Talk:Parabellum

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Merger Proposal

We should probably redirect "Parabellum" to its disambiguation-page and promote 9x19 Parabellum to the first link there, and enhance the section about the word's etymology in the 9x19 Parabellum article if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.17.20 (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Means more than it says

Hmm, would I be correct in saying that, in practice, parabellum means a bit more than the page currently says. Doesn't it mean something like "legal under the haig convention and geneva accord" (in that it is not designed to cause "unnecessary suffering"). In particular, doesn't it mean (in practice) "full metal jacket", as opposed to deforming or spalling rounds (dumdum, hollowpoint etc) which are (again, if memory serves) prohibited by said conventions. Comments? -- Finlay McWalter 02:20, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this only a proprietary noun?

After much searching and discussion, these are my thoughts on the word "Parabellum".

The actual English use of the word for "prepare for war" which is lifted from the ancient Latin quote would require that parabellum use a different prefix definition than that generally accepted for "para". While I am no Latin scholar and do not know for sure, the concept that you can take the Latin phrase "para bellum" and lift it, delete the space, and use it for a word in a different language seems questionable. Those who wished to use the Latin phrase should quote it directly such as in "E puribus unum" Don't write it "epluribusunum" or you will look like a fool.

Using the "para" prefix to mean in this case "prepare for" seems at odds with other defnitions of para which include "beside, near, alongside, beyond, incorrect or abnormal, resembling, subsidiary, or a few chemical definitions. Not quite "prepare for" in English, it would most often be interpreted as "peripheral to".

The fact that I cannot find it in use other than as a proprietary name used by Luger for their 9mm, and for proper (place) names in a video game indicates that the definition should be the one found at Dictionary.com:

Parabellum : noun Definition: a type of semiautomatic pistol or machine-gun; also called Luger. Etymology Latin "for war" Usage: PROPRIETARY

Your questioning the use of "para" is definitely the result of a lack of Latin knowledge. "Para" isn't a Latin preposition or prefix. It's the imperative of the verb paro, parare, which means "to prepare." Also, there's nothing conventionally wrong with taking the spaces out of Latin statements; in Classical times, putting spaces between words was rare.

In normal Latin writing, every letter was a capital letter and there were no spaces between words. The OP here is the one who looks like a fool. (122.106.207.125 (talk) 02:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

What's this page for?

Isn't this just a disambiguation page? There's nothing here that isn't covered by the articles it links to, and we already have Parabellum (disambiguation). --- DoctorKubla (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MALPLACED for the problem with redirecting a base name to a "(disambiguation)" title and WP:CONCEPTDAB for using (even brief or redundant) broad-concept articles for valid link targets, or WP:AFD for getting inappropriate articles deleted from Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so it looks like I should have merged Parabellum (disambiguation) into Parabellum, not the other way round. I don't think WP:CONCEPTDAB applies, because "Parabellum" isn't a concept capable of being described in an article. As it stands, this article is a disambiguation page, and that's all it can ever be. Would you object to my merging the content of Parabellum (disambiguation) here, and leaving that page as a redirect (as per WP:DABNAME)? DoctorKubla (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the subject to object -- it looks like a valid link target to me, which is I didn't clobber the history by performing the merge myself. I would like to keep the history at the disambiguation page with the disambiguation, so if no one else objects I can move the disambiguation page here. (Could be formalized as an WP:RM, but perhaps not necessary.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, go for it. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary topic

If the primary topic is "Latin for prepare for war" this page is a dictionary entry and should have been on Wiktionary.

But I don't think that is the primary topic, since this article is Parabellum and not the entire "Si vis pacem, para bellum" or even "para bellum" (which again, would be a dictionary entry).

Instead, I would say the primary topic for anyone searching specifically for "parabellum" is the 9×19mm ammunition type.

Editing page with this in mind. CapnZapp (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]