Disputatio:Quercupolis

Um, I've always heard this city referred to as Quercopolis or Quercupolis. What's with the gentilic suffix? I suppose if we meant "The region of Oakland" then Quercopolitana makes some sense (though Quercopolites would make more sense: compare the Greek names of the nomes in Egypt). Quercopolitania is just plain silly in any case: I mean, how many suffixes do we need?? --Iustinus 22:49, 18 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a source, I really don't know what the right name of the city is one way or the other (vae mihi!). For what it's worth, the Catholic Church uses Quercopolitana as its diocese name. Which would make me think you're right about the name, since they usually use a regional name. Not having a access to a copy of Egger, I can't check anything. If it's in Egger, let me know somehow, and I'll cite it and move it to the proper name. Otherwise, I think I cleaned this up and removed some POV from the article. There was some crap about how Oakland has a bad reputation for lots of poor people and crime. While that may be true, it's not NPOV nor is it of "encyclopedia" value. Mei duo nummi. Sinister Petrus 03:36, 20 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's probably why they selected Quercopolitana then, not realizing it was an adjective modifying Dioecesis in that context. I hadn't bothered checking Egger, figuring if he left out Chicago he would leave out oakland ;) But Of ocurse, I was wrong:

Oakland
Quercupŏlis, is, f.
Est urbs in Foederatis Civitatibus Ameri-
cae Sept. sita.
Quercupolitani, orum; Quercepolitanus,
a, um (ex usu Curiae Romanae: querce-
politanus).

The forms in -u- aren't so strange, but I'm not sure I get the -e-'s. --Iustinus 15:03, 20 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fons ostentus est ut mota sit. Sinister Petrus 00:57, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)[reply]