Talk:Roman censor

Issues with length

This article is too long and may need to be cut a bit. Someone should try to figure out what has the most relevance to the subject and delete anything that isn't of major importance. Also, I reworded the introduction and a bit of the first section, but it is clear that this article needs some good copy-editing, possibly by more than one person. Atellus 00:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup. I copied it nearly verbatim from A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, which was published in 1870. Lots of good info, but it badly needs cleanup. As for splitting it, I would suggest splitting off census info to Roman census, which is perhaps the section with the most room for expansion. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Seven years later (sigh) … Agree with length concerns, and the article is awfully technical in a depressing way. What should probably happen is a split into Roman censor and Roman census. It would be entirely possible to handle trappings of the office, for instance, and how it changed under the Empire under Roman censor, and keep a discussion of what the census was for, how it was conducted and so on, separate. The Regimen morum and the nota could be a spinoff, too, and reduced to a summary section in either article as needed. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Between 52 and 22 B.C.

It is untrue that no censors were elected between 52 and 22 BC. For 50 BC Appius Claudius Pulcher (RE297), the consul of 54, and Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninius, the consul of 58 were elected. They completed the lectio, but not the census or lustrum. For 42BC, Gaius Antonius, the consular colleague of Cicero in 63, and Publius Sulpicius Rufus, the praetor of 48 were elected. The best collection of evidence remains Broughton; Suolahti is patchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James Pawley (talk • contribs) 18:29, 18 October 2006‎ (UTC)