E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rus'[fontem recensere]

If someone wants to write the article about the Rus', the period Greek name for them seems to be Ῥῶς (indecl.), adjective Ῥωσικός, which will Give Latin Rhos (indecl.), Rhosicus. They were also called, classicizingly, Tauroscythae. --Iustinus 16:47, 31 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Ooh! Some Latin sources too! See en:The Rus#Western European sources. --Iustinus 16:52, 31 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Milites Crudelissimi[fontem recensere]

The second sentence seems to be very POV --LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 20:29, 9 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

Restituere necesse est[fontem recensere]

This page just was moved with the argument movit Vicingus ad Vicingi: paginae gentium semper in pluralia sunt. IMO this argument is irrelevant, since the vikings did not constitute a people. The page should be moved back to Vicingus. Georgius B 18:16, 29 Martii 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. Singular where possible...--Ioshus (disp) 18:19, 29 Martii 2007 (UTC)
Then maybe we could have a page vicingus saying what a viking was and then we could have a page like Gestae Vicingorum or Historia Normannorum or something like that with most of the content of this page, the history of the viking period and the viking raids--Xaverius 18:59, 29 Martii 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the page seems to have stayed at "Vicingi" (pl). I think this is right. They were groups of people: you could hardly be a Viking on your own. You could decide to go viking, that's true, but you would need a boatful of companions. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 2 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

Added reference[fontem recensere]

I don't understand the reference to "Carolus Du Cange et al., Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis, 1887, p. 313". That's a Greek dictionary: so what is the Greek word for Viking that's being cited here? Question 2 would be how it comes on page 313 when du Cange's Greek dictionary, in the only edition I know, is so much bigger than that. Maybe the intention was to cite one of the volumes of the revised version of du Cange's Latin dictionary? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:35, 29 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I copied the text from the formula. I didn't know, there was also a Lexicon Graecitatis. In my defense, it's a little odd that the Lexicon Graecitatis has its own formula and the Latinitatis doesn't.--Chris1981 15:35, 29 Augusti 2010 (UTC)
We ought to have one, no doubt. Maybe including a link to an online version. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:40, 29 Augusti 2010 (UTC)

De titulo[fontem recensere]

Ita, fortasse recte "viccingi"; sed oportet fontem citare mediaevalem, si sit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:27, 2 Octobris 2010 (UTC)

Nonne Vicingi, forma extra Vicipaediam usitatissima, praeferenda sit formae Viccingi, prius quidem attestatae sed extra Vicipaediam minus usitatae? Neander (disputatio) 18:31, 4 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

Varaegi[fontem recensere]

Unde "Varaegi"? Certe non a Graeco citato quod est Οὐαράγγοι > Varangi. --Iustinus (disputatio) 06:15, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)