Disputatio:Vasingtonia, C.C. - Vicipaedia

# Disputatio:Vasingtonia, C.C.

### E Vicipaedia

## [recensere] Campus Columbiae aut Regio Columbiae

Should Campus Columbiae of Regio Columbiae be used?Davus618 00:46, 16 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

- In Caroli Egger LEXICON NOMINVM LOCORVM "Territorium Columbianum" (n.) nomen est.D Ambulans 01:06, 16 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Smith et Hall Heroopolis, -is, f. habent. Formula:William Smith Alex1011 12:30, 20 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

The basic sense of campus is 'plain, field'. In recollection & honor of the Campus Martius at Rome, the Campus in the District of Columbia is obviously the Mall, no? IacobusAmor

## [recensere] Dies Annique

Cur haec res diebus annisque Romanis utitur? Ut difficile legere fiat? Sine usu, mea sententia, est. Sinister Petrus 03:42, 20 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

  Consentio scilicet. Paginae quae Americae important tam in statibus malissimis sunt, ut modo cogitatio eas emendare conandi caput meum permaxime doleat...--Ioshus Rocchio 06:35, 20 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
    Proh dolor! Mihi caput dolens tuum diplicet. Etiam dies annique mutati sunt. Sinister Petrus 01:15, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
      The precedence from other wikis is to follow the formatting that was origionally used in the article. I have reverted the changes in accordance with that. Davus618 18:15, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
    I have reverted your changes in accordance with our policies.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:16, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
      I assume good face and that you mean Vicipaedia's policies by "our policies;" however I did not see the policy you are refering to. The Auxilium pro editione points one to other wikipedias for editing styles. Based both on Wikipedia's stance on CE/BCE vs. AD/BC and on the Auxilium pro editione article's section on dates I would conclude that keeping Roman dates in the system is the correct course of action. Davus618 18:26, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
        I agree, I did not see it either on page Auxilium pro editione (latine) ;-) But there is a reference to Vicipaedia:Numeri Romani. And I see, you haven't been officially welcomed yet, so I did it on your talk page. ;-) --Roland (disp.) 20:03, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
          Hey! I've not been officially welcomed either. ;) Sinister Petrus 20:08, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)--Ioshus Rocchio 20:17, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
    Interjecting here, you may both agree, but it most certainly does address roman dates, saying them to be both "unwieldly and unsightly".--Ioshus Rocchio 20:15, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
      It also specifically says that Roman dates can be used "if wanted." Davus618 20:51, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC) P.S. I reformatted the thread so it would be more logical--hopefully no one minds.
    I certainly don't mind. As I said, it may need a rewrite. The problem again is that this is not a roman wikipedia. The old style of dates went out of practice in the christian era. There isn't much practical use for them these days.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:05, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
      The article Ioannes Bosco contains the Roman numeral MDCCCMXV. I think that's an example of the unwieldiness that Ioshus decries, not least because I can't figure it out! IacobusAmor 21:23, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

    Right, "arabic" numerals are in use for a reason.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:01, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

      Indo-Arabic numerals are used for complicated numbers in Roman numbers such as the one the IacobusAmor pointed out (however that numeral makes no sense); however, this is nothing supporting the use of I nor 1 instead of the other. Davus618 04:09, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

    Same principle though. Who wants to subtract 753 years from every date they see. Same principle for lower case letters and punctuation. It's the modern mode. I feel your desire for an antiquated feel, but so few people read roman numerals well, and fewer know the roman date system.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:14, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
      Truth be told, I have had to look for most of the Roman dates on the days of the year articles I've written. Not that I can't figure them out, but it's never been important enough to be more than a curiosity to aware of and understand in rough outline. There is no way I'd recognize any dates other than the Kalends or their pridie or the Ides of March (and no other month). Sinister Petrus 05:25, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

        I move:
          (1) that all dates throughout Vicipaedia take either of the forms "31 Augusti 2006" and "31 Aug. 2006," with "a.C.n." and "p.C.n." added only when disambiguation is necessary;
          (2) except that dates that occurred during, and were pertinent to, the lives of ancient Romans, or their imitators in later ages, may in parentheses take the form prescribed by the Roman system, in any of several styles, which may vary as appropriate, thus:
            28 March 58 a.C.n. (a. d. V Kal. Apr. DCLXXXVI AUC)
            28 March 58 a.C.n. (ad diem quintum Kalendas Aprilis DCLXXXVI ab urbe condita)
            28 March 58 a.C.n. (ad diem quintum Kalendas Aprilis DCLXXXVI anno urbis conditae)
            28 March 58 a.C.n. (a. d. V Kal. Apr., L. Pisone A. Gabinio coss.)
            28 March 58 a.C.n. (ad diem quintum Kalendas Aprilis, Lucio Pisone Aulo Gabinio consulibus);
          (3) and that dates may in parentheses take the forms prescribed by other calendars where appropriate.
        A punctuational nuance: for about fifty years, American genealogists (of whom there are millions) have been omitting the period after abbreviations in dates; consequently, the form "31 Aug 2006" may be acceptable to many, but it should probably not be in free variation with "31 Aug. 2006" (with the period): professional copyeditors would prefer that an encyclopedia use one form or the other. IacobusAmor 14:03, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
    I addend that BCE and CE should have Latin translations, but agree that BC and AD or in our case ACN or PCN are antiquated and should be replaced by common era/before common era. I do not want to think about Christ every time I write a date. I move not to abbreviate the month, but write out 31 Augusti 2006, duing away with the punctuational nuance. Also agree that it is appropriate to include in parentheses roman style dates if we are talking about ancient romans, or as Iacobus says, their imitators.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:44, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
      I agree with the observation about Christ: putting Christ in dates offends many, possibly a majority of the people in the world. Is there an acceptable Latin translation for "(Before) Common Era", one that would be obvious to ignoramuses—that is, one that would use the initials (B)CE? For Common, we could have Communis, -e; but Era is apparently a late Latin metaphor (drawn from aera), and the Romans might have preferred something like Aevum IacobusAmor 14:50, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

    Sententias sursum scriptas movi ad Vicipaedia:Tabernam.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:13, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

        While your proposal is somewhat reasonable I suggest you propose it in the propper place--with some changes I might support it. For now, there is no such rule prohibiting the use of Roman dates in an article. If you can not show anything to suport the changing of Roman dates to Gregorian than the article should be reverted (unless of course you can also show that the Vicipaedia does not follow the rules of other wikis in absense of any such rules here as supported by the AUXILIUM PRO EDITIONE section in the help article.) Davus618 17:41, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
  It is in the proper place, now, Dave.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:35, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Receptum de "http://la.wikipedia.org../../../v/a/s/Disputatio%7EVasingtonia%2C_C.C._2aa9.html"

##### Views

- Res
- Disputatio
- Emendatio recentissima

##### Quaerere