Acadēmīa:Cūria - Revision history

Jācōbus: /* References */ Reply

2023-02-22T14:35:31Z

References: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 22 February 2023
Line 47:		Line 47:
	:Especially when a term has many variants, Wikipedia’s use can serve as support for preferring one over the others, although we, of course, don’t always have to come to the same conclusions as the Wikipedians.		:Especially when a term has many variants, Wikipedia’s use can serve as support for preferring one over the others, although we, of course, don’t always have to come to the same conclusions as the Wikipedians.
	:So I would opt for allowing references to Wikipedia, but only as additional support for other sources. Exceptions to this rule would have to be discussed and decided on a case by case basis. [[User:Lūkās\|Lūkās]] ([[User talk:Lūkās\|talk]]) 15:16, 22 February 2023 (CET)		:So I would opt for allowing references to Wikipedia, but only as additional support for other sources. Exceptions to this rule would have to be discussed and decided on a case by case basis. [[User:Lūkās\|Lūkās]] ([[User talk:Lūkās\|talk]]) 15:16, 22 February 2023 (CET)
			::{{Cōnsentiō}} This is a compromise I could live with. Since Wikipedia is rarely the only source anyway (mostly paired with Wiktionary, but I consider it quite reliable), there is no need for a big change. I can then amend the Guidelines once the discussion is closed. (Remember that we want to discuss any issue for at least seven days so that other people who might not have much time can participate.) [[User:Jācōbus\|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus\|talk]]) 15:35, 22 February 2023 (CET)

Lūkās: /* References */ Reply

2023-02-22T14:16:23Z

References: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:16, 22 February 2023
Line 42:		Line 42:
	:::I would suggest we wait to see what the others have to say on the matter. Then we can still decide. [[User:Jācōbus\|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus\|talk]]) 13:36, 21 February 2023 (CET)		:::I would suggest we wait to see what the others have to say on the matter. Then we can still decide. [[User:Jācōbus\|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus\|talk]]) 13:36, 21 February 2023 (CET)
	::::I don’t mean only dictionaries but in general latin works like books, articles, poems, written by experts (e.g. Eichenseer, Egger…). [[User:Logodaedalus\|Logodaedalus]] ([[User talk:Logodaedalus\|talk]]) 14:02, 21 February 2023 (CET)		::::I don’t mean only dictionaries but in general latin works like books, articles, poems, written by experts (e.g. Eichenseer, Egger…). [[User:Logodaedalus\|Logodaedalus]] ([[User talk:Logodaedalus\|talk]]) 14:02, 21 February 2023 (CET)
			:First of all, I agree that Wikipedia shouldn’t usually be the '''only''' or '''primary''' reference.
			:I also agree with @[[User:Jācōbus\|Jācōbus]] that the Latin Wikipedia can serve as testament for a word being actively used in modern Latin, although that also depends on the ''maturity'' of an article.
			:The Latin Wikipedia has some very good articles accompanied by extensive discussions by knowledgeable Wikipedians about minutiae, but also many very poor ones created by individual, rogue users. There’s also a lot of inconsistency between the terms used by different articles.
			:Especially when a term has many variants, Wikipedia’s use can serve as support for preferring one over the others, although we, of course, don’t always have to come to the same conclusions as the Wikipedians.
			:So I would opt for allowing references to Wikipedia, but only as additional support for other sources. Exceptions to this rule would have to be discussed and decided on a case by case basis. [[User:Lūkās\|Lūkās]] ([[User talk:Lūkās\|talk]]) 15:16, 22 February 2023 (CET)

Logodaedalus: /* References */ Reply

2023-02-21T13:02:24Z

References: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:02, 21 February 2023
Line 41:		Line 41:
	:::I think that is a difficult task to limit the work to authoritative dictionaries only. The problem is that the dictionaries are terribly outdated (this is one of the reasons for the Acadēmīa Latīnitātis in the first place). For this very reason, I think it's okay to include words that are already in common use but not yet documented in a dictionary. The Latin Wikipedia is a strong indication that people are using these words. Therefore my opinion to this is: {{Dissentiō}}.		:::I think that is a difficult task to limit the work to authoritative dictionaries only. The problem is that the dictionaries are terribly outdated (this is one of the reasons for the Acadēmīa Latīnitātis in the first place). For this very reason, I think it's okay to include words that are already in common use but not yet documented in a dictionary. The Latin Wikipedia is a strong indication that people are using these words. Therefore my opinion to this is: {{Dissentiō}}.
	:::I would suggest we wait to see what the others have to say on the matter. Then we can still decide. [[User:Jācōbus\|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus\|talk]]) 13:36, 21 February 2023 (CET)		:::I would suggest we wait to see what the others have to say on the matter. Then we can still decide. [[User:Jācōbus\|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus\|talk]]) 13:36, 21 February 2023 (CET)
			::::I don’t mean only dictionaries but in general latin works like books, articles, poems, written by experts (e.g. Eichenseer, Egger…). [[User:Logodaedalus\|Logodaedalus]] ([[User talk:Logodaedalus\|talk]]) 14:02, 21 February 2023 (CET)

Jācōbus: /* References */ Reply

2023-02-21T12:36:35Z

References: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:36, 21 February 2023
Line 39:		Line 39:
	:Can you explain your reasoning? One of the purposes of our dictionary is to document language usage. If a word is used in the Latin Wikipedia, it seems worthy of inclusion. At least the Vicipaedia is one of the most comprehensive sites in Latin. [[User:Jācōbus\|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus\|talk]]) 13:13, 21 February 2023 (CET)		:Can you explain your reasoning? One of the purposes of our dictionary is to document language usage. If a word is used in the Latin Wikipedia, it seems worthy of inclusion. At least the Vicipaedia is one of the most comprehensive sites in Latin. [[User:Jācōbus\|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus\|talk]]) 13:13, 21 February 2023 (CET)
	::What I mean is that we should cite authoritative sources like dictionaries, vocabularies, books et cetera. [[User:Logodaedalus\|Logodaedalus]] ([[User talk:Logodaedalus\|talk]]) 13:24, 21 February 2023 (CET)		::What I mean is that we should cite authoritative sources like dictionaries, vocabularies, books et cetera. [[User:Logodaedalus\|Logodaedalus]] ([[User talk:Logodaedalus\|talk]]) 13:24, 21 February 2023 (CET)
			:::I think that is a difficult task to limit the work to authoritative dictionaries only. The problem is that the dictionaries are terribly outdated (this is one of the reasons for the Acadēmīa Latīnitātis in the first place). For this very reason, I think it's okay to include words that are already in common use but not yet documented in a dictionary. The Latin Wikipedia is a strong indication that people are using these words. Therefore my opinion to this is: {{Dissentiō}}.
			:::I would suggest we wait to see what the others have to say on the matter. Then we can still decide. [[User:Jācōbus\|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus\|talk]]) 13:36, 21 February 2023 (CET)

Logodaedalus: /* References */ Reply

2023-02-21T12:24:32Z

References: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:24, 21 February 2023
Line 38:		Line 38:

	:Can you explain your reasoning? One of the purposes of our dictionary is to document language usage. If a word is used in the Latin Wikipedia, it seems worthy of inclusion. At least the Vicipaedia is one of the most comprehensive sites in Latin. [[User:Jācōbus\|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus\|talk]]) 13:13, 21 February 2023 (CET)		:Can you explain your reasoning? One of the purposes of our dictionary is to document language usage. If a word is used in the Latin Wikipedia, it seems worthy of inclusion. At least the Vicipaedia is one of the most comprehensive sites in Latin. [[User:Jācōbus\|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus\|talk]]) 13:13, 21 February 2023 (CET)
			::What I mean is that we should cite authoritative sources like dictionaries, vocabularies, books et cetera. [[User:Logodaedalus\|Logodaedalus]] ([[User talk:Logodaedalus\|talk]]) 13:24, 21 February 2023 (CET)

Jācōbus: /* References */ Reply

2023-02-21T12:13:30Z

References: Reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:13, 21 February 2023
Line 36:		Line 36:

	I don't know if this is the right forum, but here's the thing. I don't think Wikipedia should be used in the reference section of a word. [[User:Logodaedalus\|Logodaedalus]] ([[User talk:Logodaedalus\|talk]]) 10:22, 21 February 2023 (CET)		I don't know if this is the right forum, but here's the thing. I don't think Wikipedia should be used in the reference section of a word. [[User:Logodaedalus\|Logodaedalus]] ([[User talk:Logodaedalus\|talk]]) 10:22, 21 February 2023 (CET)

			:Can you explain your reasoning? One of the purposes of our dictionary is to document language usage. If a word is used in the Latin Wikipedia, it seems worthy of inclusion. At least the Vicipaedia is one of the most comprehensive sites in Latin. [[User:Jācōbus\|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus\|talk]]) 13:13, 21 February 2023 (CET)

Logodaedalus: /* References */ new section

2023-02-21T09:22:34Z

References: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:22, 21 February 2023
Line 32:		Line 32:
	\|}		\|}
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__		__NEWSECTIONLINK__

			== References ==

			I don't know if this is the right forum, but here's the thing. I don't think Wikipedia should be used in the reference section of a word. [[User:Logodaedalus\|Logodaedalus]] ([[User talk:Logodaedalus\|talk]]) 10:22, 21 February 2023 (CET)

Jācōbus at 19:35, 22 January 2023

2023-01-22T19:35:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:35, 22 January 2023
Line 5:		Line 5:
	{{Header\|Purpose}}		{{Header\|Purpose}}
	:The Curia is the place to discuss the rules and guidelines of the Acadēmīa. Every Academian has the right to submit a proposal. Every Academian has the right to comment on the proposals of others.		:The Curia is the place to discuss the rules and guidelines of the Acadēmīa. Every Academian has the right to submit a proposal. Every Academian has the right to comment on the proposals of others.

			:Discussions about individual entries should be held on the respective discussion pages.

	:Please put this page on your watch list, so that you may not miss any new proposals.		:Please put this page on your watch list, so that you may not miss any new proposals.

Jācōbus at 02:06, 22 January 2023

2023-01-22T02:06:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:06, 22 January 2023
Line 11:		Line 11:
	{{Header\|How to create a topic}}		{{Header\|How to create a topic}}
	* Please look in advance to see if a topic has already been discussed.		* Please look in advance to see if a topic has already been discussed.
	* Press "Add ~~Section~~" above and give your topic a meaningful heading.		* Press "Add topic" above and give your topic a meaningful heading.
	* Set <code><nowiki>{{Proposal}}</nowiki></code> at the beginning and then write down your request in detail and precisely.		* Set <code><nowiki>{{Proposal}}</nowiki></code> at the beginning and then write down your request in detail and precisely.
	* Set <code><nowiki>{{Reason}}</nowiki></code> after that and write down your reasoning behind the proposal.		* Set <code><nowiki>{{Reason}}</nowiki></code> after that and write down your reasoning behind the proposal.

Jācōbus at 21:53, 21 January 2023

2023-01-21T21:53:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:53, 21 January 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Forum navigation}}
	{\| style="margin-top:23px; border:3px solid #c7c7c7; background:#ededed; width:100%; padding:10px; border-spacing: 0;"		{\| style="margin-top:23px; border:3px solid #c7c7c7; background:#ededed; width:100%; padding:10px; border-spacing: 0;"
	\|		\|