Disputatio:Andreas Jackson

Category for Indian Wars[fontem recensere]

I'd like to find a good, clear, neutral term in preference to the not-yet-created Categoria:Participantes Bellorum Indorum suggested on this page. My suggestion is Categoria:Participantes bellorum Amerindorum et advenarum, but I would love to see something better. "Indorum" in any case won't do (I think) because "Indi" also, and originally, means people of the Indus valley and its neighbouring subcontinent. They, too, have fought wars. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:16, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Cassell's is our guide, participantes isn't Latin. IacobusAmor 12:31, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cassell's is no guide to that detail. But as to what would be the best word to choose, say on ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:27, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you're after. English favors "People of" (Homines in?). Don't forget to separate the opponents & their allies:

en:Category:American people of the Indian Wars

en:Category:Native American people of the Indian Wars

When you get to the French and Indian War, you'll need numerous subcategories (en:Category:People of Maine in the French and Indian War &c.). IacobusAmor 13:42, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may doubt "participantes ...", but I really, really hope we can improve on "homines in ..." Latin should be able to do better than that. We want a word meaning "Taking part in ...", "Those who took part in ...", preferably not as specific as "Those who fought in ...".

OK, then, speaking generally, why should we "separate the opponents & their allies"? I don't see the necessity. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Ask over at :en:? IacobusAmor 18:41, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why you said "Don't forget to separate the opponents & their allies". If you had no reason, I have my answer! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:49, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, deference to the greater number of minds that have worked on the larger wikis, especially :en:, is due. The human computing power brought to bear on :en: is several orders of magnitude larger than that ever applied here. The results of that effort are likely to be more efficient & useful than whatever we few might come up with. IacobusAmor 21:33, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now. I feel very differently about en:wiki; I am here partly because I observe the interplay of political POVs over there often producing a slanted or weak result. So -- especially on matters that might still arouse political passions, such as participation in recent wars -- I don't regard en:wiki as a reliable source or guide. I want a better encyclopedia, even if it takes a lot longer to produce it. And, as a bit of a pacifist personally, I guess I feel it's wasted effort for us to strive to separate out the people who got very close together on the battlefield. But these are just feelings, and, of course, if it is really a good idea to filter the warring pairs into separate categories, I don't object. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:30, 15 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about participes? --Gabriel Svoboda 18:16, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That might work: Categoria:Participes Bellorum Indosinensium, Categoria:Participes Belli Civilis Americani, Categoria:Participes Belli Servilis, &c. IacobusAmor 18:41, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Nice and brief. Let's go with it. But how about a name for the wars? "Bellorum Indorum" is misleading. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:49, 13 Maii 2010 (UTC)[reply]