Disputatio:Aequationes Maxwellianae in vacuo

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Maxwell aequationes[fontem recensere]

This title looks terrible of course. So what to do? My recommendation would be to use an adjectival form, e.g. aequationes Maxwellianae. This kills two birds with one stone:

  1. We're supposed to leave modern surnames indeclinable unless we have a good reason not to, but obviously the undeclined genitive is awkward and confusing here.
  2. Latin tends to use adjectives instead of genitives much more often than English or Portuguese do.

--Iustinus 00:59 iun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I didnt like the title also. Aequationes Maxwellianae is a better name. Can you change it? I´m not in my hometown right now, and I dont have much time here in the cybercaffe. But I completely agree with the name change! --Mafrius 00:21 iun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Iam nomen paginae ad Aequationes Maxwellianae in vacuo mutata est; propositum huius paginae est has aequationes in vacuo solvere ut solutionem luci pertinentem potimur. Vide etiam Aequationes Maxwellianae quod de aequationibus generalibus tractat.--Rafaelgarcia 20:59, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the integral forms of the Maxwell Equations? --Snake707 20:43, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add them, but perhaps there are irrelavent on this page which treats the equations in vacuo in the context of solving for the wave equation, no? Perhaps you would check out the Aequationes Maxwellianae page.--Rafaelgarcia 21:03, 23 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment isn't clear (to me, now) because there seems only to have been one page, which was moved from Aequationes Maxwellianae to its present title in 2007. So, when that comment was written, Aequationes Maxwellianae was apparently just a redirect. But it could well be I am misunderstanding something in the history.
The questions I really wanted to ask are, (1) did the page once look OK? It now looks bad, apparently because some details of the display of maths formulae have changed. (2) Does anyone know how we might correct it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:08, 3 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]