Talk:Lex agraria

Expansion of article
Given that a lex Agraria was a type of law rather than a specific one, it seems as though this article needs to be reformatted (perhaps to a list given the number of agrarian laws there are over the late Republic?). I'd be happy to do this but thought I'd check before I change the article completely. Thoughts? and thanks, LarciusFlavus (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup I think so too, this article is almost exclusively about the Lex Sempronia Agraria,how about we move this article to Lex Sempronia Agraria and create a new one called Lex Agraria? I personally don't think there is a need to have an article on a specific type of Roman law though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerong Lin (talk • contribs) 09:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Many leges agrariae
Re the hatnote you just added. There are many leges agrariae. The most famous of which is definitely the Sempronian one in 133 BC. Perhaps a disambiguation page might be worthwhile. Ifly6 (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I've seen removal of hatnotes to dabs on broad-concept articles (I wish I had an example, but I can't remember precisely which article right now). If we treat this article as a broad-concept one, perhaps we can do the same here. Also, is the 100 BC law also a lex agraria? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's usually called the lex Appuleia agraria. Eg Google Scholar. What it did was set up a land commission, this time with ten members if I recall correctly, which conducted viritane allotments that included Marius' veterans. Ifly6 (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * understood. In that case, may I remove the hatnote? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I already changed the hat note such that it points to a yet-uncreated page called Lex agraria (disambiguation). Ifly6 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 August 2023

 * 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  18:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Lex Agraria → Lex agraria – MOS:CAPS. Note also that lex agraria is most commonly decapitalised in scholarly works.&#32;Ifly6 (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Ifly6 (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The standard in MOS:CAPS is not that there exist some amount of capitalisation of, but rather that it is consistently capitalised in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. Not only is this standard of review is not met, the majority of sources since 1950 returned on a search of Google Scholar note a lack of capitalisation:


 * Shochat Athenaeum (1970)
 * Beggio OCDOnline (2019)
 * Develin Antichthon (1978) lex agraria
 * De Ligt CQ (2008) Lex agraria
 * De Ligt Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis (2007) Lex agraria
 * Lintott Hermes (1978) lex agraria
 * Marshall Antichthon (1972) lex agraria
 * Bernstein Antiquaries Journal (1971) Lex agraria
 * Crawford Roman Statutes (1996) Lex agraria
 * Mattingly Latomus (1975)
 * Lintott CR (1975) lex agraria
 * Tipps CJ (1989) lex agraria
 * Lintott Athenaeum (1983) lex agraria
 * Linderski Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica (1983) lex agraria
 * Lintott JRS (1980) lex agraria
 * De Ligt Epigraphica (1980) lex agraria
 * Sumner TAPA (1966) Lex agraria
 * Rising Historia (2015) lex agraria

I only look at the first four pages, remove all sources not in English, and duplicates. My definition of "reliable source" is anything which is published by a university press or is in a peer reviewed journal.

I count three (3) capitalised to fifteen (15) agraria (16.6 pc capitalised). is not consistently capitalised in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. Ifly6 (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2023 (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.
 * Support per nom. I didn't think it would be potentially controversial under MOS:CAPS given that agraria just means "agrarian" and isn't someone's name (unlike lex Julia). Compare Lex Appuleia agraria. SilverLocust 💬 16:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yea nor did I think it would be controversial but I was told on uncontroversial moves to put it over here. Ifly6 (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nor did I see any actual contestation of the move; I only saw someone claim that it could be possibly contested. Ifly6 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Tentative support: the article is written like it's about a specific lex agraria, but the argument for the lowercase title is that it's a generic term—there were various leges agrariae, of which the one discussed in the article is just one. I've wavered a little over the title case for Roman laws, following usage in scholarly sources: I note that older sources frequently capitalize words like "senate" less often than modern ones do, and rarely capitalize lex.  It certainly shouldn't be capitalized unless agraria is also capitalized, and then only if it's taken as the proper name of a specific law.  But Roman laws are typically named after either the person who sponsored them—lex Julia—or their specific purpose, sufficient to distinguish them from other laws involving similar topics—lex Agraria de Aviis Immensis, or both—lex Furia de Multis Helicopteris in Civitate.  Lex agraria seems like a generic title, so it probably shouldn't be capitalized; if it's a proper name in this case, then it probably represents an abbreviated form of the law's name.  If we're taking it as a generic name, then the article needs to be revised in order to reflect that.  If the article should be about a specific law, then it probably needs to be moved to another title.  P Aculeius (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Nominator shows convincingly that the term isn't widely capitalized in sources. Because so many laws in Category:Roman law are named after specific individuals, it's hard to draw too much information about general capitalization practices, but my read is that lowercasing "agraria" would also be more WP:CONSISTENT with our usual practice in the topic area. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. General practice for leges is to only capitalise proper nouns (usually initiator but also eg lex Oscia) as demonstrated above. The example of a lex Agraria entry in OCDOnline is a peculiar outlier for the OCD, which also has leges agrariae along with leges annales, leges sacrae, lex Flaminia agraria, lex Servilia iudiciaria et al in lex(2) and consistently lower-case for mentions of lex frumentaria, etc. What's more, this is not an article about a specific lex, but about the various leges agrariae, so agraria in the title is not a proper noun. NebY (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)