Disputatio:Augustoritum
Salve, ego primo hanc paginam scripsi. Solum vos dicere volebam fontem quae utor francogallicae vicipaediae paginam de Augustorito esse.
- Incertus sum ut te intellego. Dices fontem nominis "Augustoritum" esse paginam "Limoges" apud vicipaediam francogallicam? Si est, adde in pagina, removeque "fontes carentes". Etiam, quaeso, opus estne vere nobis disambig? Qui usi alii sunt verbi "Augustoritum"?--Ioshus Rocchio 14:36, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
O Ioschus Rocchio, te gratias ago, quia de fontis me adjuvat. Tamen, ego quoque incertus sum ut te intellego. Cepi disambig ex Lutetiae pagina. Ultimam tuam rogationem non intellego (I understand spanish, french and english)-80.170.25.51
- Oh, great. I said: "I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying the fons of the name Augustoritum is the Limgoes page at the French wikipedia? If that's the case, add that in the page and remove the fontes carentes bit. Also I ask is there really a need for a disambig here? QWhat other uses are there of the word Augustoritum?--Ioshus Rocchio 04:26, 13 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't see why we couldn't use a disambig there: Limoges is a rather important French city, and that's not because all the other articles in latin about french cities (except for Paris) are awful that we should do the same. Moreover, if you mean that we don't need a disambig because it contains information about the modern Limoges, well, I think it's not because the article is entitled augustoritum that we only should speak about the Roman Limoges. I hope you'll here find an answer. Eventually, I don't really know if there are other uses for Augustoritum. (I hope I am clear, English is not my mother tongue ;-) )-80.170.25.51
- Yes, I understand you =]. Ok, in response, I think that we should put info on historic Limoges and modern Limoges on the same page. On the other hand there is modern information in en:New York City and historical information on en:New Amsterdam... I don't know. Maybe we could have modern information on Limovicum (I think this is the right name) and historical on Augustoritum, and then just have a disclaimer up at the top like "Pro urbe moderna, vide Limovicum." What do you think? Btw, do you have a user page on some wikipedia where I can talk to yuo directly?--Ioshus Rocchio 22:27, 14 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
- No, I don't. Nevertheless, first, are you sure LEMOVICUM is the right (and modern) name for Limoges, I mean a known and used name; and then the article about LUTETIA also refers to Paris, and to the Eiffel Tower, et caetera...
- Yes, I understand you =]. Ok, in response, I think that we should put info on historic Limoges and modern Limoges on the same page. On the other hand there is modern information in en:New York City and historical information on en:New Amsterdam... I don't know. Maybe we could have modern information on Limovicum (I think this is the right name) and historical on Augustoritum, and then just have a disclaimer up at the top like "Pro urbe moderna, vide Limovicum." What do you think? Btw, do you have a user page on some wikipedia where I can talk to yuo directly?--Ioshus Rocchio 22:27, 14 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't see why we couldn't use a disambig there: Limoges is a rather important French city, and that's not because all the other articles in latin about french cities (except for Paris) are awful that we should do the same. Moreover, if you mean that we don't need a disambig because it contains information about the modern Limoges, well, I think it's not because the article is entitled augustoritum that we only should speak about the Roman Limoges. I hope you'll here find an answer. Eventually, I don't really know if there are other uses for Augustoritum. (I hope I am clear, English is not my mother tongue ;-) )-80.170.25.51
Lemovicensis[fontem recensere]
Is this the right name, Roland, have you found it? Should we move it back?--Ioshus Rocchio 18:02, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry ... the redirect from Lemovicensis just means "see there". I did not want to delete that blank page. I think we should really do something with our redirects (Vicipaedia:Redirectio). It is mostly not clear why the redirect exists. I think it would be better to have some templates for the several reasons where we redirect the reader. --Roland2 18:11, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
- I see. Maybe we should ask Usor:213.103.27.123 what's up... Is this the difference between hard and soft redirects? One autmatically redirects, the other presents youw ith options, or in this case a template?--Ioshus Rocchio 18:27, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
- I found some sources, see the external links, especially "PETRUS von Limoges (Petrus Lemovicensis)".
- If we use a redirect, the user has to guess why he has been redirected. Sometimes he will find the reason on the target page.
- Example:
- We have an article Salisburgium, starting with "Salisburgium sive Salisburgum ...". I wish we had a template for sive-redirects: {{sive}}. Then we could have a page Salisburgum with just the content {{sive|Salisburgium}}. Just an example to illustrate the idea. A "#REDIRECT" keeps nearly no information. If we have a reason why we redirect the user, we should tell the user our reasons by using a template. So the reasons can be discussed ... for example. --Roland2 18:40, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
- I see. Maybe we should ask Usor:213.103.27.123 what's up... Is this the difference between hard and soft redirects? One autmatically redirects, the other presents youw ith options, or in this case a template?--Ioshus Rocchio 18:27, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)