Talk:Tentamen

Not a disambiguation page
A page which comprises one link and two unlinked (though sourced) dictionary defintions is not a disambiguation page. Dictionary definitions belong in Wiktionary. It may be that it is possible to write a valid article at the title "Tentamen", but until that is done I believe that this page should continue to be the valid, long-standing, redirect to Tentamun. I have reverted again. Pam D  22:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought that since the page clears up ambiguities it could rightly be categorised as a disambiguation page - however, I bow to your superior knowledge. Your original objection to my edit was that it added two unsourced dictionary definitions. On my next edit I added sources, but you then changed the goalposts. That a particular version of this page has been 'longstanding' does not have any compelling merit. I feel it is important that a page titled 'Tentamen' should note its various meanings and accordingly am reverting. Paul venter (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation page directs readers to two or more Wikipedia articles which the term they choose may refer to. A dictionary distinguishes meanings of words. A wikipedia article might be about "Tentamen" in one of its senses, or might be a study of the word "Tentamen" if it has a notable history, etymology, uses, etc beyond what a dictionary would include. I shouldn't have included the word "unsourced": one link and two dictionary definitions do not make a dab page. But as we aren't arriving at any agreement here I've dropped a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation to ask for other eyes to look at it. Pam  D  12:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I had fondly hoped that we might resolve our differences by amicable discussion, but your appeal for support from other sources turns the issue into a political football and that rarely leads to an equitable solution. I also noted that only I received a friendly warning about edit-warring....... Aaron Swartz was quite correct. Paul venter (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fondly engaging additional opinions is an amicable (and very Wikipedia) way to resolve differences. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you say so.....Paul venter (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. Information on the other topics' being known as "tentamen" would need to exist on Wikipedia before Wikipedia disambiguation is needed; if you feel it is important, please create these articles or add the information to existing articles prior to disambiguating them. These are the long-standing goalposts of Wikipedia disambiguation. Wikipedia disambiguation pages do not clear up world-wide ambiguities or Internet-wide ambiguities, just Wikipedia-wide ambiguities. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Concerning the usage of tentamen to mean "examination", I find no trace of it being used in this sense in English. The dictionary source provided is for the word in Dutch, where tentamen means "examination of a student's knowledge" (it has the same meaning in Swedish, which is my native language). But the only meaning of the word in English that I find, when consulting the OED, is "An attempt, trial, experiment". Merriam-Webster doesn't mention it at all, nor does the Encyclopedia Britannica.  For this reason I do not think that this definition of the term belongs in en.wikipedia at all, since the word doesn't carry this meaning in English. --bonadea contributions talk 11:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Tentamen' is neither a Dutch nor a Swedish word - it is Latin and translates as proof, trial, test, try or fit. In previous centuries Latin was the universal academic language and understood by all educated people irrespective of their home language. That the word has survived at all in Dutch and Swedish dictionaries must simply be seen as a relic of the countries' former academic glory. However, the term IS common in old books dealing with the natural sciences and in its wider sense DOES also mean 'examination', and since en.wikipedia deals not only with the current but also the historic, an explanation of this Latin word is certainly appropriate. Paul venter (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds like content for an article (its own or an appropriate existing one), which could then be disambiguated on the disambiguation page. Unless it's simply a dictionary definition, in which case it should go to Wiktionary, which deal not only with current dictionary definitions but also the historic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)