NovaRoma talk:Article Names - Revision history

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: Correction

2007-06-21T16:02:56Z

Correction

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:02, 21 June 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:
	That leaves the question of whether, and when, Arabic numerals should be used in Latin phrases or sentences. I think that is really a question about how the modern Latin language should be written, and as such is a question best decided by the Latin-speaking community, so I suggest that our polic be based on modern usage among Latin-speakers and on the opinions of informed speakers of the language. What that usage and those opinions are is something I shall try to discover.		That leaves the question of whether, and when, Arabic numerals should be used in Latin phrases or sentences. I think that is really a question about how the modern Latin language should be written, and as such is a question best decided by the Latin-speaking community, so I suggest that our polic be based on modern usage among Latin-speakers and on the opinions of informed speakers of the language. What that usage and those opinions are is something I shall try to discover.

−	I finally add the remark that there is a practical reason to minimize the use of Roman numerals: programmes which automatically place things in alphabetical lists are unable to distinguish Roman numerals from words, and therefore unhelpfully put them in alphabetical rather than numerical order (e.g. ~~I II~~ III IV IX ~~V VI~~ VII X = ~~1 2~~ 3 4 9 ~~5 6 7~~ 8 10).	+	I finally add the remark that there is a practical reason to minimize the use of Roman numerals: programmes which automatically place things in alphabetical lists are unable to distinguish Roman numerals from words, and therefore unhelpfully put them in alphabetical rather than numerical order (e.g. III II IV IX I VIII VII VI V X = 3 2 4 9 1 8 7 6 5 10).

	- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 17:53, 21 June 2007 (CEST)		- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 17:53, 21 June 2007 (CEST)

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: Roman and Arabic numerals

2007-06-21T15:53:00Z

Roman and Arabic numerals

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 21 June 2007
Line 10:		Line 10:
	* It encourages people to think of the names of ''leges'' in a more Roman way (i.e. as simple factual descriptions rather than "titles").		* It encourages people to think of the names of ''leges'' in a more Roman way (i.e. as simple factual descriptions rather than "titles").
	- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 11:11, 31 August 2006 (CDT)		- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 11:11, 31 August 2006 (CDT)
		+
		+	== Roman and Arabic numerals ==
		+
		+	As far as I can discover there is currently no general policy on when to use Roman numerals and when to use Arabic numerals. There is only a specific policy of using Roman numerals to writes dates AUC. I suggest we should decide and publish a general policy.
		+
		+	As for what the policy should be, I suggest that when the surrounding text is in any language other than Latin all numbers should be written in Arabic numerals (unless written out in letters, of course). No modern language uses Roman numerals in preference to Arabic numerals, and there can be no good reason to use Roman numerals in the middle of a passage of English, Spanish, or German text.
		+
		+	That leaves the question of whether, and when, Arabic numerals should be used in Latin phrases or sentences. I think that is really a question about how the modern Latin language should be written, and as such is a question best decided by the Latin-speaking community, so I suggest that our polic be based on modern usage among Latin-speakers and on the opinions of informed speakers of the language. What that usage and those opinions are is something I shall try to discover.
		+
		+	I finally add the remark that there is a practical reason to minimize the use of Roman numerals: programmes which automatically place things in alphabetical lists are unable to distinguish Roman numerals from words, and therefore unhelpfully put them in alphabetical rather than numerical order (e.g. I II III IV IX V VI VII X = 1 2 3 4 9 5 6 7 8 10).
		+
		+	- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 17:53, 21 June 2007 (CEST)

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: Answer about underscores

2006-08-31T16:39:02Z

Answer about underscores

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 31 August 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Under GENERAL, is there a rule about using the underbar instead of spaces? If so, shouldn't we spell that out?		Under GENERAL, is there a rule about using the underbar instead of spaces? If so, shouldn't we spell that out?
		+
		+	:I think the wiki automatically substitutes underscores when you type spaces anyway, so it doesn't matter too much. - [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 11:39, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

	==Capital letters in titles of ''leges''==		==Capital letters in titles of ''leges''==

Aulus Apollonius Cordus: Discussion about capital letters

2006-08-31T16:11:51Z

Discussion about capital letters

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:11, 31 August 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Under GENERAL, is there a rule about using the underbar instead of spaces? If so, shouldn't we spell that out?		Under GENERAL, is there a rule about using the underbar instead of spaces? If so, shouldn't we spell that out?
		+
		+	==Capital letters in titles of ''leges''==
		+
		+	At Agricola's suggestion, I'll move the discussion here from the wiki e-mail list. To recap, my view is that the policy for the titles of ''leges'' should be the same as the policy for article-titles in general: all lower-case except for the initial letters of proper nouns. In practice this means the only capital letter will be the first letter of the name of the proposing magistrate, e.g. ''[[lex Popillia senatoria (Nova Roma)\|lex Popillia senatoria]]''. The arguments in favour of this are:
		+	* It's in line with the policy for other article-titles;
		+	* It's closer to Roman practice (i.e. no distinction between capitals and lower-case at all);
		+	* It encourages people to think of the names of ''leges'' in a more Roman way (i.e. as simple factual descriptions rather than "titles").
		+	- [[User:Aulus Apollonius Cordus\|Cordus]] 11:11, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

M. Lucretius Agricola at 06:20, 28 February 2006

2006-02-28T06:20:31Z

New page

Under GENERAL, is there a rule about using the underbar instead of spaces? If so, shouldn't we spell that out?