Disputatio Formulae:Delenda

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Intro[fontem recensere]

Here's how I would do it. I haven't edited the actual article because frankly I am unsure how the code should be done:

Suasum est hanc paginam esse statim delendam. Si huic proposito dissentas, sententiam tuam, quaesumus, profer apud ______, sive apud Wikipedia:Speedy deletions.

Salve Iustine[fontem recensere]

You need to translate the "Candidates for speedy deletion" category name and the "it's talk page" and "speedy deletions" link texts - I'll do the code, but my latin is poor, and I couldn't do them myself http://web.nickshanks.com/images/emoticons/smile.png

p.s. I've been reading your live journal about the Conventiculum Latinum — only 45 people allowed in! You must be very good.

Salve, Nickshanks. Actually the omissions you mention are what I meant by "code." Part of the problem is that it seems best to say "it has been advised that this page be immediately deleted" rather than "this page is a candidate..." (unless someone can suggest a good Latin idiom for this. I don't think candidatus will cut it). This is all well and good until you get to the category name. Perhaps it should be "Deletiones Propositae" or something like that? I'm not really sure. As for "its talk page", I suggest "paginam suam disputationis". I'll make a couple of these edits myself.
As for the Conventiculum, far be it from me to convince people that I'm not "very good," but do not conclude from the (relatively) small size that we are the top forty-five Latinists in the world. In point of fact most of the participants are beginners who come to learn. --Iustinus 17:46 aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
I've uncommented the category now, but it doesn't yet exist, neither do the two pages about deletion. Who are the admins for Latin anyway? — Nicolaus
Me :) There are others but I don't know if they are ever around...in fact there really should be some more, I can't keep up with everything on my own, especially with such poor Latin. Adam Episcopus 05:59 aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

number of links on the template[fontem recensere]

By now we have four links on the template, that is quite a lot. A few thoughts:

In my view, we should at least make Vicipaedia:Cito Delenda a redirect to Vicipaedia:Deletiones Propositae, and we should find clear rules on how discussions on proposed deletions should proceed (thank you, Roland, for starting Vicipaedia:Deletio!).

Greetings, --UV 21:40, 5 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Where to give the reasons ...[fontem recensere]

When editing Vicipaedia:MediaWiki I realized that it might be a bad idea to give the reasons for deletion on the page itself, because you can't (i. e. should) simply delete the discussion when removing {{delenda}}. --Roland2 10:12, 17 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Valid point!
In my view, there are two possibilities:
  • add reasons to the page itself. If the page is not deleted, reasons should be moved to the talk page.
  • add reasons to the discussion page. If the page is deleted, the discussion page should in my view be deleted as well.
Personally, I have a slight preference for the first possibility, as it is simpler to handle (no need to look at two pages, just look at one page). --UV 12:50, 17 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
I believe original reason should be put on the front page, but continuation of dispute should move to discussion page, so as not to have a paragraph of deletion suggestions before the page even starts.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:56, 17 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Changes[fontem recensere]

Hmm.. I just noticed Neander's change to my original wording, from "Suasum est hanc paginam esse statim delendam" to "Suademus deleatur haec pagina." Naturally, I like my version better, but the only real problem I can find in the new phrasing is this: surely the change from "it has been suggested [by some unspecified agent]" to "we suggest" implies that Vicipaedia itself is making this suggestion? Or in any case it seems a lot more authoritative than the passive, and while the passive may be considered undesirable in formal English writing (for precisely that reason, I suppose), in this instance we really don't want it to sound too decisive. The template is a marker that draws attention to the problem, not a final ruling on it. --Iustinus 21:01, 12 Decembris 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is the impersonal use of suasum est? I suppose that might be unclassical, but it is ancient. Justinian, Institutes, 2.10 "...quod ab illis suasum est...." The construction also occurs in Iohannes Scotus Eriugena Div. Nat. 5.20-21, and the works of JP2. I know, not the best models of Latinity, but even if we're going to reject this construction, surely suadetur is worlds better than suademus. --Iustinus 14:28, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should make it "Suadeo"? Only one editor can place the template (though I suppose that editor might be a monarch in real life). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:43, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
Well, you don't have to be a monarch to use a "royal" we in Latin. You don't even have to think as highly of yoruself as Cicero did! But while suadeo removes the "officialness" problem, it's still awfully personal sounding. I repeat, if not suasum est, why not suadetur? --Iustinus 18:46, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
Or for that matter, some different word entirely, such as positum or subiectum est? --Iustinus 18:54, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)
Oho, sorry, I didn't notice this until now. Yes, I think I agree with Iustinus that my "Suademus ..." may have an unnecessarily authoritative tone in it. But "Suasum est ..." doesn't look too felicitous (esp. without an agent phrase). What about saying "Opinio est hanc paginam delendam esse" ? --Neander 22:18, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)