Talk:QVES
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (permalink).
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.
Request for undeletion (cp. WT:Sysop deleted#What if I think the deletion was wrong?).
SemperBlotto deleted the entry with "Bad entry title" (SemperBlotto's personal opinion?) as reason and without having a RFD for it and as far as I know without moving it or anything else. Note also that SemperBlotto did not remove links to the entry QVES from other entries, likely SemperBlotto did not even check the "What links here" page, thus leaving links to the by SemperBlotto deleted QVES in other entries.
The word was cited as "QVES" from the senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus from CIL and L&S s.v. quis spells it "QVES" too which was added under ===References===. By the cite it is attested passing WT:Criteria for inclusion as Latin and especially Old Latin is a Limited Documentation Language (LDL) and not a Well Documented Language (WDL). The entry also does not fall under WT:Page deletion guidelines as it was no rubbish or garbage, not misspelled, no protologism, no self-promotion, no licence or copyright violation, and it does not fall under WT:Sysop deleted#Bad entry title as the title wasn't "bad" as it was no misspelling, did not contain a formating error (like two spaces instead of one), and was no error by not knowing wiktionary's case sensitivity (of which one is often reminded by "WARNING! The title you are using may be wrong. Remember that Wiktionary is case sensitive."). In the contrary, the entry was useful, cited and came with an example and with a translation. And it was a real example, not just a mentioning of places where it was used like in some Greek entries, and it was cited from a reliable durable archived source and not from an internet page which includes wiki projects like wikipedia, wiktionary and wikisoure. Furthermore, besides attestation and the reference, there are other reasons why this spelling makes sense: It emphasises that the word is old and from an inscription, and it conceals the vowel length. In Classical Latin it could have been *quēs (qu- with -ēs from the third declension), but in Old Latin it could have been different; see e.g. the Greek third declension plural ending -ες (-es) and Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-tōr with -tor in (Classical) Latin, but with the reconstruction *-tōr and Greek -τωρ (-tōr) which means before or in early Latin the ō was shortend to o which means there were sound changes before or in early Latin. In wiktionary however "ques" without macron would mean that the vowel is short but that's not necessarily correct and I don't have any reference to support this, or any other vowel length. The only shortcoming the entry might have had, was that the inscription contains abbreviations and errors like "VTR A" for "VERBA" and "SENATORBVS" for "SENATORIBVS" and I didn't bother to give other references - which do exist - for non-abbreviated forms or for corrections. A non-reliable source for it would be w:Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus#Text which compared with CIL and wiki's picture also contains unmarked corrections like "BACANAL" (line 3) for "SACANAL". -84.161.7.226 21:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Latin (and, as far as I know, Old Latin) entries are entered in lowercase, not in all-uppercase (except in cases like SPQR); I'll restore and move the page. Note that Old Latin has its own language code here,
itc-ola. - -sche (discuss) 02:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)