Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Canalis Suesiensis" differant
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
Linea 1:
==De nomine huius paginae==
''(Copied from: [[Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages/Suez Canal]]):''</br>
If we may identify Suez with the ancient town of [[Clysma (urbs|Clysma]] (as the Coptics do), the Canal could be named [[Fossa Clysmatena]]. For [[Fossa]] see [http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usor:Rolandus/Most_important_1000_pages/Canal here] and for the adjective ''Clysmatenus'' see [http://www.gcatholic.com/dioceses/data/titC.htm here]. --[[Usor:Fabullus|Fabullus]] 16:47, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
:I just discovered that we have a page called [[Canalis Suez]] which (incorrectly) redirects to [[Maria Romanis antiquis cognita]]. I still prefer [[Fossa Clysmatena]] however. --[[Usor:Fabullus|Fabullus]] 09:15, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
::The redirects (there was also one at [[Canale Suez]]) were pointless: goodness knows why anyone would make them. I have deleted them. You now have a clear field, Fabulle! <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 11:44, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
:::Facta est!--[[Usor:Fabullus|Fabullus]] 12:09, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)</br>
''(End of copy)''</br>
</br>
Hi Pantocrator, I hartily accept your change of "fossa" into "canalis", according to the discussion at [[Disputatio:Canalis#Canalis non fossa]], but why did you not move to [[Canalis Clysmatenus]]? Replacing "Clysmatena"/"Clysmatenus" by "Suez" is quite a different matter. Do you not accept the identification of Suez with ancient [[Clysma (urbs)|Clysma]]? Then we should discuss this at [[Disputatio:Clysma (urbs)]]. Or is there some other objection? Best wishes, --[[Usor:Fabullus|Fabullus]] 07:04, 20 Martii 2010 (UTC)
| |||