Disputatio:Lexicon Helvetiae historicum

I moved back ...

... to "Lexicon Helvetiae historicum". Maybe this name is slightly rougher than the other, but it corresponds to the Latin title of a relevant supplementary work published by the same institution: see footnote. On the other hand there may be evidence, which I haven't found, that the Lexikon prefers its Latin name to be otherwise, and that would be good reason to move again!

By our rules, if there is no existing source for a Latin name, we don't translate the name of a book, but we do translate the name of an institution that can be translated. I'm taking it that this is an institution (the fact that it acted as publisher of a different book, see above, shows that this is a tenable view). On the other hand, if we treat this as a book, given no sourced Latin title, we should use its vernacular title as our pagename ... problem: it has four different vernacular titles, all equal! So it's better not to follow that route. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:00, 25 Novembris 2019 (UTC)

Well, my translation reflected the same logic and pattern as the name in the Romansh version: Lexicon istoric retic. Neander (disputatio) 18:36, 25 Novembris 2019 (UTC)

... while I found a Latin parallel (see my footnote); not conclusive, just the best I could manage. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:27, 25 Novembris 2019 (UTC)