Disputatio:Spectaculum lusorium

Titulus[fontem recensere]

"Ludus spectaculus" nihil mihi dixit. An melius quam "Programma certationum" possumus, haud dubio! Titulus mihi ab Hispanis suggeritur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:51, 6 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bene. Etiam est spectaculum lusorium in Traupman.--Jondel (disputatio) 16:39, 6 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melius. "Spectaculum lusorium" praeferre oportet si in glossario reperitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:06, 6 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Optime. Fontem pono.--Jondel (disputatio) 11:58, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's University[fontem recensere]

Vide formulam in nota: Universitas Sanctis Iosephis. Quot Sanctis Iosephis dicatur universitas? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:53, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Illa qua est in Philadelphia (in Pennsylvania).--Jondel (disputatio) 13:21, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Iacobus is gently hinting, "Sanctis Iosephis" is dat./abl. plural, meaning "to the saints named Joseph". I'll have a look at the formula. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:47, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just fixed it (and rightly so, seeing where the error came from), but do we have a Latin source? Except for placenames, bibliographic citations are usually left in the original language. I think I do remember, though, at least one instance in a bibliography where Neander turned "University of California Press" into Latin. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:01, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that the current form is in (Chicago's) bibliographic style:

Traupman, Iohannes. 2007. Latin and English Dictionary. Ed. 3a. Philadelphia: St. Ioseph's University. ISBN 9780553590128.

(Chicago's) footnote style for the same item would be:

Iohannes Traupman, Latin and English Dictionary, ed. 3a. (Philadelphia: St. Joseph's University, 2007).

Footnote style forces bibliographic citations into a single sentence, whereas bibliography style separates the main parts with periods. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:07, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to citation style, none of us has been able to persuade others to accept a particular style -- maybe none of us has yet tried. Till that day comes, each editor has the privilege!

But, as to the language within a citation, we surely cannot admit any alternative to: author's name as on the publication; title as on the publication; publisher as on the publication; allowing abbreviations etc., as other bibliographies do. Any Latinization in these three "fields" can't be allowed, surely, because it could make the book (etc.) impossible to find, and therefore make the reference impossible to verify. Statements in Vicipaedia should be verifiable. I suspect you'd agree, mi Iacobe? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I created quite a large number of our bibliographical formulae (though not this one!) I am innocent of Chicago. My citation style is the same for footnotes and bibliography, which makes formula creation and the copy-pasting of references nice and simple. But if anyone wanted to urge that we should all use the same style, so long as there is somewhere on line where that style can be learned, I am open to persuasion :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:53, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that en-wiki still doesn't have a unified style. I agree with you about not Latinizing (though I myself have Latinized here and there, and people should be free to change those back). For me, the order of priority is: i) complete and usable bibliographic information, then ii) consistency within an individual article. As for iii) site-wide consistency, it's desirable but perhaps hard to carry out. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:17, 8 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I missed out on the hints. I still have far to go.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:57, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]