Talk:List of Trapezuntine emperors

Simplify

A simple list of names and dates would be much more useful than the unwieldy table. Such a list would easily fit at Empire of Trebizond. An article on the imperial office and titulature might still be useful. Srnec (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The format of the list is based on the closely related List of Byzantine emperors. There are lists (with tables) on other monarchies with far fewer monarchs, such as the list at Latin Emperor (9 names out of which 3 were regents) or even List of kings of Galatia (4 names). I do not see why this article would be unwarranted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The tables are horrendous wherever they are. Since we have articles on all the emperors, the only thing we need from a list is the names and dates. All the rest is clutter that makes the table hard to use. Srnec (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that. One is free to use either only the names and dates, but it is still useful to have at least a short description of the main things a ruler is known for, as an overview and introduction. No-one is forced to read everything, so the "hard to use" argument makes no sense to me. Quite the contrary, if I am looking for a concise introduction into the subject of "Emperors of Trebizond", this is information that I would consider useful and necessary. --Constantine ✍ 07:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Andronikos III of Trebizond (cropped).jpg

Andronikos III, I'm told

Repeating Megas Komnenos every time? The name in Greek? Using three lines for the date range? The photo at right? The "notes" are the least of the problems. I have no objection to a concise introduction to the Emperors of Trebizond—it's combining it with a list in a table that is clunky. Srnec (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Repeating Megas Komnenos every time as per the original list that was in the Empire of Trebizond article. This is also in the same vein as in the List of Byzantine Emperors where the emperors are listed with their "last names". Names in greek as in the List of Byzantine Emperors. Names in the native tongue are used in other articles of this type as well (example: List of German monarchs). I thought three lines for the date range looked the best, it could be reduced to two but it seems like a very minor issue in my opinion. The quality of some of the images is problematic, sure, but that is a problem that I am sure will be rectified in time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Srnec: I think these are areas for improvement, not arguments for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The name in Greek is relevant, although using the modern convention of numbering them is rather problematic; also, not all emperors were "Megas Komnenos", but since this is both their family name (or is treated that way by modern historiography) and a sort of title, it is relevant. I fully agree that some of the images used to represent them are weird, Andronikos III being a case in point. Let's at least use the entire coin, even though the representation of these emperors is largely formulaic. Constantine ✍ 19:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Using the entire coins would be a lot better, yes, but I could only find the cropped versions of most of them over at commons. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: I see that several Byzantine emperors use coin images from this site: https://www.cngcoins.com/ would these coins of Emperors of Trebizond: John III (not really a good coin to use as an image, but better than nothing), Alexios II (looking good) and Basil also be free to use? Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)