Disputatio:Centum libri saeculi XX a lectoribus Americanis electi

Is this really a topic for an encyclopedic article?--Xaverius 08:00, 25 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with putting down various notable lists in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is after all a storage of human knowledge. Maybe if Jimmy Wales would have a Wikitable or Wikicharts for these types of lists, and have a Latin wersion for them also, we could bput these lists over there. But until then we should put these articles in the Wikipedia. -KedemusKedemus 07:37, 26 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's fair enough. But:

"Modern Library" is an arm of a publishing house: I guess we need to make clear it's commercial
The list is limited to "books written in English"; our title has to specify the limitation
We need to know whether the survey covered readers in other English-speaking countries, or only the US; if the latter, our title has to specify that too, I think

Is there a version of this on en:wiki? If so, can you do the interwiki links, Kedemus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:07, 26 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're proposing would create too long of a title. It says in the body of the text already that it's limited to books written in English. Modern Library is an American organization, so all of its board (collegium) would be U.S. based. As for the readers' surveys, I would imagine there were no restrictions as to the readers' countries, but probably most of them were Americans. -KedemusKedemus 01:45, 27 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the title is plain wrong. The title says this is a list of the best books of the 20th century. What we actually have is a list of books in English only, that were said to be the best of the 20th century in 1998 by a limited panel of US experts and readers conducted by a publishing company with a potential interest in the topic. It's very far from being the same thing. Incidentally, I see that there's quite a lot about it, quite negative in parts, at en:Modern Library.

The Modern Library list is possibly notable in its own terms, seeing the controversy it aroused, but it doesn't fit on Vicipaedia under this title. Let's try to think of a more accurate one.

You are also giving yourself a lot of work in Vicifying all these names, Kedemus! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 27 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed the page "Centum libri saeculi XX a lectoribus CFA electi". This is based on the title someone proposed, except that I changed "hodierni" to the less vague "saeculi XX" and removed the 1998 mention. -Kedemus 05:16, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kedemus. I'm very happy with the change. It is an interesting list, no doubt about that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 19 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

libri fictivi aut libri mythistorici etc,[fontem recensere]

I would suggest libri mythistorici or plain mythistoria instead of libri fictivi sic (=molded or invented book, ie not a real book); also instead of libri nonficitivi sic (real non made-up books) I would suggest libri didactici or plain detractatus--Rafaelgarcia 00:52, 9 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, among the many edits this virgin list requires, those are two! In both cases, I like your first choice best.

The other essential things, if anyone is interested, are to check and link the authors' names and to turn the titles back into English, in accordance with our rule. I guess titles translated into Latin are OK, if they are good Latin (a big if), but they should be subordinate to the real title of the book. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:48, 9 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]