Disputatio:Ventus
Fons[fontem recensere]
Nescio quare haec pagina "non stipula" sit. Summarium mutationis dicit "Source?" sed verbum "ventus" sane latinum est, apud Ciceronem et Caesarem inventum. Quid ergo scribendum est? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:28, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Commentarius fonte definitionis nostra aetate scripto caret. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:57, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Pro mea parte formulas q.s. "Vicificanda" et "Scientia dubia" addidi, quod paretymologias Isidoreas garrulitate puerili miscet. Neander (disputatio) 15:16, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Ha! Ego fontem convenientem (quamvis Anglicum) addidi. Pagina nunc stipula est, etiamsi vicificanda et scientiá dubiá! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:22, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Anne, to be clear, I think the current "rules" for stipulae require an external source either for the Latin word (especially important for non-classical vocabulary), or for the subject itself. This article may technically qualify because of the classical sources and text copied from Isidore, but it wasn't obvious. I agree that the Isidorean material needs to be dealt with; maybe it can be reduced to a section on "antiquae notiones" or something like that. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:01, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- That's it. One might say "a page of this length could stand on its own with no citations" but Neander's judgment (with which I agree!) shows that even a page of this length may be of low usefulness to a reader. A handy, helpful external link makes it that much more useful in a trice.
- So I'd say Iacobus was quite right to mark it "Non stipula". In fact it wasn't so easy to find an obviously useful link to add. I usually find something good on de:wiki or fr:wiki. Nothing in this case. So I had to fall back on en:wiki, and even there not a lot.
- Rewriting would of course improve the page massively, but that takes longer than adding a link. The link I provided might help the rewriter, who knows? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 30 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I've added the definition from en; magna ex parte may or may not be right for 'on a large scale', but others can fix that. It wasn't absolutely uncertain where the adaptation from Isidore began, but I've made a quick guess. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:38, 30 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Anne, to be clear, I think the current "rules" for stipulae require an external source either for the Latin word (especially important for non-classical vocabulary), or for the subject itself. This article may technically qualify because of the classical sources and text copied from Isidore, but it wasn't obvious. I agree that the Isidorean material needs to be dealt with; maybe it can be reduced to a section on "antiquae notiones" or something like that. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:01, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Ha! Ego fontem convenientem (quamvis Anglicum) addidi. Pagina nunc stipula est, etiamsi vicificanda et scientiá dubiá! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:22, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)
- Pro mea parte formulas q.s. "Vicificanda" et "Scientia dubia" addidi, quod paretymologias Isidoreas garrulitate puerili miscet. Neander (disputatio) 15:16, 29 Martii 2016 (UTC)