Disputatio:Dakar

Move: unnecessary?

I can't see why this was moved to "Dakarum" with the summary "Lemma". This form doesn't occur in the lemma.

A good reason for the move would be if there's a source for this name in Latin. Well, I can find one -- the one that's already cited on the page, erroneously footnoted to "Dacarum" -- but, if I read it correctly, that same source also supports the former pagename "Dakar" (n. indecl.), so it offers no justification for the move ... and, anyway, do we know whether it's a reliable source?

I've no objection to "Dakarum" if that name is better supported than others, but I don't think that has yet been shown. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:10, 30 Maii 2012 (UTC)

I've moved back for the time being. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 3 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

The lexicon of P. Lucusaltianus Latinophilus is handy, but self-published, and based on Vicipaedia among other sources, and for these reasons to be used with caution. I've retained the citation, but I have now found a source for "in urbe Dakar", confirming Dakar (indecl.) in real Latin use, so I've cited that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 21 Martii 2020 (UTC)