Talk:Code of Justinian

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:

Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece: Byzantine ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• 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.

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

---

It was proposed in this section that Codex Justinianeus be renamed and moved to Codex Justinianus . result: ed. put'r there 00:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply ] 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)[reply

]

• 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)[reply
  ]
• I would also support either "Code of Justinian" or possibly "Justinian Code" per
  Calidum 15:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]
• I would support any of these alternatives. Richard75 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move to Code of Justinian per
  talk) 04:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Move to Codex Justinianus "Code of Justinian" also refers to both this and

talk) 04:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support move to
  WP:DABCONCEPT. BD2412 T 16:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

---

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.