Disputatio:Linguae Khoisanae

I suggest we align the spelling of the lemma. Now it's "lingua Choesana" in Linguae mundi and Taxinomia linguistica, "lingua Khoisan" here and "lingua coisiana" in N/u (which, incidentally, should be "Nǀuu"). I think it should be "lingua(e) Choesana(e)", because the name is a compound made from the names of the Khoe languages (en:Khoe languages) and of the San people (en:San people). Sigur (disputatio) 19:42, 23 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

People come to Vicipaedia, make lists of names -- sometimes invented by themselves -- and then go away. Lists, and names in text, are not reliable unless sourced.

The crucial moment is when someone takes one of those names and makes it into a pagename. At that point -- whether it's a new page or a move from an acceptable name to another -- our rule is to cite a reliable source. Since lots of people now rely on Vicipaedia pagenames, via Wikidata, for Latin names, we have to be serious about this. So, is there a reliable source for "Choesanus -a -um"? If not, we wouldn't invent it. We have "linguae Khoisan", which (if there is no reliably sourced Latin name) is acceptable because it's a common international term. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:13, 14 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Not sure at all. Fine with me if you change it all to "lingua Khoisan". The only thing I would really like to see is that it all stays uniform. Other than that, no strong feelings. Sigur (disputatio) 18:22, 14 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

BTW, there is a species called Amata khoisana. So, if we keep "Khoisan", maybe we could at least inflect it... Just a thought. Sigur (disputatio) 18:39, 14 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Yes, on that basis, "Khoisanus -a -um" is fine, and we should adopt it here unless some even better choice exists.

I utterly concur that the lists should agree with the sourced pagenames -- unsourced inconsistency helps no one -- but there's never time! If the topic interests you, please feel free ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:15, 14 Februarii 2019 (UTC)