Disputatio:Pellicula

A section for the title

I think that the section "verbum" explaining why we use pellicula oughtn't to be there. We do not have to justify why we choose a word with a whole setion, a footnote indicating a source shoukd be enough--Xaverius 09:16, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

It's not terribly accurate either. First of all, the romance form isn't used only in Spanish, but in Italian, Catalan, and probably others as well. Second of all, the usage of the word to mean "photosensitive media used to record visual images, moving or not" derives from its usage in the chemical world: e.g. "soap film." Note that the word for film in many languages shares the exact same semantic range as pellicula, most notably "film" itself, which comes from Old English filmen meaning "membrane, caul, foreskin etc."

There's also the issue that using pellicula or film to refer to an actual motion picture, rather than the medium on which it is recorded, is of course a metonymy. But it seems to me that when people link to pellicula they will most often mean a motion picture, and only rarely will they mean "small pelt, membrane," "a chemical film," "photographic film," or "film stock" (i.e. film used to record movies). The only question is what the disambiguation tag on that last item should be. --Iustinus 09:33, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

(more generally) I think it would be nice if the aspect of what word to use would be shown more often and more prominently on our pages. But yes, the first sentence "Cur film latine "pellicula" redditur?" could/should be removed. It sounds like an excuse. Other Wikipedias mostly discuss the content of an article or whether it is relevant at all. I like that we do not have these relevancy discussions and mostly we do not discuss the content: Nearly everything is appreciated as long as sources can be provided. This is fine as well. But most of our discussions are about latinitas and the title itself. This is also ok. However, if these aspects are such important for us, we should give them room in the article itself. The added value of the Vicipaedia (= Latin Wikipedia) - as I think - is not to have another encyclopaedia with 13.000 articles, but to have a collection of 13.000 pages in Latin with interwiki links. I think, this is a value by itself. Because of this also a stub has - in fact - a higher value here. This is good. But there is a recommendation anywhere which says that we do not like short articles. We should think about this. We should love stubs, as long a) the title is correct b) we have sources for the title c) we have interwiki links and d) the Latin is ok. Based on that, content can be added, but a correct Latin title is a high value per se. I think in this aspect we are different from other Wikipedias. We should stress that; a special section about the title should be put into an article more often, I think. Maybe we should have special templates to support writing about titles. We were talking about this (Disputatio:Index_nominum) in the context of personal names ... We should have a template saying that the title is proofen and why. Of course this would be ridiculous for other Wikipedias, where each child knows what word to use for "film". ;-) --Rolandus 10:01, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

General agreement. I thought the intro was a bit ridiculous, so I changed it. Would still love a section on the etymology - the Latin etymology, not the English... - if Iustinus ever finishes his schoolwork =] --Ioshus ^(disp) 15:55, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

I think I've told you everything I know about this :P --Iustinus 16:14, 3 Iunii 2007 (UTC)

"digitalis"?

Usor:62.203.129.22 scripsit in Pellicula:

RECENSIO De terminologia technica : « pelliculae digitales »

vocabulum digitalis stultitiae antiquorum linguae anglicae locutorium debitur qui cum digitis computabant. pellicula numeria sive numerica qualis in Gallorum lingua usitatum aptior videtur.

Eugenius Schircks, Genava Allobrogium

[inscriptio electronica deleta --UV 23:10, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)]

Nunquam audivi ea quae Anglice designantur "digital media" in Gallorum lingua "médias numériques" designari. Adjectivum Francogallicum "digitale" ubique utuntur. Aptum est, quod ita distinguitur rerum ennumeratio a rerum descriptione per numeros 0 et 1. De origine non est disputandum si verbum et ab omnibus usurpatum et logicum esse constat. Jackmitchell 04:35, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)