Talk:Suo jure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merger request

Oppose - I think Wikipedia should make it as easy as possible for people to find info clearly, not take them to complicated composite list pages. --mervyn 14:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Support- Most all important Latin phrases are included and explained on the list alone, and there is nothing special about this particular phrase to justify the existence of a separate article.Thesocialistesq 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with Mervyn. It is much harder to link to items in a list. Also, the entry may grow overtime and I don't really see a disadvantage of a separate (possibly tiny) article. Cjrother 17:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - Unlike a written encyclopaedia there is no disadvantage to having a small stand-alone article describing suo jure. If a user types 'suo jure' into the search box, this article will almost certainly be the information they are looking for. --Surturz 00:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Female form

A note was added that: "The female form is sua jure." -- however I have not seen this form used in the context of peerages - can anyone else check this? TIA --mervyn 13:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed it, it's nonsense. "suo" is grammatically aligned with the grammatical sex of "iure", not with the gender of the person in question. —Nightstallion (?) 14:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)