This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Sorry, I must have missed something. Taking into account that an article of the Romance languages exists, what is the separate topic of this article? Borsoka ( talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Afro-Eurasian (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The only reliable source defining the term "Latin peoples" clearly refers to the Hispanic and Latino Americans. According to Wikipedia:CFORK, "redundant or conflicting articles ... are to be avoided". Merging this article into the latter is the best solution. Borsoka ( talk) 05:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Source: http://books.google.ro/books?id=hosdAQAAMAAJ&q=%22latin+or+romance+peoples%22&dq=%22latin+or+romance+peoples%22&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=ok_5UrOUMcPWtQbx84DIBA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA (author: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Edward_Romilly_Boak) 79.117.186.27 ( talk) 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
There is such a mess here! Why do Latin people or Latins redirect here? Latin people is not the same with Latin peoples. Peoples means ethnic groups, while people means persons 79.117.186.27 ( talk) 23:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Identification of Latin people rose to prominence with Michel Chevalier contrasting the "Latin" peoples of the Americas with the "Anglo-Saxon" peoples there (text formerly existing in the article) is not the same with Chevalier contrasted the “Latin” peoples of the Americas with the “Anglo-Saxon” peoples ( text from the source) 86.127.13.169 ( talk) 15:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Should "Latin peoples" be renamed "Romance peoples" or "Romantic peoples"? I believe "Latin peoples" is an inappropriate term. For example, there are Hellenic peoples, Celtic peoples, Germanic peoples, Balto-Slavic peoples, Finno-Ugric peoples, etc. And I noticed there seems to have been a debate regarding which nations are "Latin", which I assume means Romanized culturally and/or linguistically. If not, then I don't think "Latin peoples" should even be an article because it makes no sense. So here's what I would generally consider "Romance peoples":
Any thoughts? Original European (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Instead of arguing about sources, let us first determine whether or not the article should be named "Latin peoples" or "Romance peoples". This article should definitely exist as there are other Indo-European articles regarding Celtic peoples, Germanic peoples, Slavic peoples, etc. But first let us determine the article's name. Original European (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I've found several sources that refer to Latin peoples in general and I've added some text [2]. Possibly there are also other available sources too. 79.117.168.195 ( talk) 06:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Seriously now User:Borsoka, aren't you able to read a source correctly or you are manipulating it on purpose? This dictionary entry http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/latin does not say that Latin peoples is the same with Roman Catholic peoples. It only says that Latin (and not Latin Peoples), in a certain context (for instance in this book), can be defined as of or relating to the part of the Catholic Church that until recently used a Latin rite and forms the patriarchate of the pope
On the other hand, I think that Latin people (Latins) can signify Roman Catholics. Latin people is not the same with Latin peoples. Peoples means ethnic groups, while people means persons 79.117.160.159 ( talk) 11:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
you can not just something deleted from the history!
Latin peoples must remain.
LATINOITALIANO the letters do not lie.
' 'non sono cretino neanch'un bambino parlo latino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcolinobiancino ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
you can not just something deleted from the history!
Latin peoples must remain.
LATINOITALIANO the letters do not lie.
' 'non sono cretino neanch'un bambino parlo latino
--
Marcolinobiancino (
talk)
09:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Latin peoples's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceA":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Latin peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
After 4 years, I again have to raise the questions: what is the subject of the article and which reliable sources define its subject? If we cannot verify the article with inline citations to reliable sources, we should delete it, as per WP:NOR. Borsoka ( talk) 10:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Surprisingly there was no consensus on the previous discussion some years ago to delete this article. It certainly qualifies for deletion by several criteria.
By merging this article elsewhere, we can solve the problems mentioned above without erasing the edit history. An excellent candidate for merger is Italic peoples, which essentially covers the same scope and is of better quality. Krakkos ( talk) 19:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Sorry, I must have missed something. Taking into account that an article of the Romance languages exists, what is the separate topic of this article? Borsoka ( talk) 16:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Afro-Eurasian (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The only reliable source defining the term "Latin peoples" clearly refers to the Hispanic and Latino Americans. According to Wikipedia:CFORK, "redundant or conflicting articles ... are to be avoided". Merging this article into the latter is the best solution. Borsoka ( talk) 05:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Source: http://books.google.ro/books?id=hosdAQAAMAAJ&q=%22latin+or+romance+peoples%22&dq=%22latin+or+romance+peoples%22&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=ok_5UrOUMcPWtQbx84DIBA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA (author: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Edward_Romilly_Boak) 79.117.186.27 ( talk) 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
There is such a mess here! Why do Latin people or Latins redirect here? Latin people is not the same with Latin peoples. Peoples means ethnic groups, while people means persons 79.117.186.27 ( talk) 23:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Identification of Latin people rose to prominence with Michel Chevalier contrasting the "Latin" peoples of the Americas with the "Anglo-Saxon" peoples there (text formerly existing in the article) is not the same with Chevalier contrasted the “Latin” peoples of the Americas with the “Anglo-Saxon” peoples ( text from the source) 86.127.13.169 ( talk) 15:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Should "Latin peoples" be renamed "Romance peoples" or "Romantic peoples"? I believe "Latin peoples" is an inappropriate term. For example, there are Hellenic peoples, Celtic peoples, Germanic peoples, Balto-Slavic peoples, Finno-Ugric peoples, etc. And I noticed there seems to have been a debate regarding which nations are "Latin", which I assume means Romanized culturally and/or linguistically. If not, then I don't think "Latin peoples" should even be an article because it makes no sense. So here's what I would generally consider "Romance peoples":
Any thoughts? Original European (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Instead of arguing about sources, let us first determine whether or not the article should be named "Latin peoples" or "Romance peoples". This article should definitely exist as there are other Indo-European articles regarding Celtic peoples, Germanic peoples, Slavic peoples, etc. But first let us determine the article's name. Original European (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I've found several sources that refer to Latin peoples in general and I've added some text [2]. Possibly there are also other available sources too. 79.117.168.195 ( talk) 06:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Seriously now User:Borsoka, aren't you able to read a source correctly or you are manipulating it on purpose? This dictionary entry http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/latin does not say that Latin peoples is the same with Roman Catholic peoples. It only says that Latin (and not Latin Peoples), in a certain context (for instance in this book), can be defined as of or relating to the part of the Catholic Church that until recently used a Latin rite and forms the patriarchate of the pope
On the other hand, I think that Latin people (Latins) can signify Roman Catholics. Latin people is not the same with Latin peoples. Peoples means ethnic groups, while people means persons 79.117.160.159 ( talk) 11:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
you can not just something deleted from the history!
Latin peoples must remain.
LATINOITALIANO the letters do not lie.
' 'non sono cretino neanch'un bambino parlo latino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcolinobiancino ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
you can not just something deleted from the history!
Latin peoples must remain.
LATINOITALIANO the letters do not lie.
' 'non sono cretino neanch'un bambino parlo latino
--
Marcolinobiancino (
talk)
09:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Latin peoples's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceA":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Latin peoples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
After 4 years, I again have to raise the questions: what is the subject of the article and which reliable sources define its subject? If we cannot verify the article with inline citations to reliable sources, we should delete it, as per WP:NOR. Borsoka ( talk) 10:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Surprisingly there was no consensus on the previous discussion some years ago to delete this article. It certainly qualifies for deletion by several criteria.
By merging this article elsewhere, we can solve the problems mentioned above without erasing the edit history. An excellent candidate for merger is Italic peoples, which essentially covers the same scope and is of better quality. Krakkos ( talk) 19:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)