Disputatio:Res novae Octobres

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

We have just Revolutio Octobris Russica. --Rolandus 18:27, 14 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

For reasons discussed in Disputatio:Res novae I would prefer Commutatio Russiae anni 1917 vel sim.--Ceylon 19:31, 14 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
We can certainly move it/rename it to the nicer name. However, if we read on the english page, the october revolution was only the second phase of the russian revolution of 1917. So we still need a new page with the name Commutatio Russiae anni 1917 in addition to the renamed rerum eversio Octubris Russica page.--Rafaelgarcia 05:47, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest to merge the two (under the common denominator of Commutatio Russiae anni 1917). We shall never have as many pages as the English wikipedia. So it may be preferable to have one good substantial page on the Russian revolution which everybody can easily locate, rather than two stubs whose distinction will have to be explained over and over again. Here, as in other cases, we can solve the interwiki conflict by directing en:Russian Revolution of 1917 to Commutatio Russiae anni 1917, and en:October Revolution to a Redirect page named, e.g., Commutatio Octobris.--Ceylon 10:02, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
What you suggest, which sounds reasonable to me. Hwever, regarding the interwiki issue, Rolandus implied that a simple redirect would foul the bots, and it would necessary to create a standalone stub to accomplish.--Rafaelgarcia 12:09, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Motio[fontem recensere]

I moved the page to fit with Res Novae Russiae, to avoid the problems with the neologism revolutio, and since there was a source for "Res Novae Octobres". The Roman-esque adjectival use of octobris also appealed to me. But if someone prefers commutatio or eversio, I'd be fine with that too. Lesgles (disputatio) 01:50, 11 Iunii 2013 (UTC)