E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Gratias tibi ago! Mutationes magnae videntur. Sed de inscriptione huius paginae adhuc valde dissentio. Inquis Tbook "Restitui nomen acceptatum. Oportet titulo uti, etiam si non a omnibus acceptato; dicimus 'Imperator' Napoleon, etiam si nonnulli non ita credunt."

Sed Napoleo Bonaparte non Imperator Napoleo Bonaparte nominatum est! "Imperator" in re, non in titulo, utimur, aeque ac debemus "Christus" (et "Nazarenus" et cetera) in re, non in titulo, Iesu uti. Non necesse est "Iesus Christus" uti ut lectores res intellegant, et certe uti "Iesus" nedum minus controversiam posthac faciet, ergo cur simpliciter titulum simpliciorem, "Iesus", non utimur? Et est brevior, itaque facilior. Vicipaediae aliae, exempli gratia Anglice Wikipedia, id esse melius intellegunt, et tempus ratum fecit. Itaque te rogo: cur non Iesus? Quorsum "Christus"que utimur?

Et sola quaestio: cur et se per eum servari posse ("and that they are able to be saved through him") ad et eum hominem curare ("and that he takes care of/cures a person") mutavisti? -Adamas 02:28, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good job on this article.--

Disambiguation[fontem recensere]

Should the list of other people named Iesus be s.v. Iesus (discretiva) or Iesus (nomen)? --Iustinus 19:48, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know, but I think we should have both pages: Iesus (nomen) and therefore Iesus (discretiva) as well. --Rolandus 21:24, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I guess Iesus (nomen) would describe the history of the name, and list people, whereas Iesus (discretiva) would list non-human things called Jesus (movies, plays, etc.)? Or actually maybe people should be listed in both places. --Iustinus 19:54, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think, when the people are listed on page Iesus (nomen) there is no need to list them on Iesus (discretiva), but it would not hurt. It could be just double work to maintain both lists of people. So I'd prefer to have the list just on one of the pages. Maybe Iesus (nomen) will be more appropriate, especially when the list is long. --Rolandus 23:47, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble figuring out what makes the most sense, because it is unusual to have a word that can have both a (nomen) page and a (discretiva) page. Of course, most wikipedias aren't as eager to make pages for every name as we have been here. --Iustinus 23:56, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we can still use them as examples—other wikipedias, I mean; en has en:William (name) tells about the name while en:William is a disambiguation page listing people named only William. —Myces Tiberinus 00:08, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I wonder whether someone has good reasons for the one or the other method. I do not have them. --Rolandus 00:09, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense to me: Iesus (nomen) is an article solely on the name Iesus, and Iesus (discretiva) is a disambiguation page, subdivided perhaps:
1. (Listed & numbered in some order, such as alphabetical by surname etc.?): people whose names start with Iesus
1. (Listed & numbered in alphabetical order): things named Iesus, e.g. Jesus College, the Jesus lizard, etc.
Surely a disambiguation page can break down into branches, as above? IacobusAmor 02:34, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One question, if we make a page "Iesus (Nomen)" will we include anything concerning the custom of naming one's child Jésus? Because most common wealth or anglocultured countries don't do this - or at least not that I know of - while Hispanic ones do. Alexanderr 02:38, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should think so (it's Jesús, btw): that's part of the story of the name itself. IacobusAmor 02:41, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Jesús is not by far the only etymologically related name. After all, ego sum Ioshus...=] --Ioshus (disp) 18:28, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the relationship between Iesus and Iosue will definitely need to be mentioned, but we can effectively count them as seperate names, much as we do with Iacob and Iacobus. --Iustinus 19:01, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hardly a non stipula"[fontem recensere]

It's a non stipula because (according to the terms of the non stipula notice) it doesn't have a lemma, and it doesn't have a definition of the lemma. It used to, but unknown user Marinumbm deleted those things, with more than a thousand characters' worth of contextualizing, in favor of an exordium that doesn't see the forest for the trees. If one had time, one might revert all Marinumbm's changes and then try to reincorporate any useful bits in Marinumbm's new material, but someone else will have to do it. Since it's among the 1000 paginae, a loss of a thousand characters counts against Vicipaedia's mean & median. IacobusAmor 17:14, 2 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At non intellego, cur locum delevit???? --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 17:17, 2 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ita, mi Martine, nihil dixit. Sed admittere debemus paginam encyclopaedicam cum explicatione lemmatis incipere debere. Fortasse melius sit locum subter reinserere? Et postea, si vis, paginam retractare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:34, 2 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
quaeso, Andrea, melius causam explica, cur admittenda pagina esset. --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 19:07, 2 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Potes locum citatum ad caput paginae reinserere, si vis. Minime veto. Sed alii, si hanc rem non-encyclopaedicam censent, rursus removere possunt. Bella editorialia inutilia sunt. Melius fortasse erit consuetudinibus paginarum encyclopaedicarum obtemperare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:40, 2 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nolo id gerere, Andrea. Sunt verum paginae aliae, ubi hoc modo usi sunt, nec remotae. --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 19:54, 2 Novembris 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason[fontem recensere]

"Temporibus Graecis, mores suos imponentibus, Iason, sincerrimum Graecum nomen simile Iesu, monstrabatur a multis aliis in usu esse inventum personis." Quid commune haec sententia cum nomine Iesu habet, nescio. Si fons fidelis nomina hoc modo coniungit, oportet sententiam rursus inserere et fontem citare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)

Paternitas Iesu[fontem recensere]

De paternitate Iesu dicit etiam Mt 3,16-17: Baptizatus autem Iesus, confestim ascendit de aqua; et ecce aperti sunt ei caeli, et vidit Spiritum Dei descendentem sicut columbam et venientem super se. Et ecce vox de caelis dicens: “Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui”. --Ben4Wiki (disputatio) 15:24, 21 Februarii 2014 (UTC)[reply]