Category talk:Senators (Nova Roma)
From NovaRoma
(Difference between revisions)
m (Updating) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
It is important to notice Curule Aediles have also Ius Sententiae on Ancient Rome | It is important to notice Curule Aediles have also Ius Sententiae on Ancient Rome | ||
--[[User:Lucius Arminius Faustus|Lucius Arminius Faustus]] 18:28, 16 November 2006 (CET) | --[[User:Lucius Arminius Faustus|Lucius Arminius Faustus]] 18:28, 16 November 2006 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==ius sententiae== | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree that magistrates with the ''ius sententiae'' should be '''listed''' here, but I do not agree that their bio pages should be tagged to be included in this category. They are not, after all, members of the senate proper and they have the ''ius sententiae'' by virtue of holding (temporary) office. Please comment on the removal of the "Senators (Nova Roma)" from the bio pages of holders of ''ius sententiae''. [[User:M. Lucretius Agricola|Agricola]] 03:08, 10 November 2007 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I would support the idea of including only full (i.e. sublected) members of the senate in the category 'Senators (Nova Roma)'. That is, after all, what the name of the category implies. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I would point out, M. Lucreti ''amice'', that the ''ius sententiae'' is not necessarily temporary, since it is retained not only during the holder's term of office but right up until the next ''lectio senatus'', at which point he is either sublected as a senator or passed over (thus losing the ''ius sententiae''). But that makes no difference to the point under discussion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :In reply to you, L. Armini ''amice'', I need to remind you that the articles which end with '(Nova Roma)' are meant to be about Nova Roma and should not contain much historical information. So the fact that the ''aediles curules'' had the ''ius sententiae'' during some periods of Roman history is not something we need to include in this article: they have not got the ''ius'' in Nova Roma under current law. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus|Cordus]] 17:21, 18 November 2007 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Updating == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Could the censors or someone in their office please update this page to reflect the current situation? As it is a protected page, I hesitate to do it myself. | ||
| + | |||
| + | C. Vipsanius Agrippa | ||
Latest revision as of 16:43, 4 March 2009
It is important to notice Curule Aediles have also Ius Sententiae on Ancient Rome
--Lucius Arminius Faustus 18:28, 16 November 2006 (CET)
ius sententiae
I agree that magistrates with the ius sententiae should be listed here, but I do not agree that their bio pages should be tagged to be included in this category. They are not, after all, members of the senate proper and they have the ius sententiae by virtue of holding (temporary) office. Please comment on the removal of the "Senators (Nova Roma)" from the bio pages of holders of ius sententiae. Agricola 03:08, 10 November 2007 (CET)
- I would support the idea of including only full (i.e. sublected) members of the senate in the category 'Senators (Nova Roma)'. That is, after all, what the name of the category implies.
- I would point out, M. Lucreti amice, that the ius sententiae is not necessarily temporary, since it is retained not only during the holder's term of office but right up until the next lectio senatus, at which point he is either sublected as a senator or passed over (thus losing the ius sententiae). But that makes no difference to the point under discussion.
- In reply to you, L. Armini amice, I need to remind you that the articles which end with '(Nova Roma)' are meant to be about Nova Roma and should not contain much historical information. So the fact that the aediles curules had the ius sententiae during some periods of Roman history is not something we need to include in this article: they have not got the ius in Nova Roma under current law.
- - Cordus 17:21, 18 November 2007 (CET)
Updating
Could the censors or someone in their office please update this page to reflect the current situation? As it is a protected page, I hesitate to do it myself.
C. Vipsanius Agrippa
