Disputatio:Non Habere Colloquium Abhinc - Vicipaedia

# Disputatio:Non Habere Colloquium Abhinc

### E Vicipaedia

Is this really a band that deserves being listed or should it be deleted as a (self?-)advertisment. I just wonder whether the latin is worth being corrected.--Iovis Fulmen 07:21, 25 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

  I've never heard of them. Sounds like the scourge of modern music...EMO! Won't bother me to delete, if no one else wants it. Like you said, other things more worth the time.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:42, 25 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
    In my opinion it does not need much to deserve being listed. Can it be harmful to keep that article? Please see m:Wiki is not paper. I will add this link on Vicipaedia:Deletio. Maybe someone will improve it. Let's think in centuries. This is a Latin Vicipaedia, we have time. ;-) --Roland (disp.) 18:06, 25 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
      Often I've thought about nominating Roland for the Nobel Peace Prize, as he is always planning for the future and trying to diplomatically solve problems. I agree with most of what m:Wiki is not paper says, but there should also be Vicipaedia:Vici non est locus ubi libenter mala latinitate de rebus paginas quarum nemo recensere vel emelioari vult scribas. =] I do not wish to delete the content so much, here I think we can be much more flexible than Wikipedia is about what we actually allow people to write about, as I have already said. But if you are going to write with poor latin, you should do it about a topic, at the very least, that someone cares enough about to try and improve. It's not paper, but it is an encyclopaedia which I assume we want people to use as much for content as for exempla latinitatis.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:49, 25 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
        You have shown me a point which I have not seen that clear before: We should not have articles in bad Latin which have no chance to be improved. (Sounds obvious, but isn't.) What made me react like above was this smell of relevancy arguments. We really should have rules when to delete an article and when not. And I think we are special. We need special rules. For example, I do not think that relevancy is something an article has to have. Whoever throws this argument first, shall define relevancy. ;-) Relevancy - although I cannot say what it is - can be compensated by popularity or quality. Somemone might think it should be relevancy and and quality. I think on the very long run these different strategies will bring the same result, but the first is nicer. Moreover, I think we should avoid {{delenda}}. Alternatively we should tag articles differently. If we think that an article is written in bad Latin and has no chance to be improved, we should tag it with such a template. Then we should wait for such a long time, that we can be sure that really nobody is interested in improving this article. After this period has passed, the article can be silently deleted by policy and nobody will care about it. But the period should be much longer than these 7 days I know from other Wikipedias. Back to this article: I do not care much about this special article, but we should have an explicit set of rules how to treat such articles. --Roland (disp.) 20:14, 25 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

en: hasn't deleted it yet, and I hate to delete any article that has more substance than "Roma urbs est in Italia", but I have to say that I have some (probably unjustified) prejudice about articles on rock bands in Vicipaedia anyhow, particularly unknown ones - unless, perhaps they sing in latin! I think it would be fine to delete, though. --Tbook 22:22, 17 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Receptum de "http://la.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/n/Disputatio%7ENon_Habere_Colloquium_Abhinc_f389.html"

##### Views

- Res
- Disputatio
- Emendatio recentissima

##### Quaerere