Category talk:Senatus consulta (Nova Roma)
(reply) |
(questions) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
- [[User:Titus Iulius Sabinus|Sabinus]] 20:08, 15 September 2007 (CEST) | - [[User:Titus Iulius Sabinus|Sabinus]] 20:08, 15 September 2007 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Would it be correct to say that anything that IS a senatus consultum was in fact passed by the senate? In other words, if we have a document called "senatus consultum x", in every case it had been "passed by the senate"? What would such a document be called if it had not passed? Is there any reason to keep such a document? Is there any reason not to keep such a document? [[User:M. Lucretius Agricola|Agricola]] 06:04, 16 September 2007 (CEST) | ||
Revision as of 04:06, 16 September 2007
Adding old senatus consulta
Could we stop adding old senatus consulta until we've discussed how to present and categorize these texts? If we add them before deciding these issues we will have to do a lot of unnecessary work changing them all to whatever new format we may choose in the end. Thanks.
- Cordus 19:01, 15 September 2007 (CEST)
No problem with stop adding. But, at last, let's start to do something. What is the better way to present and categorize these texts?
- Sabinus 20:08, 15 September 2007 (CEST)
Would it be correct to say that anything that IS a senatus consultum was in fact passed by the senate? In other words, if we have a document called "senatus consultum x", in every case it had been "passed by the senate"? What would such a document be called if it had not passed? Is there any reason to keep such a document? Is there any reason not to keep such a document? Agricola 06:04, 16 September 2007 (CEST)
