Disputatio:Oceanus Arcticus
|
Oceanus Arcticus fuit pagina mensis Maii 2013. |
Parentheses vs. commas recensere
Do we use parentheses or commas when indicating where a city is located? This page links to "Churchill, Manitoba," so I created a redirect to "Churchill (Manitoba)," but it leaves to wonder which one we prefer when naming pages ... I chose the latter when drafting the page on Churchill, since I think Latin syntax asks for "Churchill in Manitobá" rather than "Churchill, Manitoba"; so putting "Manitoba" in parentheses seems logical to me. Mattie 03:50, 6 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, we always use parentheses (and the noun inside the parentheses goes in the nominative). Many other language wikis do the same. I guess North American English is in the minority here, though it makes its influence felt none the less :)
- My view about the syntax is that Latin asks for the genitive (remember the KJV "Bethlehem of Judaea", which was a literal translation from Greek or Latin); but since many modern place names are indeclinable in Latin, we can't reliably impose any such rule. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:41, 6 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it's something that got overlooked when the article was being imported. The English way is more efficient (it takes up less space), but then English doesn't have the problem (or should we say the glory?) of declensions. IacobusAmor 13:43, 6 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- Cingitur omnis regio a terrestribus Eurasiae et Americae Septentrionalis massis, atque a nonnullis insulis, civitatibus, et regionibus, inter quas Nunavut, Canada, Alasca, Beringia, Siberia, Russia, Scandinavia, Islandia, et Groenlandia.
Is there a reason Nunavut is mentioned specifically, Iacobe? It's part of Canada! Mattie 03:50, 6 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- You'd have to ask over in Wikipeda! But note that Alaska, Siberia, and Greenland are part of something larger too. IacobusAmor 13:43, 6 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- It's different with Alaska, Siberia, and Greenland, because the larger something they're part of isn't mentioned, whereas both Nunavut and Canada are. But I understand your position: you're just translating. Mattie 22:48, 6 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- Since a wiki isn't a reliable source, a translation from a wiki is always just a start. The aim is to improve. We don't know why en:wiki included both Nunavut and Canada in their list (well, I guess we do, either (a) it was the easiest and most liberal way to end any little argument they had, or (b) everyone over there really felt it was the best way, or (c) someone put the extra word in just before Iacobus translated it!). We're free to write the text that's best for us. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- I'm thinking Nunavut might have been given special mention because it's Inuit territory (I believe it's governed quite differently from the rest of Canada), but it still seems redundant to essentially mention Canada twice. Does everyone consent with removing Nunavut (and Siberia, since I just noticed Russia is mentioned too!) from the list? Mattie 22:28, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- Fine, if you like, but add equivalently sized material somewhere else in the article, if you can, since we we're being rated on our 1000 paginae, and we don't want those numbers to go down! ;) IacobusAmor 23:01, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- You're obsessed :) I'll see what I can do, and I promise not to remove anything without adding something first. Mattie 00:58, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- I tried to deal with this in a way Iacobus will like! Not sure if I have written clearly -- if not, correct me, please.
- A really lovely page, Iacobus. Hadn't had a good look at it till now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:55, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- You're obsessed :) I'll see what I can do, and I promise not to remove anything without adding something first. Mattie 00:58, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- Fine, if you like, but add equivalently sized material somewhere else in the article, if you can, since we we're being rated on our 1000 paginae, and we don't want those numbers to go down! ;) IacobusAmor 23:01, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- I'm thinking Nunavut might have been given special mention because it's Inuit territory (I believe it's governed quite differently from the rest of Canada), but it still seems redundant to essentially mention Canada twice. Does everyone consent with removing Nunavut (and Siberia, since I just noticed Russia is mentioned too!) from the list? Mattie 22:28, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- Since a wiki isn't a reliable source, a translation from a wiki is always just a start. The aim is to improve. We don't know why en:wiki included both Nunavut and Canada in their list (well, I guess we do, either (a) it was the easiest and most liberal way to end any little argument they had, or (b) everyone over there really felt it was the best way, or (c) someone put the extra word in just before Iacobus translated it!). We're free to write the text that's best for us. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- It's different with Alaska, Siberia, and Greenland, because the larger something they're part of isn't mentioned, whereas both Nunavut and Canada are. But I understand your position: you're just translating. Mattie 22:48, 6 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
- You'd have to ask over in Wikipeda! But note that Alaska, Siberia, and Greenland are part of something larger too. IacobusAmor 13:43, 6 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
'Environmentalism' recensere
Just so you know, Iacobe, I created oecologismus (see fr:, es:, pt:, de:, etc) a while ago for 'environmentalism'. I feel hesitant to change it in the article without your nod of approval, though. What do you think? Mattie (disputatio) 17:57, 5 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
- Macte! Since the link will be blue, by all means insert it! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:45, 5 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)