Disputatio:Immobile

message: There doesn't seem to be that much to say here beyond the definition, unless we want to get into the laws of particular jurisdictions.  The term is standard (Morgan).
replies: text: Hic commentarius est stipula vera? Ubi est "Nexus extra-Vicipaedianus (sive et fons bibliographicus) qui et titulum et rem ipsam satis corroboret"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:14, 18 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :Titulus, ut supra dixi, res est simplicissima:  isdem verbis utimur atque aliae linguae faciunt, secundum illum Davidum Morgan.  Nexus adest, ad Communia.  Est ergo stipula, mea sententia.  Licet tibi admeliorare -- quaeso!  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:13, 18 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Communia extra rationem vicipaedianam [outside the wikipedian system] nostra sententia non vide(n)tur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:19, 18 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::True: Commons isn't truly external, nor is it generally a reliable source. I've cited a source now, which led me to move to "Immobile", but better sources may well be found.

text: :::"Immobile" is the direct source of vernacular words like French immeuble: a longer article would want to say that, no doubt. [That is in fact why I chose DuCange, looked for the word "immobile", and found it.]

text: :::Whoever wrote "The term is standard (Morgan)" above could, I see now, have nipped the little problem that arose here in the bud by citing Morgan directly on the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:21, 19 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::That was me;  I forgot to sign, it seems, perhaps when a student came into my office (that happened for sure at least one other time yesterday).  But I believe Iacobus noster is also concerned with the lack of bibliography, and I agree that I left nothing beyond the ref to Commons.  I'm not sure :en:Real estate and :fr:Bien immobilier deal with exactly the same thing, though they are linked to each other and to this page through Wikidata;  there's a lot of nation-specific (even smaller-jurisdiction-specific) law here and it's not obvious what Latin Vicipaedia should concern itself with.  So I rather punted.  A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:23, 19 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Bibliography would be good, certainly, but as one of those who go through new pages to verify that they should survive, I know that the one thing I have to see is an external source assuring me that the thing describes exists, is notable to somebody, and has been given a reasonable name. As far as I'm concerned, that's why the requirement for an external source must be in our definition of a stipula. Commons is no use for that.

text: :::::Morgan would do, and if I had read this whole discussion at first I would simply have cited Morgan and moved on. Du Cange is maybe better because (unlike Morgan) it cites textual sources. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 19 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::According to Lewis and Short, the term (or "res immobiles") goes all the way back to the Justinian Digest; see these loci. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:12, 20 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Fine! Not surprising really. By all means cite Justinian, and move again if it seems best. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:58, 20 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Stipula?