Category talk:Senatus consulta (Nova Roma)

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)

Good point, amice Agricola. I agree with it. I think we can keep all documents which not passed in a specific place. Sometime we need these documents. For example, three years ago I saw that a SC about creation of Dacia-Moesia province didn't passed. Taking a look to the reasons I was able to present a correct proposal and the creation of Dacia province passed. Probably we need two categories: in force and failed proposals. Anyway, is better for our citizens to have a place where they can find only the documents in force, the active one, and another with failed documents.

-Sabinus 20:36, 16 September 2007 (CEST)

So when we make the template, we DON'T need to say "It is a SC" and "It passed". If it passed, it is an SC and if it did not pass it is something else, right? Corde? Agricola 01:10, 17 September 2007 (CEST)