seems unnecessary too.

On a side note, you forgot to put this message into a new section on my talk page. Figured I would let you know. LVDP01 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, the confusion was on my part, as there exists a similarly named article about Star Engine, however a delete discussion is indeed going on that article, which is also a game engine but developed by a completely different studio. The Star Engine by Cloud Imperium Games is quite popular, which contributed to the mix-up. However, I have edited the article to remove any potential confusion in the future. A redirect seems unnecessary in this case.

Additionally, I was quick to engage in the discussion and mistakenly sent my message to an old section without paying attention to the process. Sys64wiki (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Very well. Have a good day. LVDP01 (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

You did not check the reference after the next sentence. Just lazyness.Taksen (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to declare that a source is supposedly "a pleasant read of real interest", which is a fully subjective assertation. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia – we only write reliable facts and hypotheses, not opinions of people on how pleasant something is to read. Your passive-aggressive reaction to this ("just lazyness" here; "how is your french, did you try to read it?" in the edit summary) is not appropriate conduct on Wikipedia, which instead prides itself in hosting constructive and civil discussion between users. LVDP01 (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. I take your point about the coins and the exarchates, and I will review my edit accordingly. Of course, I didn't say that the process started under Heraclius, only that it culminated with him. But to say that he didn't do anything would require a source, given that we already have a source which says he did. Richard75 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Thanks for the response and the edit. LVDP01 (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Estado Novo (Portugal), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitary. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Poland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you point me to this convention that you are referring to? The definition of Byzantine Empire in WP is from 330 AD. So calling any emperor after Constantine Eastern Roman or just Roman is very confusing. So either we need to change the definition of Byzantine Empire or recognize that each of these emperors as Byzantine. The mixed adoption is not sustainable. I know that there are different definitions, however, at some point we need to converge to one of them. Thanks. A.Cython(talk) 17:31, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This was a while ago, but previous editors maintained the use of Eastern Roman emperor until the accession of Heraclius. I don't mind changing it if new consensus is in favour.

The issue is that there isn't really a clearly defined 'boundary' between classical Eastern Rome and medieval 'Byzantium'. For example, if all emperors of the East are to be regarded as Byzantine emperors, then shouldn't Arcadius, Theodosius II, Leo I, ... also be formally described as Byzantine emperors, even though there were still Western emperors reigning at the time? Who is the last "Roman emperor of the East" and the first explicitly Byzantine emperor? Historians cannot agree on this cutoff point either, so I think it would be useful to start a discussion on a talk page somewhere. LVDP01 (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick addendum, but I personally do not support labeling emperors like Constantine I, Arcadius, etc. as "Byzantine emperor". Their contemporaries in the west are currently referred to as "Western Roman emperors", with which "Eastern Roman emperor" is consistent, while "Byzantine emperor" is not. If we were to change it to just "Roman emperor" (for the West) and "Byzantine emperor" (for the East), then that would imply that the Byzantine emperors aren't actually Roman, which is not correct either.

So yes, I believe discussion is in order. LVDP01 (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you point to me where this discussion might took place (which WP project)? I agree that there is no definition and my non-expert understanding of the literature is the there are three schools of thought on this

1. Continuity, everything was Roman until the fall.
2. Discontinuity, describes a critical period where there was a transition from Roman to a new empire that is call Byzantine, typically this takes form of move of the capital or the Justinian period (destructive wars, Justinian plague, reforms, etc)
3. Evolution, similar to Discontinuity school but with a softer transition.

FYI, there is on going discussion on the topic in Talk:Rhomaioi (former Byzantine Greeks article), but this had ongoing for months, so probably we need to restart the discussion with fresh eyes. A.Cython(talk) 18:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure. LVDP01 (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't really remember where this was. It was years ago. Feel free to start a discussion and ping me there. I recommend that you also ping Tintero21. LVDP01 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, when I initiate this discussion I will ping you and the others. A.Cython(talk) 18:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Another user and I have had a similar discussion.

Though, I’d say that all emperors from the east should be titled as Roman emperor of the East/Eastern Roman emperor during the period that is known as the Later Roman Empire (284-641), and those afterwards (Byzantine Dark Ages) as Byzantine emperor. The reign of Heraclius was the most drastic (for reasons I have listed in the prior discussion).

I disagree with titling every emperor from 330-1453 as solely Byzantine or Roman/Eastern Roman as it ignores the evolution of the polity from a late antique Mediterranean Empire to an institutionally Greek medieval Anatolian Empire.

Something similar is already done with the Kingdom of France/West Francia even though they were the same exact polity—essentially coming down to whether a ruler was titled King of the Franks or King of France, with Philip II as the pivot. Likewise, Heraclius was the first emperor to formalize the use of the title Basileus in 629, a symbolic shift in imperial direction. He was also the last emperor under whom a legion was present prior to the establishment of the thematic system. Teotzin190 (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m amenable to this. I will look into the discussion when I get home. LVDP01 (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Teotzin190 Well right know by calling Justinian or even Heraclius an Eastern Roman Emperor and having Byzantine Empire with a starting date 330 AD article you consistently contradict and confuse the readers! We cannot have both. You have to choose by either moving the starting date of the empire to the late period or that these emperors are Byzantines. If we keep the status quo all it means that there is no convention and all I or any reader see is personal naming conventions. A.Cython(talk) 12:50, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@Teotzin190 Well the established convention appears to be Talk:Byzantine_Empire/FAQ. So unless you present something else, I will assume you are wrong in reverting my edits. A.Cython(talk) 16:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cython Thanks for the input. The FAQ does rightly use “Byzantine Empire” as the common name for the general polity/article spanning 330-1453, but it doesn’t dictate emperor-specific descriptors in infoboxes.

Current practice already varies, with pre-364/395 as “Roman emperor”, 364/395-491 as “Roman emperor of the East” (West until 480), 491 onward as “Eastern Roman emperor” (as titled by other users—I did not initiate this practice, I just extended it to Heraclius for reasons I have already mentioned), and post-Heraclian emperors as “Byzantine emperor.” Roman emperor of the East, Eastern Roman emperor and Byzantine emperor all refer to the same polity. These are not “personal naming conventions,” my suggestion to have Heraclius as the pivot is not arbitrary (per the conventional end of the Later Roman Empire at 641 with Heraclius’ death, widely regarded as marking the conclusion of Late Antiquity in the East amid the Arab conquests, territorial contraction, and cultural/military/institutional shifts). I have noticed that the Spanish Wikipedia pages also make a distinction between “Emperador del Imperio Romano de Oriente” for early emperors and “Emperador del Imperio Bizantino” thereafter with a pivot at the same year (641).

If we were to impose uniformity in labeling, wouldn’t it make sense to label all emperors post 330/364/395 as Byzantine emperor and Western Roman emperor respectively? Teotzin190 (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

My understanding is that it applies to anything under the Byzantine Empire, emperors, citizens, economy, etc. Otherwise it creates inconsistencies and confusion, say 'yyy Easter Roman Emperor of the Byzantine Empire'. Or 'zzz Easter Roman improved the Byzantine economy'. As I said, I am ok with primary descriptor to be Byzantine and in parenthesis to have Easter Roman.
The literature is a mess right now where academics appear to continue fighting about Byzantine vs East Roman. However, as Anthony Kaldellis (champion of purging the word "Byzantine" from everywhere) admitted that the current mainstream/establishment is Byzantine (Romanland, 2019, p. xii). In WP, we go by what is established/mainstream per WP:DUE.
Projects in other languages do not matter beyond their domain. If in English WP, we have Byzantine Empire starting in 330 AD, then this is it. There have been numerous discussions in the past about this (just go to Talk:Byzantine Empire for current and past discussions) and so far is stable on this date. Unless this changes somehow, we cannot do otherwise now.
To be honest, I am more of the opinion of a starting date with Justinian rather than Constantine. This way, we avoid the differences between Western vs Eastern, since after Justinian there was no Western Roman Empire and two out of three schools of thought support this transition. But what do I know, I go with the established convention. I will not commit to any changes anytime soon, but it is good to know where we are. If the day comes to improve one of these articles to GA or beyond, then it should change. Thanks for understanding. A.Cython(talk) 19:01, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

So just to check: have we currently settled on Justinian as the divider? Or is the discussion still ongoing? LVDP01 (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

That was my opinion, not WP consensus. The consensus from what I understand is what the Byzantine Empire article says as starting date, i.e., 330AD. If ever there is challenge and a new consensus to this the particular page will change accordingly as it is page that many editor are watching and participating. A.Cython(talk) 15:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

To clarify everyone has opinions and many times these opinions are not consensus. Even so we can still contribute constructively even if we disagree with consensus. A.Cython(talk) 15:10, 24 February 2026 (UTC)