Talk:Code of Justinian

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --Noailles (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

At present there is only a small part of the Corpus Juris Civilis entry that covers the Codex or Justinian's Code. This will be a separate entry on that subject. I created separate entries on the Digest and the Institutes for that same reason, so I can't see why this entry should be deleted. Please explain. Noailles.

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --98.127.96.206 (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

After lookg at the comparison I should add that both entries are mine. The one on the left hand side showed up as part of the subdivision of the existing entry on the CJC, whereas the other is the new one I did this morning. I suppose it happened because I don't fully understand how to do this. However, I did successfully create the entries on the Novellae Consitutiones and the Institutes of Justinian, so I'm not sure why what I did today didn't work. In any case, I think it makes sense to have separate, longer entries for each of the CJC units, in addition to having the briefer explanations of them in the entry covering the CJC as a whole. Noailles.

Fall of West Rome

The text says "Justinian's Codex was largely lost in the West with the fall of the Western Roman Empire..." Afaik, the Western Empire well with the Visigoths invasion of 476. Would be great if someone could sort that out. --94.223.160.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Codex Justinianus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212125221/http://www.leges.uni-koeln.de/en/lex/codex-iustinianus/ to http://www.leges.uni-koeln.de/en/lex/codex-iustinianus/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge from Codex Repetitae Praelectionis

That tiny stub that just states it was a later edition of CJ doesn't seem notable on its own. I suggest redirecting and merging here. Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree If no additional information of substantial value for that particular edition can be found, I support the Merge.--Sıgehelmus (Tålk) 22:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 25 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Codex Justinianeus → Codex Justinianus – In Italian it is indeed "giustinianeo" but in Latin the current name is not as common. We shouldn't try to "correct" the language. 92.184.116.104 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. The proposed title is an improvement. But it should be "Code of Justinian" per this ngram and WP:USEENGLISH. Allan Rice (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• I would also support either "Code of Justinian" or possibly "Justinian Code" per WP:UE. Calidum 15:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support, but it would be nice to have a source that expressly addresses the issue of spelling. Code of Justinian equally acceptable. Srnec (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• I would support any of these alternatives. Richard75 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support move to Code of Justinian per WP:COMMONAME. Google Search gives 1.2 million hits vs Codex Justinianus which only has 265k. Jerm (talk) 04:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Move to Codex Justinianus "Code of Justinian" also refers to both this and Corpus Juris Civilis, but Codex Justinianeus is only one part that makes up Corpus Juris Civilis. The others are Novellae Constitutiones, Digest (Roman law), and Institutes of Justinian, therefore, I would convert Code of Justinian into a dab page. Jerm (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support move to Code of Justinian; disambiguation would be disfavored here as it would create a WP:ONEOTHER page, and the Corpus Juris Civilis already states that "Codex Justinianus" is the work more properly referred to as the Code of Justinian. All of the other potential parts are listed in the first paragraph, so this topic already meets WP:DABCONCEPT. BD2412 T 16:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.