Christianus
Joined 14 Martii 2006
Content deleted Content added
→Austria: I think we should have a policy about this. |
|||
Linea 19:
::@Roland2:
::If there are links to latin pages, they undoubtedly are to be mentioned in the article. Nevertheless, many of the "latin pages" are just abominable stubs! To get any senseful information, you are hence forced to rely on German (or English) wiki articles. This ist the reason why I added the interwiki links. I got the point why you removed them, but I think thast the inclusion of said interwiki links is more useful. Generally speaking - the inclusion of the contemporary names of ancient cities is, in my humble opinion, a must in such a geographical overview of Austria. If the latin vicipedia had 400.000 articels, we nonetheless would need the contemporary name not only in the respctive article, but also in a list of names. Take for instance a list of Italian cities in the English wikipedia. You will certainly agree that also the list should include (in brackets, o.k.?) the English translation e.g. of Napoli (viz. Naples), and not only the article "Napoli". --[[Usor:Christianus|Christianus]] 16:32, 31 Martii 2006 (UTC)
:::I see we all know the arguments but we do not weight them in the same manner, so it is just a question of priorities. I think we ''should'' have a policy about this. ;-)
:::You are right that the referred stubs do not offer much information and it might be frustrating for the user to have to swith to the German Wikipedia after he has clicked on the Latin link.
:::From the concept I think this is ok: Redundancy should be avoided where possible. In the whole Latin Wikipedia there should be (theoretically) just one link to a foreign Wikipedia and it should be in the interwiki section in the left column.
:::In contrary to your opinion I think the inclusion of contemporary names should be generally avoided where there exists a Latin page which can or should keep this temporary name and - if they exist - interwiki links. Your example about a list of Italian cities in the English Wikipedia illustrates that very well: The list should ''not'' include the Italian names when there exists an English page about this city. You see, the same argument leads - for me - to the opposite opinion. ;-)
:::I think a language should just switch to another language when there is a real need. What is the intention of such a list of Italian cities in the English Wikipedia? I think - in the strict sense - this list is just a list and should not keep any other information but the names of the articles (see later). If the list should keep other information (translations, number of inhabitants, etc.) it would have more dimensions and were a "table". Sorry, I do not want to instruct you about the difference of lists and tables, I am sure you know it. But this might be the reason why we have opposite opinions. You see this case from a more practical point of view (in fact thinking of a table) and I have the theoretical (strict) position in mind. ;-)
:::There is another point: This English List of Italian cities would be a list of article names. I would call the article "Naples" and not "Napoli", which could be another reason, why we have different opinions. If there is an English name I would not care about the Italian name. Just in the definition of the lemma. I know this position does not conform to nowadays conventions and I know some discussions about it, for example [[:en:Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol]]. In fact it was a political discussion. My position is, that a language should be able to cover all thoughts a man could have. If an Italian thinks of that city, he should have the word "Napoli" in mind, an English man would think of "Naples", I have "Neapel" in mind. There is just one real object (the city) and many representations in the several languages. Ok, it would be more political correct in the Latin Wikipedia to say "Österreich" instead of "Austria", but Latin is a Language of its own ... not talking about the troubles with the umlauts, Romans might have ;-)
:::So, coming back to our topic. I do not care much about what solution we choose, but I think the postion should be documented anywhere so that everyone can see what arguments have been considered and how the arguments have been weighted.
:::--[[Usor:Roland2|Roland2]] 10:52, 1 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
| |||