Disputatio:10
E Vicipaedia
For standardisation, this article should refer only to the year 10 A.D. (with link - like the "decem" that it already has - to any other sorts of "10"). Currently that's not clear. Format for 2000 could perhaps be adapted, once we find a consensus on how to describe B.C. decades and centuries etc. Other small numbers need the same clarification. Robin Patterson 09:50 nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
CalRis25 13:14 nov 18, 2004 (UTC): We've had that before. The canonical way concerning names of articles about years is given in the Wikipedia:Auxilium pro editione (latine) article. Of course, this is not the one hundred per-cent dead-sure, ideal, sacrosanct and perfect and correct way, but a decision had to be made. So please don't renew the discussion on how to properly indicate years.
As far as the distinction between number-articles and year articles are concerned, see the uppermost bit of Disputatio Usoris:CalRis25/Temp 2.
- Most of us who care about such things (including CalRis25, I think) seem to have moved past "the uppermost bit of Disputatio Usoris:CalRis25/Temp 2" now - see Disputatio_Wikipedia:Auxilium_pro_editione_(anglice) - unless the "latine" (which I have not examined in detail) has changed it again but without anyone making the "anglice" match it. I am sorry if the main point of my nov 18 comment (the first sentence) was missed because the second sentence contained a "query" (which was very soon answered elsewhere and which would not even have been raised if someone had pointed me in the right direction a few weeks earlier). Now please ignore my second "nov 18" sentence above, except for the first seven words.
- So - the article called "10" is talking about the year 10 AD but may link to "decem" etc. OK?
- And "476" has a more up-to-date version of what may become a template. Vivant imperatores!
- Robin Patterson 01:16 dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
[recensere] Nexus circulare
(Non multo latine scribeo; apologiae!! (studens 1954-1959))
Click "decem" and you see this:
"10
"(Redirectum de Decem)
"Pro numero, vide s.v. decem"
We therefore (as I would probably have seen while composing my November and December messages if I had not blindly trusted previous editors) have a circular linkage and an unfortunately misleading first sentence.
Semble, nobody yet thinks the number "Decem" is worth being the subject of an article. A pity, because it is (as "X") a not insignificant part of the structure of Latin numeration and a month name and is the base of the "Arabic" numeral system. Vide en:10_(number), exempli gratia, which someone could translate into a useful "Decem" article.
I may edit "Decem" (though I would be pleased if someone else beat me to it) to convert the redirect into a mere reference link and write a little "stipular" text in the hope that someone else can greatly expand it along the suggested translation line.
Robin Patterson 00:14 ian 19, 2005 (UTC)
