Appendix talk:English words by Latin antecedents
A note, just for reference (everything is fine, but this is a bit complicated).
On 2010–04–22, I merged this page’s history with that of User:Dan Polansky/English derivations, at the request of Dan Polansky. The reason is that in 2008–Dec (early), Dan had copied and pasted the content to his user page, then made all edits there – thus the edit history was in two pieces, which he (reasonably) wanted to merge.
Dan is by far the most significant contributor, and didn’t edit the original page after copying to his user page, so the merge is almost a perfect stitch.
There were however 6 subsequent edits:
- 5 on 2009 September 30 by 22.214.171.124, between 10:40 and 12:22
- 1 on 2010 March 13 by SemperBlotto at 9:32 (minor),
which make the edit history slightly confusing (there are a few 12k page versions sprinkled within the history).
As you can see, the differences are all minor formatting/linking, except for the addition of lingua. However, Dan has subsequently added lingua, so nothing is lost by only using Dan’s revisions.
Thus, the merged page is fine, and the merger is why there are 6 weird page revisions.
- I did not really want the two pages merged; this was a misunderstanding. But the merging is okay, provided the scope of the page is enlarged from nouns to other parts of speech. I have renamed "Appendix:Latin nouns with English derivatives" to "Appendix:Latin words with English derivatives", to match the scope of my page that has been merged into it. If someone has an issue with the new page, let us hope the steps can be undone. --Dan Polansky 06:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This is really a hodgepodge page. The English words are not listed by the Latin word from which they come, but rather by the Latin root word from which Latin words came, which then gave rise to English. For example agriculture is listed under ager, even though it comes from Latin agricultura. The title is thus misleading, especially given how we use "Derived terms" here. The page might be better titled "Latin antecedents of English words". --EncycloPetey 15:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- The name "Latin antecedents of English words" sounds good. What do you think of the alternative names "English words by Latin antecedents" and "English words by their Latin antecedents"? --Dan Polansky 16:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Those options are also possible, but the page is organized by the Latin, so whatever title should convey that somehow, if possible. --EncycloPetey 20:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Re: I have moved the page to the name "Appendix:English words by Latin antecedents", a title that conveys that the page is organized by Latin AFAICS. Let me know if this is not okay with you. --Dan Polansky 10:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If anyone ever comes up with the idea of deleting this page, then please move this page to my user namespace instead. --Dan Polansky 09:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
This is really messy, poorly executed, and overall a "hodgepodge page" (as EP put it). But it shouldn't be improved, because it doesn't really make sense as a lexicographical project, even for our appendices; the 'Descendants' and 'Etymology' sections of individual entries should (and do) serve this function instead. It should be moved back into userspace, namely Dan Polansky's, since at least part of it once was located there and he requested on the talkpage that it should be moved there should it be removed from the Appendix namespace. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep it in the Appendix namespace; if not that, move to my user space. I find it very nice and useful, serving as an analogue of a thesaurus, albeit not for semantic relations but for genetic relations. It is really a portion of the prospective Related terms section of the mainspace, but relatively complete--as far as Latin etymons go--and in one place. The evaluative claims above (e.g. "messy", "poorly executed") are not supported by any verifiable descriptive statements. The appendix cannot be "moved back to mainspace", since (a) no material was removed from mainspace in its making, and (b) in its making, I used material that is not in mainspace at all, including Century 1911. Even if this were just a single-page report on what can be in the mainspace, this report cannot be produced from today's state of the mainspace since the base information is not there. Those who claim otherwise should show a script or automated method for producing this report. Even if the script is made (a huge if), the results of the script are not automatically available to the reader, unlike the appendix. Those who find this report uninteresting should consider that others can find it interesting. From what I remember, a similar page used to be at http://www.bartleby.com/61, suggesting that Bartleby readers found interest in this type of report at least at the time; a link to bartleby is still in Appendix:Latin verbs (A to K). --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- RFDO kept as no consensus after a year. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)