De nominibus[fontem recensere]
I am switching round the names a bit. I suspect "Monagus" and "Monagum" are attempts at Latin by a local lawyer who didn't really know: and "Hercolis" and "Erculis" are just errors, because we know very well that the God's Latin name is "Hercules -is". Books whose only function is to list place-names may include erroneous forms from manuscripts: an encyclopaedia has to choose what its readers need to know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:46, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
- If you know that much about the name origin, wouldn't it be more appropiate to have a seperate article like Monoecus (nomen)? A short description could then be added to Monoecus and Principatus Monoeci linking to Monoecus (nomen), as the names are nearly identical. --Nicolaus Augurinus (disputatio) 16:50, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)
- In general, articles about words are thought to be not appropriate for the wikipedias: articles in encyclopaedias (according to this doctrine) are about things, not about words. So, if (like me and perhaps you) one is interested in the origins of words, the neat way to work one's interest into a Vicipaedia article is to have a section headed "nomen" or "etymologia" within an article about a thing.
- I don't yet know whether this section is better placed here or at Principatus Monoeci: that will become clear when we do some more work on the pages, I think. For the moment, it makes sense here because this article is about the little place that has always had this name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:58, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)