Category talk:Tabularium (Nova Roma)
m (Categorisation of Leges) |
(What happened to CJNR?) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ==CJNR== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Too bad that all the work that went into the [[CJNR]] is being ignored. I suspect that since the CJNR was an early addition, later editors did not become aware of it. '''For this reason I am placing this page on protection, in the hope that we can have a real plan in place''' before any more energy is spent on duplications. [[User:M. Lucretius Agricola|Agricola]] 07:17, 25 August 2007 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
== Inclusion of the Commentarii Pontificum == | == Inclusion of the Commentarii Pontificum == | ||
Revision as of 05:19, 25 August 2007
CJNR
Too bad that all the work that went into the CJNR is being ignored. I suspect that since the CJNR was an early addition, later editors did not become aware of it. For this reason I am placing this page on protection, in the hope that we can have a real plan in place before any more energy is spent on duplications. Agricola 07:17, 25 August 2007 (CEST)
Inclusion of the Commentarii Pontificum
I realise that this was likely by my own doing, but should we include the Commentarii Pontificum (i.e., responsa) in the Tabularium? Since they do have no legal bearing, it seems to me that they might be better placed with items on the cultus Deorum. Thoughts, anyone? Metellus 03:10, 13 November 2006 (CET)
Categorisation of Leges
In looking at the list on this category page, I think that for the sake of ease, it might be more user-friendly to categorise the leges either A) by name (e.g. lex Vedia in the 'V' part of the alphabetical list; or B) by the topic as given in the name (e.g. a Lex Vedia Provincialis would be found in the 'P' section). Any thoughts on this? Q·CAEC·MET·POST 03:45, 12 February 2007 (CET)
