User talk:Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus
From NovaRoma
(Difference between revisions)
(Calendar articles) |
m (ad Cn Lentulum respondeo) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Instead of 4 we should have 2, one for ancient Rome, one for Nova Roma. What do you think? | Instead of 4 we should have 2, one for ancient Rome, one for Nova Roma. What do you think? | ||
--[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 12:15, 5 January 2009 (CET) | --[[User:Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus|Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus]] 12:15, 5 January 2009 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Adsentior, Cn. Lentule! Apud [[Fasti_MMDCCLXII|Fastos]] me uti pagina [[Roman calendar|de calendario Romano]] ad dies Atros nundinasque definiendos. Fortasse paginae de calendario Romano et [[Fasti|de fastis]] ad paginam de calendario moueatur, ut solum paginae de calendario et [[Calendar (Nova Roma)|de calendario nouo]] remaneant? Quo modo paginae duae nobis habentur, una de calendario antiquo, una de nouo. -- [[User:Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Postumianus|Q·CAEC·MET·POST]] 20:26, 5 January 2009 (CET) | ||
Revision as of 19:27, 5 January 2009
Cultus Task Force
Member
Calendar articles
Salve, Q. Metelle! I think we should have to make some order between the many general articles on calendar. It's quite a mess. We have now:
Instead of 4 we should have 2, one for ancient Rome, one for Nova Roma. What do you think? --Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus 12:15, 5 January 2009 (CET)
- Adsentior, Cn. Lentule! Apud Fastos me uti pagina de calendario Romano ad dies Atros nundinasque definiendos. Fortasse paginae de calendario Romano et de fastis ad paginam de calendario moueatur, ut solum paginae de calendario et de calendario nouo remaneant? Quo modo paginae duae nobis habentur, una de calendario antiquo, una de nouo. -- Q·CAEC·MET·POST 20:26, 5 January 2009 (CET)
