Disputatio:Ventus
Latest comment: abhinc 8 annos by IacobusAmor in topic Fons
Fons
recensereNescio quare haec pagina "non stipula" sit. Summarium mutationis dicit "Source?" sed verbum "ventus" sane latinum est, apud Ciceronem et Caesarem inventum. Quid ergo scribendum est? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:28, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Commentarius fonte definitionis nostra aetate scripto caret. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:57, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Pro mea parte formulas q.s. "Vicificanda" et "Scientia dubia" addidi, quod paretymologias Isidoreas garrulitate puerili miscet. Neander (disputatio) 15:16, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Ha! Ego fontem convenientem (quamvis Anglicum) addidi. Pagina nunc stipula est, etiamsi vicificanda et scientiá dubiá! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:22, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Anne, to be clear, I think the current "rules" for stipulae require an external source either for the Latin word (especially important for non-classical vocabulary), or for the subject itself. This article may technically qualify because of the classical sources and text copied from Isidore, but it wasn't obvious. I agree that the Isidorean material needs to be dealt with; maybe it can be reduced to a section on "antiquae notiones" or something like that. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:01, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- That's it. One might say "a page of this length could stand on its own with no citations" but Neander's judgment (with which I agree!) shows that even a page of this length may be of low usefulness to a reader. A handy, helpful external link makes it that much more useful in a trice.
- So I'd say Iacobus was quite right to mark it "Non stipula". In fact it wasn't so easy to find an obviously useful link to add. I usually find something good on de:wiki or fr:wiki. Nothing in this case. So I had to fall back on en:wiki, and even there not a lot.
- Rewriting would of course improve the page massively, but that takes longer than adding a link. The link I provided might help the rewriter, who knows? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 30 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I've added the definition from en; magna ex parte may or may not be right for 'on a large scale', but others can fix that. It wasn't absolutely uncertain where the adaptation from Isidore began, but I've made a quick guess. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:38, 30 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Anne, to be clear, I think the current "rules" for stipulae require an external source either for the Latin word (especially important for non-classical vocabulary), or for the subject itself. This article may technically qualify because of the classical sources and text copied from Isidore, but it wasn't obvious. I agree that the Isidorean material needs to be dealt with; maybe it can be reduced to a section on "antiquae notiones" or something like that. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:01, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Ha! Ego fontem convenientem (quamvis Anglicum) addidi. Pagina nunc stipula est, etiamsi vicificanda et scientiá dubiá! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:22, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Pro mea parte formulas q.s. "Vicificanda" et "Scientia dubia" addidi, quod paretymologias Isidoreas garrulitate puerili miscet. Neander (disputatio) 15:16, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)