Talk:Decemviri

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Roman & Byzantine

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force

Latin

Possibly "scribendis" instead of scribundis? Possibly "litibus" instead of stlitibus? --Wetman 16:38, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"stlitibus" instead of "litibus" is a side form indeed handed down. "scribundis" seems to be not so common a form, but is not wrong, because in "mighty phrases" Romans tend to use the sonoric "u" instead of the shrill "i" etc. as in IIIviri auro argento flando feriundo or exercitu instead of exercitui , exercitubus instead of exercitibus and the like. Radix --2003:F5:EF0C:8456:4893:76EF:33B8:5EF4 (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for article expansion

I know we give the EB the benefit of the doubt since we cribbed almost all of our early articles from it, but

B. G. Niebuhr, History of Rome (Eng. trans.), ii. 309 et seq. (Cambridge, 1832)
Theodor Mommsen, History of Rome, bk. ii. c. 2, vol. i. pp. 361 et seq. (Eng. trans., new ed., 1894)
Theodor Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 605 et seq., 714 (Leipzig, 1887)
A. H. J. Greenidge, Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time, p. 40 et seq., 263 (Oxford, 1901)
J. Muirhead, Private Law of Rome, p. 73 et seq. (London, 1899)
Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, iv. 2256 et seq. (Kübler).

are sources at least a century outdated and have nothing to do with the article if no one has verified and reused them separately apart from the EB gloss of their contents. Kindly reinsert them into the article once they have been independently reviewed and used as a source for material in the running text. — $Llywelyn II$ 07:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

The COMMON ENGLISH use of this term is only the first sense, which is either never or almost never given as a full decemvirs-in-charge-of-writing-the-laws-with-consular-imperium. We shouldn't make it look like that's the case. Decemvir by itself always or almost always refers solely to them and the others need distinguishing... including possibly being shunted to separate articles, since they have nothing to do with the Decemvirate except having a similar name. — $Llywelyn II$ 07:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the decemvirates of 451–50 should probably have their own article. Whether they should be the primary topic for 'decemviri' is secondary. The French wiki has one 'decemvir' article for the general concept and one 'Décemvir à pouvoir consulaire' for the most famous of the decemvirates. Avilich (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article could be transformed as a simple list of decemvirates, and the part about 451-450 moved to a new article (the other way around is also possible considering the number of links that would have to be changed). T8612 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My 1st thought was to simply have the content here pasted on a new page called (say) Decemvirate (Twelve Tables), or perhaps the default Latin name decemviri consulari imperio legibus scribundis could be used instead. Avilich (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the number of links, the overwhelming amount of those seem to be tied to Template:Ancient Rome topics. Change that, and most will fall into line. Avilich (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other 3 other decemviri groups here listed, 2 have articles already, so this can be turned into a dab page. Avilich (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any opposition I went ahead and did the split. Avilich (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]