Certainly we can call this by it's original title? -eon is a perfectly legitimate Latin, or at least adapted Greek, ending, no?
- Well, archaeologically I know what an odeon is but I do not know what a nickel is. The Romans (or we archaeologists) used both odeum and odeon for these small theatres, so I'd go for -on--Xaverius 17:28, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)
I still go for -um. I prefer to for every word that has an -on ending and comes from the Greek second declension neuter that it be changed into -um. That also makes it easier to decline in Latin. -Kedemus
- Kedame, you are hardly consistent. You want to translate Nickelodeon, but not Ellen?! There is no difficulty in declining, only the nominative and accusative singular are different than any normal second declension neuter. And unless you want to go all the way to Nickeltheatrum, I think, so would have a Roman been completely content to call a spade a spade. For me, this looks fine, and much better than Nickelodeum which honestly kind of makes me wince. Forthermore, albeit not too often, we still see -on in Latin words.--Ioshus (disp) 20:56, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
- Kedemus, are there other people who share your preferences? Sources ... you know. And why not Niccolodeum or even Odeum niccoli? What if I "prefer" the last one? --Rolandus 21:57, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
OK, on a philological level it scarcely makes a difference whether one says Nickelodeon or Nickelodeum: it is true, so far as I can tell, that the Latin form of ᾠδεῖον is only attested in classical authors in the form odēum. However, it is also true that words borrowed from Greek are almost always allowed to occur either with their original Greek morphology, or fully Latinized forms, varying as the author sees fit. For example, heleoselinon/heleoselinum, centaureum/centaurion, cinnamum/cinnamon, and so forth. So is there any reason to prefer one over the other? Well, the original author favores Nickelodeum, and so long as the form is not incorrect that carries some weight with me. But I think that is overruled by the fact that the form Nickelodeon is not only morphologically acceptable, but in fact exactly matches the companies actual name. Per VP:TNP we are supposed to avoid Latinizing the names of companies (at least in article titles, and of course Latin glosses are encouraged) unless they already have a Latin name. Nickelodeon allows us to get the best of both worlds: it is a perfectly good Latinization, and yet it is simultaniously the original English name of the company. --Iustinus 22:30, 4 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
Mene hanc paginam ad "Nickelodeon (canale)" movere licet? Paginam de theatris appellatis "Nickelodeon" creare volo. Gratias tibi ago. -- Secundus Zephyrus 05:50, 6 Iunii 2007 (UTC)
When you or someone else creates the page on nickelodeon theatres, you can move this page to "Nickelodeon (canale)". However, until someone creates the page on theatres, most people associate this name with the channel and comparatively few people know it was a name for movie theatres, so until then we don't need to move it. For the article about movie theatres titled "Nickelodeon", do you want it to only be about the early movie theatres or about movie theatres in general? Because for movie theatres I would suggest to use the word "cinema". --KedemusKedemus 02:59, 14 Iunii 2007 (UTC)