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
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose - This being an encyclopedia, not a Latin dictionary, it is entirely appropriate to give suo jure it's own entry, particularly as it requires more than a single line of explanation to fully grasp its definition and review examples. Not only is it easier to find than in a list, but it being its own article means that it's much more likely to be found via a non-Wikipedia search engine.Clepsydrae (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
the Dukedom of Marlborough is the only extant British dukedom that can still be inherited by females
I'm skeptical. When did the rules change for Scottish dukedoms? I can readily believe that Marlborough is unique among English dukedoms (it was created before England and Scotland became the single kingdom of GB). —Tamfang (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I put back the "Notable suo jure titles" section - think it is worth discussing first before deleting. I know it can't be comprehensive, but has use to the general reader in showing examples of what a sj title means in reality. --Mervyn (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the word "notable" is the problem here. I just think there should be some examples given, to make it more than just a dictionary-like entry. --Mervyn (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about Queen Liz? 78.148.66.128 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a male holder of a non-hereditary pseudo-democratic office in this list? As far as I understand, this is not a good example of what the phrase usually means 109.250.66.238 (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]