Disputatio:Immobile

Stipula?[fontem recensere]

There doesn't seem to be that much to say here beyond the definition, unless we want to get into the laws of particular jurisdictions. The term is standard (Morgan).

Hic commentarius est stipula vera? Ubi est "Nexus extra-Vicipaedianus (sive et fons bibliographicus) qui et titulum et rem ipsam satis corroboret"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:14, 18 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Titulus, ut supra dixi, res est simplicissima: isdem verbis utimur atque aliae linguae faciunt, secundum illum Davidum Morgan. Nexus adest, ad Communia. Est ergo stipula, mea sententia. Licet tibi admeliorare -- quaeso! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:13, 18 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Communia extra rationem vicipaedianam [outside the wikipedian system] nostra sententia non vide(n)tur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:19, 18 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True: Commons isn't truly external, nor is it generally a reliable source. I've cited a source now, which led me to move to "Immobile", but better sources may well be found.

"Immobile" is the direct source of vernacular words like French immeuble: a longer article would want to say that, no doubt. [That is in fact why I chose DuCange, looked for the word "immobile", and found it.]

Whoever wrote "The term is standard (Morgan)" above could, I see now, have nipped the little problem that arose here in the bud by citing Morgan directly on the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:21, 19 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was me; I forgot to sign, it seems, perhaps when a student came into my office (that happened for sure at least one other time yesterday). But I believe Iacobus noster is also concerned with the lack of bibliography, and I agree that I left nothing beyond the ref to Commons. I'm not sure en:Real estate and fr:Bien immobilier deal with exactly the same thing, though they are linked to each other and to this page through Wikidata; there's a lot of nation-specific (even smaller-jurisdiction-specific) law here and it's not obvious what Latin Vicipaedia should concern itself with. So I rather punted. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:23, 19 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography would be good, certainly, but as one of those who go through new pages to verify that they should survive, I know that the one thing I have to see is an external source assuring me that the thing describes exists, is notable to somebody, and has been given a reasonable name. As far as I'm concerned, that's why the requirement for an external source must be in our definition of a stipula. Commons is no use for that.

Morgan would do, and if I had read this whole discussion at first I would simply have cited Morgan and moved on. Du Cange is maybe better because (unlike Morgan) it cites textual sources. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 19 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Lewis and Short, the term (or "res immobiles") goes all the way back to the Justinian Digest; see these loci. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:12, 20 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! Not surprising really. By all means cite Justinian, and move again if it seems best. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:58, 20 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]