Acadēmīa:Cūria: Difference between revisions
Logodaedalus (talk | contribs) (→References: Reply) |
(→References: Reply) |
||
Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
:Can you explain your reasoning? One of the purposes of our dictionary is to document language usage. If a word is used in the Latin Wikipedia, it seems worthy of inclusion. At least the Vicipaedia is one of the most comprehensive sites in Latin. [[User:Jācōbus|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus|talk]]) 13:13, 21 February 2023 (CET) | :Can you explain your reasoning? One of the purposes of our dictionary is to document language usage. If a word is used in the Latin Wikipedia, it seems worthy of inclusion. At least the Vicipaedia is one of the most comprehensive sites in Latin. [[User:Jācōbus|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus|talk]]) 13:13, 21 February 2023 (CET) | ||
::What I mean is that we should cite authoritative sources like dictionaries, vocabularies, books et cetera. [[User:Logodaedalus|Logodaedalus]] ([[User talk:Logodaedalus|talk]]) 13:24, 21 February 2023 (CET) | ::What I mean is that we should cite authoritative sources like dictionaries, vocabularies, books et cetera. [[User:Logodaedalus|Logodaedalus]] ([[User talk:Logodaedalus|talk]]) 13:24, 21 February 2023 (CET) | ||
:::I think that is a difficult task to limit the work to authoritative dictionaries only. The problem is that the dictionaries are terribly outdated (this is one of the reasons for the Acadēmīa Latīnitātis in the first place). For this very reason, I think it's okay to include words that are already in common use but not yet documented in a dictionary. The Latin Wikipedia is a strong indication that people are using these words. Therefore my opinion to this is: {{Dissentiō}}. | |||
:::I would suggest we wait to see what the others have to say on the matter. Then we can still decide. [[User:Jācōbus|Jācōbus]] ([[User talk:Jācōbus|talk]]) 13:36, 21 February 2023 (CET) |
Revision as of 13:36, 21 February 2023
Purpose:
How decisions are made:
How to create a topic:
How to react to a topic:
End of debate:
Metadebates:
Archiving:
|
References
I don't know if this is the right forum, but here's the thing. I don't think Wikipedia should be used in the reference section of a word. Logodaedalus (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2023 (CET)
- Can you explain your reasoning? One of the purposes of our dictionary is to document language usage. If a word is used in the Latin Wikipedia, it seems worthy of inclusion. At least the Vicipaedia is one of the most comprehensive sites in Latin. Jācōbus (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2023 (CET)
- What I mean is that we should cite authoritative sources like dictionaries, vocabularies, books et cetera. Logodaedalus (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2023 (CET)
- I think that is a difficult task to limit the work to authoritative dictionaries only. The problem is that the dictionaries are terribly outdated (this is one of the reasons for the Acadēmīa Latīnitātis in the first place). For this very reason, I think it's okay to include words that are already in common use but not yet documented in a dictionary. The Latin Wikipedia is a strong indication that people are using these words. Therefore my opinion to this is: Dissentiō .
- I would suggest we wait to see what the others have to say on the matter. Then we can still decide. Jācōbus (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2023 (CET)
- What I mean is that we should cite authoritative sources like dictionaries, vocabularies, books et cetera. Logodaedalus (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2023 (CET)