Content deleted Content added
Linea 56:
::::"Verbiage" is the mot juste. Surely nobody would ever look for those redlink titles above, or understand them if they found them. Are those titles really proposed? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:31, 15 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
:::::I raised this issue also in [[Vicipaedia:Taberna#en:Kinship_fr:Parenté_it:Parentela_de:Verwandtschaft|the taberna]]. Maybe it was not useful to turn them into red links, but it was a way I thought of bringing all the different terms that Latin has for one type of relative (e.g. uncle/aunt with amita, avunculus, etc, which vary according to the way they individually relate to ego) via re-directs to a single page without having to favour one over (like patruus) over the rest.--[[User:Xaverius|<span style="color:blue;">Xave</span><span style="color:green;">ri</span>]][[Disputatio Usoris:Xaverius|<span style="color:red;">us</span>]] 09:21, 15 Augusti 2019 (UTC)
::::::Well, I think Xaverius has a point, and that is due to the way the things we do here trickle through on Wikidata: E.g. "uncle" there now has the Latin label "patruus", also known as "avunculus". I think it should be "avunculus/patruus" as the label, perhaps with a disambiguation under "description" (I've done something like that with "nepos/neptis", but that was more straightforward, because there are statements "male form of label" and "female form of label"). In turn, this then begs the question if we shouldn't adapt the titles here (generic masculine, fine, but for anything else, we should have all the words). [[Usor:Sigur|Sigur]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Sigur|disputatio]]) 14:30, 15 Augusti 2019 (UTC)