Aperire sectionem principem

tramen, agmenRecensere

"Agmen" pro "tramine" addendum erat. "Tramen" vero ridiculum videtur nomen. "Hamaxostichus" monstrum, quis intelleget qui Harrium Potterum non lexit vel Graecam linguam non novit? Optimum sit classicum nomen quod omnes Latine scientes facile intellegunt, ut censet quidam peritus quem novi. Quale est "agmen".

Cur "(-i, n.)"?Recensere

Cur "(-i, n.)" hic addimus? Declinatio iam est manifestus. IacobusAmor 12:03, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Modo ut Victionario nectamus. Est res bona. --Ioscius (disp) 13:30, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Cur? Vicipaedia est (en)cyclopaedia, non dictionarium. Anglice: have you looked at how dead-tree encyclopedias handle declension? The Britannica, for example, s.v. Ox, doesn't bother to tell you that the plural of ox is oxen. If you want to know, you can go to a dictionary! IMHO, there's no need to indicate declension & gender in a Latin encyclopedia unless, perhaps, it isn't obvious (or it differs from what a novice might expect), as with, e.g., systema. IacobusAmor 14:14, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Again, Iacobe, it is only to link to victionary... it is not thought that people don't know the patently obvious declension of vehiculum, it is just to have a facile and readily visible link to victionary. --Ioscius (disp) 15:38, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Then why can't it be linked via the lemma, rather than via "-i, n."? or linked via some other uncluttered mechanism? IacobusAmor 15:40, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Easiest uncluttered way to indicate that it is a link to a dictionary (while a link on the headword itself would just be confusing). As for why a link to the dictionary is useful, hopefully it can contribute to preventing imitations of the silly sections on en.Wikipedia where instead of the talking about the thing itself, they talk about the name of the thing (in ways irrelevant to the thing itself). —Mucius Tever 03:26, 16 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I must say that I'm with Iacobus here. Isn't everybody who ventures to come to our pages supposed to know enough Latin to know that the genitive of vehiculum is vehiculi. And if they don't, how much does the info "vehiculum,-i" help? I (almost) regret to say that such a helpfulness strikes me a bit naive. Instead of giving predictable information, I'd rather support giving info about exceptional morphology (such as iter, itineris) that may escape also people with decent Latin skills. Neander (disputatio) 17:21, 10 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
Revertere ad "Vehiculum".