The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 11:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Relisting. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This Google ngram shows three synonymous terms in contemporary use in published English-language sources: "New Latin" appears to have been the most common of these for well over a century, with "Neo-Latin" and "Modern Latin" occurring at about the same frequency, behind "New Latin" for that entire period. While "New Latin" seems to be more common, all three appear to be widely used.

A sample that does not contain "New Latin" at any frequency is clearly flawed, as it does not accurately represent usage. This does not automatically mean that it is the best title for the article, but it suggests that the argument for the proposed title seriously misrepresents general usage, and that makes it very difficult to take at face value. At best it represents inadequate searching; at worst the deliberate exclusion of all evidence contrary to the premise. It plainly does not represent any kind of consensus, and the claim that "Wikipedia" is "following its own path" is demonstrably false. I cannot see any path forward for this proposal under these circumstances. P Aculeius (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the graph; but in your results for "New Latin", they would include for instance "Kennedy's New Latin Primer" (containing school exercises); or this book on "Modern Latin American Literature" would appear in the "Modern Latin" results. Clicking through the results from your graph shows exactly this - (New Latin Grammar; Doing Business in the New Latin America; The New Latin American Left etc) - material that is nearly wholly nothing to do with Neo-Latin as such.

On the other hand, I haven't yet found any serious texts using the term "New Latin" to describe Neo-Latin of the period; this so far doesn't help me understand if I would. Jim Killock (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point; too many other uses appear in the ngram for it to help here, at least not without spending ages parsing the results to filter out false matches. Usually the results aren't this badly skewed by book titles and descriptions having nothing to do with the search terms! I was probably thinking of "Late Latin" and confusing it with modern Latin coinages. I'll withdraw my comments as well as my opposition; they are unfair given my misapprehension of the ngram results. Mea culpa! P Aculeius (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for being open minded :) Jim Killock (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Ngram is practically useless for comparing such short phrases. Nardog (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neo Latin is also a term used to describe modern Romance languages. I think instead it should be moved to Modern Latin.★Trekker (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I know "neo-Latin" has been used like this, but is it a significant usage? And if so, how significant?

  Here, "New Latin" is unused (outside of dictionaries, or maybe scientific docs explaining the Latin) and "Modern Latin" is disused / historic (Modern Latin seems to have been used to describe "recently written Latin" until Latin stopped being widely written in the English speaking world). Have a look at Neo-Latin studies to see how frequent this term is for this topic among people who work on it, while the other terms are absent. Jim Killock (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  At a glance, "Neo-Latin languages" meaning "Modern Romance languages" seems to have been mostly in use in the late 1800s, eg 1880-1900. Are there significant recent uses that I am missing? Jim Killock (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While it is not as popular anymore, I still think Modern or New Latin would be the prefered name here.★Trekker (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Trekker, it would be helpful to work on reasons and examples rather than thoughts or preferences, so we can see if the reasons are valid or not. Thank you for contributing meantime. Jim Killock (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My reasoning is exactly as I have given it, "Neo-Latin" may not be a common name for Romance languages anymore but its notable enough to be listed in bold on the article, therefore I think it is best to avoid potential confusion by either keeping this article as it is or use Modern Latin. I don't feel very strongly on the subject tho, if it is moved all I ask for would be a note at the top that makes it clear.★Trekker (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks - to be clear tho, the phrase is "Neo-Latin languages" to mean "Romance languages" AIUI. "Neo-Latin" on its own doesn't mean "Romance"; it's an adjective (describing word) rather than a noun in this case. It's like saying "Post Latin Languages"; "Post Latin" doesn't mean anything specific without the word "languages" or another noun attached. Hopefully that makes it easier to avoid confusion between these two ideas. Jim Killock (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:COMMONNAME usually gets more weight than WP:PRECISE, and "Neo-Latin" is already pretty precise because "Neo-Latin" by itself (as a noun) seldom refers to a Romance language. This is exactly a situation where a hatnote is sufficient. Nardog (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have no position on this, but if anyone's reason for supporting this would be that the main article consistently favors "Neo-Latin," note that this is only the result of the past 353 edits, among which 341(!) are by the nominator here. See the last revision before March 10. SilverLocust (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I did indeed do that. It isn't a reason to change the name per se; but I got frustrated by using "New Latin" to talk about observations from sources that were consistently referring to the topic as "Neo-Latin", so I opted to follow what I was reading rather than the page title; although much if not most of the time the article simply refers to "Latin".

  I have also added a lot of content since March 10 (March 20 really, see #Modifications and additions (roughly doubled the page size, in the lead, history and extent) as well as ensuring nearly all of the content is now referenced. I hope that is viewed positively; the article was IMO missing a great deal as of March 10. That is partly because the easily accessible and available general literature on Neo-Latin (see Neo-Latin studies) has moved on a great deal since 2007-9 when most of the original article was written. Note that in compiling resources and reading the literature on these two pages, I did not find a single use of "New Latin"; that should be what we are focusing on. Jim Killock (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way, this was also the view of some of the previous editors, although they did not request a page move. See this archived discussion, with these remarks below prompted by an unsigned comment above that I'm a bit unsure about why the term "New Latin" is heading this page when all of the references use "Neo". "New Latin" is pretty confusing. Is it just because of the definition from the college dictionary? The OED doesn't even seem to list it as a recognised term. to which two editors remark:

  Finally, count my voice as a vote for Neo-Latin over New Latin as the most fitting title for the subject. Gamonetus (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  On this we agree. I prefer "Neo-Latin" myself, but I think "New Latin" was the form used when I started editing this article.RandomCritic (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  In short, the title has been recognised as problematic by the principle page editors for at least 12 years, but nobody has actioned it.

  Jim Killock (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Against both names. In favor of renaming the page to Modern Latin. The term is documented and in many other fields we use “modern” for describing the age that begins with the Renaissance (see Early modern period), followed by “contemporary” for describing our age (and indeed we do have Contemporary Latin – of course we can also have a lot of minor divisions in between). Moreover, the fact that the style of every epoch is “new” compared to the previous one makes both names “Neo-Latin” and “New Latin” quite confusing (wasn't the Latin of the Middle Ages new too?). --Grufo (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you; however, the question is whether "Modern Latin" is commonly used to mean "Neo-Latin"; I have only found "Modern Latin" in dictionaries and before 1840 in books. AIUI the WP policy is to use the accepted terminology; see WP:COMMONNAME (WP "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". Jim Killock (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What happened before 1840 is not important for the name of a Wikipedia page. The definitions vary according to the scope. A dictionary might simply say “post-classical” for anything that is not classical if it does not care about non-classical Latin. But if you want to be precise, “modern Latin” is the definition that you are looking for. You can find it used by the University of Kent for example, or simply by looking in a dictionary. “New Latin” and “neo-Latin” are also synonyms, but they are confusing and less precise (they are basically misnomers). When more than one term is accepted Wikipedia is truly free to choose. My two cents. --Grufo (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the entire field of Latin Petrarch-present is using a "confusing and less precise … misnomer", then. For your example of "early modern Latin"; yes that phrase is sometimes used; it is used to mean "Latin" in the "early modern" period. That isn't the same as saying that "modern Latin" is a used phrase by the field. Nor really are dictionary entries, if that is the main place we can find the phrase. See the sources below; they all use the term "Neo-Latin". One could use a phrase like "Latin in the early modern and modern periods", but that seems excessive given there is an established term for this. Jim Killock (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is quite likely that more than one academic is using a misnomer. Medieval Latin was in fact way more innovative (a.k.a. “new”) than the Latin used in the Renaissance, which instead tried to restore Classical Latin. But not all academics use misnomers, and some prefer “modern Latin”. And again, the granularity that you choose depends on the context. If it was for me I would be always more specific (i.e. I would use “Renaissance Latin”, “Romantic Latin”, and so on), but I believe that “modern” is a good umbrella term for grouping all the Latin written from the Renaissance until contemporary Latin. --Grufo (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be grateful for a few examples of authors that use the phrase "modern Latin" to mean Latin from Petrarch to present. I haven't found any, although sometimes "early modern Latin" is used, but not commonly. I've listed out 22 recent studies, societies and articles using Neo-Latin to describe this style and period of Latin (see below); I have not found any using "Modern Latin". Jim Killock (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You wouldn't find Petrarch defined as “modern”, but, as you correctly said, “early modern”. However, if Wikipeda has a page for the Latin written from Petrarch to several centuries afterwards, Petrarch would be the “early modern” section of the page about “modern”. We can definitely use “neo-Latin”, since “modern” and “neo-Latin” are used interchangeably, but while it is clear that “modern Latin” excludes “contemporary Latin”, the same cannot be said about “neo-Latin”. --Grufo (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, what you are arguing for is for changing the way that the Latin pages are constructed more generally, and going for time periods rather than the recognised classifications based on style. We won't get perfection on the boundaries of periods or on style. This article (before and after my edits) focuses on the style of Latin that emerged from Petrarch; it is coincident in time with medieval Latin as well as arguably contemporary Latin. I don't think it is possible to make classifications that work perfectly from a time period perspective. From a reader's POV, they would end up with an article called "Modern Latin" which talks about "Neo-Latin" and has sources referring to "Neo-Latin" but almost never refers to "modern Latin" because nobody uses the phrase; that doesn't seem satisfactory to me. Jim Killock (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, let's start from reality: a reader that sees “neo-Latin” or “new Latin” would immediately think about “contemporary Latin”. If the reader has to read the page for understanding that instead it is about something else, you might as well call the page “Broo broo broo”. This is why “neo-Latin” and “new Latin” are not really good for the main title of the page. Once the page title fulfills its task – which is that of telling readers what the page is about – you can use in the text the wording “neo-Latin” as much as you like. This is my personal opinion. --Grufo (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are probably a lot of topics where an unfamiliar reader might find the the term presented odd or unusual. Like Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom), just for example.

  What we have to focus on is the WP policy for article naming. As stated above "WP:COMMONNAME usually gets more weight than WP:PRECISE"; and as WP:COMMONNAME says Wikipedia "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". As far as I can tell, Neo-Latin fits that definition. Jim Killock (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure your arguments go in your favor. “Modern” is a way more WP:COMMONNAME to describe things that happened since the early modern period than “neo-” or “new” (which would rather qualify as niche technical terms for the specific case of the Latin language). And ultimately, to decide in favor of a title or another, a title must win the five WP:CRITERIA: recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, consistency. In my opinion “modern” beats “new” and “neo-” in each single one of those. --Grufo (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well: "generally prefers the name that is most commonly used" - there are no institutes, no publications and no organisations for "modern Latin"; they all use "Neo-Latin"; see reference table above

  recognisability: a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize; since uses of "Modern Latin" are rare and everyone in the field uses "Neo-Latin", I venture Neo-Latin wins here

  Naturalness: The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English; again, outside of dictionaries, the term "modern Latin" is uncommon so they are unlikely to use this. Admittedly, the topic is generally unfamiliar so it is hard to say what readers will do. However, for editors, there are an awful lot of pages using "Neo-Latin" around WP, which link back to "new Latin" despite using Neo-Latin on their page. For instance, Neo-Latin studies, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Neo-Latin Studies, Jozef IJsewijn, Languages of Switzerland#Neo-Latin, Interlingua (disambiguation), Tomopteris, Potassium, Diplodocus, Molybdenum, List of Leopolitans, Nicholas Hardinge, Jean Salmon Macrin, Jean-Jacques Boissard, Jakob Balde, Anabaptism, Subbuteo; I could go on. A few mention modern Latin to be fair, usually as the result of reading a dictionary entry for the derivation, looking at where it appears; but Neo-Latin is the commonly used term on Wikipedia, especially where the subject matter relates beyond a word derivation, so wins here.

  Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. There is no doubt what Neo-Latin stands for, but "Modern Latin" might apply less or more to the subject, especially the early part of the Renaissance, which is in the medieval period, even if the ideas are just about 'early Modern'. It could also mean contemporary Latin and has sometimes been used in that sort of sense. Neo-Latin however is only used to describe the Classicising and standardising movement from Plutarch on (with a caveat on Neo Latin languages; a term used in the C19th to describe Romance languages).

  Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. The other Latin articles (Classical Latin, Late Latin, Vulgar Latin, Medieval Latin) are named according to Latinists conventions, rather than by time period or non-conventional classifications, so I venture Neo-Latin wins here too. Jim Killock (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And why wouldn't a reader that sees "Modern Latin" too immediately think of "contemporary Latin"? Nardog (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Theoretically yes, there is that risk too. However it is a risk shared with history and other fields, so only a minimum education is required to know about the convention of what “modern” means (i.e. after the Middle Ages). --Grufo (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "New Latin" doesn't have much support and is hard to justify. What is to replace it? None of the names we can choose defines the exact scope of the article unambiguously in everyday terms. Neo-Latin is frequently used by specialists, but it has a disadvantage: a non-specialist reader would guess that it refers to a different language from just Latin (indeed, as observed above, it has also been used to mean "Romance languages"). Modern Latin, however, doesn't sound as if it refers to a different language: it sounds as if this would be the use of Latin in modern times. That's exactly what it is. "Modern English" is used in a similar way. The reader learns in the lead what period is covered by "modern times": I think that's the best that we can do. I support "Modern Latin". Andrew Dalby 17:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is NOT what it is. That would be Contemporary Latin. Nardog (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Andrew Dalby; unfortunately as it is such a non-standard bit of terminology, to my mind it breaks all the WP criteria for the reasons stated above.

  (I also agree with @Nardog that "Modern Latin" would not read as including "early modern" Latin; it drastically fudges Neo-Latin's roots in the late Medieval early Renaissance period, and to the casual reader would at best imply 1800-present.)

  I would support leaving it as "New Latin" over changing it to "modern Latin" as it is at least clear that "New Latin" must be equivalent to "Neo-Latin"; if some teenage Wikipedia editor accidentally chose the term over twenty years ago, then perhaps that person can be forgiven their lack of knowledge, and those people who know the subject can just put it down to Wikipedia's eccentricities and slight amateurism. However, I must admit to being surprised that there is not here a clearer discussion to establish what the conventional term is, rather than mulling over various possible compromise solutions. Why don't we have "Church Latin" rather than "Ecclesiastical Latin"; "Colloquial Latin" rather than "Vulgar Latin"; or "Late Roman and Early Medieval Latin" rather than "Late Latin"? The reason is of course that the terms are widely accepted and understood within the field of Latin studies generally, and WP policy is to use the established terms, rather than invent "accessible" versions ("Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject."). The same should surely apply to Neo- (or if we must, New) Latin. Jim Killock (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard for me to understand your battle for a misnomer. However, just to clarify a few things:

• I must admit to being surprised that there is not here a clearer discussion to establish what the conventional term is: We are certainly discussing about conventional terms here, not of the kind of “Church Latin”
• rather than mulling over various possible compromise solutions: Personally I don't think at all that “modern Latin” is a compromise, I think that it is the most accurate term available for this page, unless you want to be more specific about the style or the epoch (and so you would have “Humanistic Latin” for Petrarch, “Renaissance Latin” or “Neoclassical Latin” for Renaissance authors, and so on). “Neo-Latin” is itself is an abbreviation for “Neoclassical Latin” – and in fact in the long wording it stops being a misnomer, but also stops including later periods or encompassing other meanings, becoming very specific. Now, the real point is: What is this Wikipedia page about? Is it specifically about the neoclassical ideals of Poliziano? It does not look like that to me. This page is about the spread of Latin as a productive (“modern”) means of communication that ranged from science to poetry. And that is exactly what “modernity” is.
• if some teenage Wikipedia editor accidentally chose the term over twenty years ago, then perhaps that person can be forgiven their lack of knowledge: If were you I would go down from the pedestal, or you would have a long list to forgive – starting from that dictionary that defines “neo-Latin” as “another term for New Latin”, while defining “modern Latin” as “the Latin that has come into use since about 1500, chiefly in scientific literature”.

Sometimes we are too absorbed in our niches to see things from a wider perspective. --Grufo (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Latin is a translation of the German Neulatein, not an abbreviation of "neo-Classical Latin". As such, it may well not be perfect, but it is what is commonly used. It is true that dictionaries include the term New Latin alongside Neo-Latin; but dictionaries are just one, not especially important source for terminology from the WP policy perspective.

You say we are discussing conventional terms, but your argument is that "modernity" is a recognised period in history. Yes all very true; but that does not make "modern Latin" a widely used term for this topic.

If this discussion is to go anywhere it needs to focus on the WP criteria. I've provided information to show that the commonly used term, both on Wikipedia and within the subject domain is Neo-Latin. That's how I understand the policy to work. If I am wrong, please explain to me how I am misinterpreting the WP:CRITERIA. Jim Killock (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Merriam-Webster the first English occurrence of the “neo-Latin” term happened in 1850 and arrived through French – and indeed it seems that the French are still using it, although they also give this interesting insight:

Le début de la période est imprécis mais le développement de l'éducation chez les laïcs, l'acceptation des normes littéraires humanistes, ainsi que la grande disponibilité de textes latins qui a suivi l'invention de l'imprimerie, marquent une transition vers une ère nouvelle à la fin du XVe siècle. La fin de la période néo-latine est également indéterminée, mais l'usage normal du latin pour communiquer les idées est devenu rare après quelques décennies au XIXe siècle et, vers 1900, c'est dans le vocabulaire scientifique international de la cladistique et de la systématique qu'il survivait essentiellement, sans oublier la création littéraire, particulièrement poétique. Le terme "néo-latin" s'est répandu vers la fin des années 1890 parmi les linguistes et les scientifiques.

In reality the French term itself appeared for the first time in 1834, but has never been a particularly popular term. So it is basically an anacronistic made-up word. It is hard to see the intervention of German in all this – and I can already tell you that the “neo-Latin” wording (and so the category that it designates) is completely absent in other languages – unless you are speaking about the linguistic meaning – and instead they prefer to be more specific (i.e. medieval, humanistic, renaissance, scientific ... Latin).

As for the title of this page, you don't have to convince me. We both expressed our opinions; unless other editors intervene the discussion cannot go forward. --Grufo (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that Neo-Latin wasn't a contemporary usage, but then neither was "Medieval Latin" or "Late Latin". The term appears in German as neulatein in the 1760s, and then spreads to french as you mention. I've added information and a reference on this point to the main page (The Oxford Handbook of Neo-Latin, on page one). As for other languages using the term, see the twenty translations of this page; nearly all use Neolatin in some form, for instance. For active uses of the term in some of these languages, but especially Dutch, French and German, take a look at the multilingual journals listed in Neo-Latin studies.

Yes for sure it's not about me convincing you. But policy discussion is meant to work on facts relating to policy; thus you or I should be able to frame our points in those terms to create clarity for other people. That's why I've asked for this, it's not about "convincing" you, but rather about asking for advocacy based on policy analysis rather what otherwise will appear as personal preference. Jim Killock (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term appears in German as neulatein in the 1760s: And even the German Wikipedia tells us that it is a misnomer:

Der Begriff „neulateinisch“ ist somit irreführend, denn es handelt sich nicht um ein „neues“ Latein, sondern um eine konsequente Rückkehr zu einer bestimmten Stufe der antiken Latinität.

Furthermore it seems to indicate different things: Humanism for the Germans (beginning of XIV century), the diffusion of printed books for the French (i.e. almost two centuries afterwards, end of XV century).

As for other languages using the term, see the twenty translations of this page It is completely absent in Italian – not just the term, but the entire category (so no “neo-Latin studies” in Rome, despite the University is ranked first in the world for classical studies). That does not mean that if you said to them “Latin of the modern period” they would not understand what you mean; they just prefer to be more specific.

But anyway, this is not about Italian, or French, or German. What I am trying to show is that “neo-Latin” is a terribly confusing term. --Grufo (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Latin is a very settled term. "When we talk about “Neo-Latin,” we refer to the Latin language and literature from around the time of the early Italian humanist Petrarch (1304–1374) up to the present day"; (The Oxford Handbook of Neo-Latin, p1) "Neo-Latin, sometimes called New Latin, is the term typically applied to the use of Latin as a language for original composition, translation or occasionally general communication from the period of the Italian Renaissance up to the modern day." (A Companion to the Latin Language, p303) for example. I could go on. I point back to the 22 references at the top of page using Neo-Latin for this period of Latin, with literally none of the sources I have found making (top level, generic) use of any other term. Jim Killock (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know that it is somehow settled, I said that from the beginning. That does not mean it is not confusing or more elegant “technical” alternatives are missing. --Grufo (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is why looking at the policy is necessary; for instance:

Naturalness: The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English, and

recognisability: a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.

It is the established term, and the policy distinctly favours the established term. This is evidenced also by the many Wikipedia articles that link to this article via [[New Latin|Neo Latin]] (editors would naturally use to link to the article from other article).

On the other hand, problematic terms have to be tolerated, where they are established - both Late Latin and Vulgar Latin are much more hard to define, for instance. Jim Killock (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely I can't discuss like this, so this will be my last reply for a while. Of course all the three names presented in the incipit are theoretically usable for the page title: all three are attested terms. Do we really have to discuss at this kind of level? But the unrecognizability of “neo-Latin” reaches the point that people will have difficulty even typing it in a search engine and get the right results while they are bombed with notions about Romance languages. It is innatural, because it describes a restoration movement using the word neo-, as the German article points out. It is imprecise, because despite The Oxford Handbook decides to start from Petrarch, not so do the French and probably a lot of other academics (while instead if you said “humanistic” or “early modern” nobody would get confused). It is inconsistent with English encyclopedias and dictionaries, because these prefer "New Latin" or "Modern Latin" to “neo-Latin”. In my opinion many of these problems except the last one apply to "New Latin" as well, which is why I prefer “Modern Latin”. --Grufo (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well; I appreciate the frustration but I do urge you to read the WP:CRITERIA a bit more closely, as you're quoting the top level words without I feel reading the detail and explanations. There's also a number of unsupported assertions there about academics who "probably" use other definitions (I've seen none) and encyclopedias which "prefer" New or Modern Latin (I've seen some for Neo but not so much for New or Modern). See my comments above at 18:54, 24 April 2023 regarding the criteria; and my talk page for a synposis and the sources I have found so far if you wish; the criteria don't apply as you describe and the sources show a rather different story AFAICT. Jim Killock (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“My talk page for a synposis and the sources I have found so far”: I see some tendency to bend the rules over there. I am not sure why you replaced “recognizability” with “attestation” in your list – I assume that your personal interpretation made you feel entitled to do so – but the guidelines explicitly invite to prefer unambiguous titles even in front of more-attested ambiguous ones (“Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred”). You might give a read to WP:QUALIFIER and WP:NATURAL. So “recognizability” simply means “recognizability”, not “attestation” – like you interpreted it – and your collection of “attestations” might be a useless effort if a title is ambiguous and a less ambiguous alternative is available.

“Unsupported assertions there about academics who "probably" use other definitions (I've seen none)”: Using absolute statements is rarely a clever move in a discussion, because these are very easily falsifiable (translation: it means they are false). One of the first pages that appear if you google “neo-Latin” is the voice written for Oxford Bibliographies, which begins as follows (emphasis mine):

“Neo-Latin” generally refers to Latin works written between the time of the Italian humanist Petrarch (1304–1374) and the late 17th/early 18th century. Some use the term as synonymous with “Renaissance Latin” or “early modern Latin,” whereas for others “neo-Latin”connotes all post-medieval Latin writing up to the present.

Once again, if instead you use “early modern Latin” or “humanistic Latin” for the case in point the ambiguity would amount to zero.

If we keep scrolling among Google's results then we find another source, which not only mentions the chronological vagueness of the term, but also criticizes it as an unfortunate bad translation of “modern Latin” (emphasis mine):

The term itself is unfortunate, much like the term “Classics,” though for different reasons. While “Classics” sounds vague and pretentious, “Neo-Latin” carries a whiff of something faintly ridiculous. (It doesn’t help that movements with “neo-” prefixed to them tend to be fringe phenomena.) “Neo-Latin” also misleadingly suggests an attempt to make a new version of something that no longer exists, though one could argue either that such a term could therefore be applied to all post-classical Latin or, alternately, that the very paradigm of living language vs. dead language is a Romanticist notion of dubious usefulness.

The problem with terminology stems from that fact that “Neo-Latin” is an overly literal translation of the German Neulatein, which means “Modern Latin,” just as Neuenglisch is “Modern English.” The implication of neu- is twofold: either something (usually a language) that is in its most recent phase of a continuous development, or (non-exclusively) something relating to the Modern era (die Neuzeit). Although the temporal boundaries of Neo-Latin are open to debate, the term might cover anything from Petrarch (1304–1374) to the present, though the term usually designates the flourishing of Latin in the period from 1400–1800.

The real question then becomes: Why are we even thinking about bringing the “neo-Latin” term here on Wikipedia? --Grufo (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why use it, is principally WP:COMMONNAME, plus WP:CONSISTENT. See my table and comments at 18:54, 24 April 2023.

It's clear you don't like the term; fine. You have provided a comment from Sarah Knight, who has authored books about Neo-Latin, in an encylopedia article entitled Neo-Latin literature and another from an article entitled "Why So Few Of Us Teach Neo-Latin (And Why More Of Us Should)". The problems cited by both are common problems with terminology; in real life, nothing is perfect. Hence, both cited authors use and accept the term.

To reject Neo-Latin, WP naming policy would require "ambiguity" in "scope" and an alternative title. Neo-Latin is not "ambiguous" in the "scope of the article" and there is not an alternative attested title for the subject other than "New Latin". This is explained above at 18:54, 24 April 2023; or refer to my table.

You ask: I am not sure why you replaced “recognizability” with “attestation” in your list: recognisability is in row four. I've explained above at 15:12, 12 April 2023, 06:51, 24 April 2023, others at 03:54, 27 April 2023, and myself in the table why attestation is key to show "recognisability". Jim Killock (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment: There currently appears to be a consensus to move away from "New Latin", but I do not yet see a consensus for whether the new title should be "Neo-Latin" or "Modern Latin". I think another relist with this in mind could create a clearer consensus for which title this article should ultimately be moved to. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not see how "Modern Latin" could be preferable, not only because of the lack of attestation (WP:COMMONNAME), but also given possible confusion with Contemporary Latin (WP:PRECISION). Nardog (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, there is consensus from me on that. New and Neo are used interchangeably, thus I would sooner stick than move to "Modern". Jim Killock (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Neo-Latin. Srnec (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]