Disputatio:Lotus
I did rely extensively on Dalby's A to Z for this page, but I'm not certain that it makes sense to give bibliography on a disambiguation page. --Iustinus 09:40, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
- I think sources should - on the long run - be given just on the page which explains the term and not whenever a term is used. So we have the information only in one place, which has advantages for maintaining and discussing the content. However, when the referenced page does not exist yet (red links), I sometimes whished I had the information, if that term was chosen intentionally ... in case someone edits the red link. --Roland (disp.) 20:44, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. Perhaps the solution is to create a template with words to the effect of "this footnote gives sources on a subject for whcih we do not yet have an article. Once that article is written, please move this note" vel sim. --Iustinus 00:26, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
- As written, this is not a discretiva page. When just plain "lotus" is given as a nexus in an article, it's marked "DIS" and is displayed with a red-pink background. Despite this advertisement (i.e., that the nexus is linked to a discretiva page) the link redirects here. IacobusAmor 04:45, 1 Martii 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, it falls between a discretiva and a real article. A good solution would be for some kind person to write the real articles! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 1 Martii 2009 (UTC)
- As written, this is not a discretiva page. When just plain "lotus" is given as a nexus in an article, it's marked "DIS" and is displayed with a red-pink background. Despite this advertisement (i.e., that the nexus is linked to a discretiva page) the link redirects here. IacobusAmor 04:45, 1 Martii 2009 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. Perhaps the solution is to create a template with words to the effect of "this footnote gives sources on a subject for whcih we do not yet have an article. Once that article is written, please move this note" vel sim. --Iustinus 00:26, 23 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
White lotuses[fontem recensere]
Oy vey: LilyKitty just added a link to Nymphaea lotus... and now I see that there may be some confusion in the literature between that species and Nymphaea alba. --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:48, 22 Maii 2015 (UTC)