Acadēmīa:Cūria

Our Acadēmīa in session! 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. 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. How decisions are made: Decisions made by the Cūria are called Acadēmīae consultum. These are decided by consensus, i.e. a proposal will automatically be adopted if no objections have come (see End of the debate). How to create a topic: Please look in advance to see if a topic has already been discussed. Press "Add topic" above and give your topic a meaningful heading. Set {{Proposal}} at the beginning and then write down your request in detail and precisely. Set {{Reason}} after that and write down your reasoning behind the proposal. Click on "Send" and you are done! How to react to a topic: Press "Reply". Set depending on your opinion {{Cōnsentiō}} or {{Dissentiō}} at the beginning of your comment and then write down your reasoning. Please set {{Cōnsentiō}} or {{Dissentiō}} only once. If you change your mind during the debate, you can cross out your comment with <s>[YOUR COMMENT]</s> and express your changed opinion again. For documentation purposes, do not delete any comment! If no consensus can be determined with the current proposal, you can set {{Compromise}} to propose a compromise. Otherwise, feel free to discuss with your fellow authors! End of debate: Debates are to be debated for at least seven days. If no objection has been raised in that time, the proposal is adopted. If objections have been raised, the debate continues until all meaningful arguments have been exchanged or all objections have been resolved. In case of doubt, an administrator can decide when the arguments have been exhausted. If a proposal is finally not accepted, it does not have to mean that it is over. The debate can be resumed at any time if new arguments arise. Under certain circumstances, the proposal may be put to a vote in the Comitium. Metadebates: Please discuss all metadebates (i.e. debates concerning these rules written here) on the discussion page Acadēmīa talk:Cūria. Archiving: From time to time the closed discussions are archived for the purpose of overview and moved to a subpage. An administrator will provide a short summary of the discussion, if necessary, so that later readers have an overview.

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)

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)