Disputatio:Auctores Latini hodierni

I had not intended to categorize the authors on the list by nationality, but by organization or school of thought. For instance, the Latinists who regularly come to the Conventiculum Latinum Lexintoninese tend to have a very different philosophy and style than those of the Saarbrücken Societas Latina, so it seemed useful to group them that way. --Iustinus 20:26, 4 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Notability is becoming an issue here. I think it should be obvious that the threashold for inclusion of a modern Latin author has to be much lower here than it would be on, say, the English wikipedia. However, when I first conceived this page, my main criterion for inclusion was essentially whether or not they had any published work (this was only a rough guideline though, as e.g. Stephanus Berard and David Morgan hadn't really published anything major when I added them, but given theoverwhelming importance of David's future Lexicon, and the fact that Stephanus founded a Conventiculum—not to mention his Vita Nostra, which I suspect will be very influential when it's finally published—I thought such exceptions were warrented). This criterion was important, because otherwise what's to stop me from including myself? ;) Now there are an increasing number of articles about Modern Latinists, and some are less notable than others. E.g. should everyone mentioned at Vivarium Novum really get their own link? My initial answer was "no," but it is hard to deny, for instance, that Arturus Tabaku is a major figure at a major school of spoken Latin. So I guess it's time to open up the debate here.

How should we decide this? --Iustinus 20:49, 15 Septembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De latinitate Vicipaediae

ok on the navigation bar that is in the articles, it shouldnt be celare it should be cela because cela is the command form, celare means "to hide" -- Usor:207.166.7.200

Responsum vide hic: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Latinitas Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:24, 15 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pater Caelestis

151.73.107.29 13:55, 7 Septembris 2016 (UTC) Miror quod nil hic de patre Caelesti Eichenseer dicitur.[reply]

Veniam peto. Video nunc prolixam hic esse de patre Caelesti symbolam, seu potius vocem. 151.73.107.29 14:42, 7 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Die 11 Decembris 2023 — Estne haec pagina ad “Auctores Latini hodierni” movenda?

Haec est disputatio petitoria Vicipaediae quae ad formulam {{Movenda}} attinet, die 11 Decembris 2023 paginae additam.

Nonne est pleonasticum “neo-” et “hodierni” simul scribere? --Grufo (disputatio) 13:43, 11 Decembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mea mente, "sermo Neolatinus" dicit "post litteras renascentes", scriptis botanicis scientificisque exclusis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:03, 11 Decembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ita. Ergo “Auctores Latini hodierni” sunt pars litterarum Neolatinarum, tamquam auctores Latini Humanesimi… --Grufo (disputatio) 16:41, 11 Decembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]