Acadēmīa:Cūria: Difference between revisions
Logodaedalus (talk | contribs) (→References: new section) |
(→References: Reply) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
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) | |||
::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 The problem is that the dictionaries are terribly outdated (this is one of the reasons for the Acadēmīa Latīnitātis in the first place).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) | |||
::::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) | |||
::{{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) |
Latest revision as of 15:35, 22 February 2023
Purpose:
How decisions are made:
How to create a topic:
How to react to a topic:
End of debate:
Metadebates:
Archiving:
|
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. 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. Jācōbus (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2023 (CET)
- What I mean is that we should cite authoritative sources like dictionaries, vocabularies, books et cetera. 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. 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…). Logodaedalus (talk) 14:02, 21 February 2023 (CET)
- What I mean is that we should cite authoritative sources like dictionaries, vocabularies, books et cetera. Logodaedalus (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2023 (CET)
- First of all, I agree that Wikipedia shouldn’t usually be the only or primary reference.
- I also agree with @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. 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.) Jācōbus (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2023 (CET)