Silence~lawiki
Content deleted Content added
Gratias ago. |
Vicipaedia et Victionarium |
||
Linea 17:
==Gratias ago==
Qv. [[Disputatio:Rolling Stones|Saxum Volutum aut Saxa Voluta]] [[Usor:D Ambulans|D Ambulans]] 12:54, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)
== Vicipaedia et Victionarium ==
Didn't want you to think I was ignoring your comment. I was taking a minute to think about it, before responding, something that I feel I ought do much more often in life...think before responding that is. While I still disagree with you, I don't disagree enough to promote the wholehearted omission of declension notes in articles. I have talked with other editors and administrators whose opinion I respect on this matter, and none of them raised any objection to declension notes. So I thought about why exactly it ruffles my feathers, so to speak, and I believe that it's really a matter of uniformity. Strictly speaking, I think a source for the gender of nouns and declension patterns is definitely [[en:what Wikipedia is not|what Vicipaedia is not]]. I believe Vicipaedia to be an online community but foremost an encyclopaedia which tells about the subject of its entries, and not on their specific morphological qualities(unless of course it's a philological article in itself). I have read various antique pseudy encyclopaedias, and other reference works, and none of them include gender and genitive in their entries, so to do so now is definitely not in accord with tradition. But you make a fine point about the linkability to Victionarium with the declension note(though it seems a more useful link would really be ''from'' Victionario to here). My main issue, then, is of consistency, we should all do it, or we should all not do it, and therefore I think the question may deserve platform in the [[Vicipaedia:Taberna|Taberna]].--[[Usor:Ioshus Rocchio|Ioshus Rocchio]] 14:48, 7 Martii 2006 (UTC)
| |||