Quantum redactiones paginae "Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 18" differant
Content deleted Content added
Linea 2 052:
:Pacem praefero :) <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 08:25, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::Labacum quoque putem ;] -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]] <sup>'''[[Disputatio Usoris:Ioscius|∞]]'''</sup> 10:36, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
== De titulis nostris in linguis (et scripturis?) non-Latinis ==
This question arises twice today. I've just started a page about a Church Slavonic text, [[Житїе Иларїѡна епископа Мегленскаго]], translatable as "Vita Hilarionis episcopi Moglaenensis", but not known in Latin. LilyKitty has started one about the opera [[Domina Macbeth districti Mtsenscensis]], which (unless that Latin title has been published) ought to be moved to its vernacular name, because our rules are that books appear under the original title, unless previously translated. The same question arises when we write a page about a foreign word, phrase or idiom. If the original language is written in a non-Latin script, do we transliterate it or not?
I remember that Alexander has already asked this question (but I don't remember where). Whatever we do, we can of course give redirects from alternative choices, including a Latin translated form.
I think our page title should appear in the original language and script in such cases, because a transliterated title just looks foreign to ''everybody'' and a translated title breaches our general rule. So I would leave my page [[Житїе Иларїѡна епископа Мегленскаго]] as it is, and I would move LilyKitty's to [[Леди Макбет Мценского уезда]] (with all redirects). But that's just me. What do others think? <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 12:59, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
| |||