Disputatio Vicipaediae:Malefactor

(Redirectum de Disputatio Vicipaediae:Destructor)
Latest comment: abhinc 16 annos by Harrissimo in topic Destructor

Protegendan Rolande?--Ioscius (disp) 17:37, 10 Novembris 2006 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protecting the page would be a good idea, I think. --Rolandus 18:13, 10 Novembris 2006 (UTC)Reply

Destructor recensere

I think corruptor would be better, as not all vandals destruunt. Harrissimo 14:22, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply

From there there could also be useful terms like corrumpo (I vandalise)haec pagina corrupta est (this page has been vandalised), corruptio (vandalism), corruptivus, corruptibilis (liable to be vandalised - and of course corruptibilitas (the state of being liable to be vandalised)). Harrissimo 14:27, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply
Or how about this: If the general user is an usor, a vandal could be an abusor (attested). There is also abutor (I vandalise), abusus (vandalism). Not as many derivatives as corru(m)p(t)- but still should be considered. Harrissimo 22:18, 17 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply
Abusor certainly makes a good deal of sense, but it sounds more scolding. Destructor has that nice, booming ring to it... I certainly see your point, but even vandalism that is just nugae and not deletion still destroys the spirit of the project. I don't see it as big a deal as you, but I'm certainly happy to consider what others have to say, and go with a change if necessary.--Ioscius (disp) 19:55, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
I like vandalus, even though it seems as if it was only applied to the ethnic group in classical Latin without a figurative sense. But since they seem to be extinct as such, why not benefit from their reputation in finding a suitable word? --Ceylon 22:36, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
Because that would nurture vandalismus, vandalizo etc. which are not a good standard to be setting if we are to be sine fictione (sorry for being so tight about this). Harrissimo 22:43, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply
Then again vandalismus is in {{Helfer}}. Harrissimo 22:56, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply
Turbator? Sounds awkward, but is real classical Latin (as opposed to destructor which has quite another sense). But no better than corruptor. --Ceylon 23:00, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, turbator should work, but malefactor may be more widely & readily understood. IacobusAmor 00:20, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
Rather maleficus then (malefactor not being too common a word)? Vicipaedia seems a little overkeen on nouns ending -or (usor, locutor, etc.). I think we should try to use them more sparingly and look for suitable participles or adjectives wherever possible (utens - I am aware that this has been discussed previously -, loquens, etc.). --Ceylon 06:52, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
The reason I suggested malefactor, rather than maleficus, is that the former is listed as a substantive in Cassell's, but the latter isn't; of course adjectives can easily become substantives, so the distinction may not matter. Also, malefactor has become a perfectly good word in English, but maleficus hasn't. IacobusAmor 12:35, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
"Perfidus" too can express the "mala fides" of the vandal.Lio 21:15, 21 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think now that we should have malefactor. Despite the fact that we may overuse -or nouns, malefactor still retains some of that boom which Ioscius speaks of above. There can be malefacio and maleficium for verbal and noun forms. Is that OK? Harrissimo 20:11, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).Reply
Return to the project page "Malefactor".