Category talk:Tabularium (Nova Roma)
(cat head text should be simple, no meta) |
(Replies.) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
#The main tabularium cat (in addition to the top matter) should contain '''only''' subcats, with very few or no exceptions (e.g., ''maybe'' the constitution that is in force at present). | #The main tabularium cat (in addition to the top matter) should contain '''only''' subcats, with very few or no exceptions (e.g., ''maybe'' the constitution that is in force at present). | ||
[[User:M. Lucretius Agricola|Agricola]] 07:27, 25 August 2007 (CEST) | [[User:M. Lucretius Agricola|Agricola]] 07:27, 25 August 2007 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Those all sound like sensible principles to me. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus|Cordus]] 13:37, 26 August 2007 (CEST) | ||
==Cat Head Text== | ==Cat Head Text== | ||
| Line 16: | Line 20: | ||
The head text on this cat page talks a lot about what we plan and so forth. This sort of thing belongs on this talk page, not cluttering up the main article. Let's strive to be clear, simple and concise. Barring negative comments I will soon have at that material and move a lot of it here. [[User:M. Lucretius Agricola|Agricola]] 09:41, 25 August 2007 (CEST) | The head text on this cat page talks a lot about what we plan and so forth. This sort of thing belongs on this talk page, not cluttering up the main article. Let's strive to be clear, simple and concise. Barring negative comments I will soon have at that material and move a lot of it here. [[User:M. Lucretius Agricola|Agricola]] 09:41, 25 August 2007 (CEST) | ||
| − | == Inclusion of the Commentarii Pontificum == | + | :Agreed, though some brief explanation of the nature of the category could usefully remain. |
| + | |||
| + | :- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus|Cordus]] 13:37, 26 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? [[User:Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus|Metellus]] 03:10, 13 November 2006 (CET) | 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? [[User:Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus|Metellus]] 03:10, 13 November 2006 (CET) | ||
Revision as of 11:38, 26 August 2007
Contents |
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)
Subcategories
For discussion:
- Subcategories should cover all topics in the tabularium.
- Every item should be in at least one subcat.
- Any item may be in more than one subcat, as appropriate.
- The main tabularium cat (in addition to the top matter) should contain only subcats, with very few or no exceptions (e.g., maybe the constitution that is in force at present).
Agricola 07:27, 25 August 2007 (CEST)
- Those all sound like sensible principles to me.
- - Cordus 13:37, 26 August 2007 (CEST)
Cat Head Text
The head text on this cat page talks a lot about what we plan and so forth. This sort of thing belongs on this talk page, not cluttering up the main article. Let's strive to be clear, simple and concise. Barring negative comments I will soon have at that material and move a lot of it here. Agricola 09:41, 25 August 2007 (CEST)
- Agreed, though some brief explanation of the nature of the category could usefully remain.
- - Cordus 13:37, 26 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)
- Let's not view this as "the laws", let's say this is where we put official documents that should be protected from edits. Does that solve the problem? Agricola 07:27, 25 August 2007 (CEST)
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)
