A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 16, 2018 and November 16, 2021. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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.
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
It was proposed in this section that
Codex Justinianeus be
renamed and moved to
Codex Justinianus.
result: Links:
current log •
target log
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
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)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 16, 2018 and November 16, 2021. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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.
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
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)
It was proposed in this section that
Codex Justinianeus be
renamed and moved to
Codex Justinianus.
result: Links:
current log •
target log
This is template {{
subst:Requested move/end}} |
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)