Hic sunt tabularia!

Disputationes veteres ad specialia tabularia motae sunt (auxilium). Si vis, hic infra scribendo in talibus tabulariis quaerere potes.

Disputationes anteriores hic habes: Tabularium 1, Tabularium 2, Tabularium 3. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 27 Martii 2009 (UTC)Reply

Vascus Gama
Vasco da Gama
Vascus Gama
* fortasse 1469
Sines Lusitaniae
+ 24 Decembris 1524
Cochini Indiae


Hello Professor Dalby! I read your lost chapter of the Satyrica and it was amazing. I was hoping you might be able to steer me in the direction of a source so that I can learn about what it was like being a food taster for the emperor. I'm particularly interested in the era of Nero. I believe his food taster was Halotus. Are there any sources you can think of that could tell me how the job of food taster worked? Thanks! GerryAldini (disputatio) 23:40, 26 Iulii 2022 (UTC)Reply
Dear Gerry, I'm very sorry I didn't reply to this. I got distracted. I'm happy that you enjoyed reading the Satyrica continuation: I enjoyed writing it. But I don't think anyone knows anything about how the job of food taster worked in ancient times, except the essential element: the taster had to taste each food item before the emperor did. If anyone was going to die, the taster would. But how long before the poison works? Who can say? A lot depends on the answer! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:43, 22 Augusti 2022 (UTC)Reply

De pagina "Syndrome Moebii"


A while back I made a page called "Syndrome Moebii" for Moebius Syndrome. You later moved the page to "Syndroma Möbius." I understand the change to syndroma, but Moebius is the appropriate Latinization of Möbius, commonly used in Romance languages such as French, Italian, and Spanish.

I'll answer on the article talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:07, 9 Septembris 2014 (UTC)Reply

Conlationes amissae


Clive Sweeting Andreae Dalby salutem dat gratiasque maximas ob benignitatem in conlationum amissarum suarum titulos restituendo praestitam agit.

Help Requested


Please evaluate the motto I have on my user page.  I wish it to be a translation of "Peace, Love, Anarchy, Natural Law, Free Markets".  I am fairly certain I have the first four correct; it's only of the fifth one that I have grave uncertainty.

Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

Sincerely yours,
allixpeeke (disputatio) 06:31, 17 Septembris 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks!  allixpeeke (disputatio) 04:04, 6 Octobris 2014 (UTC)Reply

De peripato


Excusatum me habeas quod augendae huius paginae oblitus esse videor. Rogo, ut mihi aucturi eam ad pristinum statum illam revertas. Mea sententia inceptum nostrum eiusmodi commentationem continere oportet cum ad rem maximi historiae philosophicae momenti spectet. Autokrator (disputatio) 19:07, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)Reply

Recte dicis! Restituo -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:34, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)Reply

De paginis movendis


Ave Andrew. Gratias tibi ago pro notitia tua. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 18:30, 20 Octobris 2014 (UTC)Reply



Gratulor tibi, mi Andrea, nam ut vides paululum nunc conatus sum multo plura de hac urbe addere. Vale optime.--Viator (disputatio) 19:30, 20 Octobris 2014 (UTC)Reply

pagina Lilih


Salve Andrew. Mihi sunt etiam diffultates hoc systemate uti! Ad paginam Lilith quae scripsi nuper fontes adiugi. Nunc meliorem esse spero. Quo plus paginarum composuero, eo capaciter sytaxin et regulae huisce systematis intellegam! Spero quidem... :-) Vale, Limarius (disputatio) 15:49, 8 Novembris 2014 (UTC)LimariusReply

Lia Quartapelle


Feci, vale! Rei Momo (disputatio) 22:08, 18 Novembris 2014 (UTC)Reply




Proto Indo European Dictionary: 08:08, 11 मई 2013‎.

Anna Katharina Emmerick: EMMERICK VISIONEN
…Es ist dies die hebräische oder chaldäische reine Sprache.
Die erste Muttersprache, welche Adam, Sem, Noe redeten, ist eine andere und ist nur noch in einzelnen Mundarten vorhanden. Ihre ersten reinen Töchter sind die Sprache der Baktrier, der Zend und die heilige Sprache der Indier. In diesen Sprachen sind noch Wörter ganz wie in dem tiefen Plattdeutsch meiner Heimat. In dieser Sprache ist auch das Buch geschrieben, das ich im heutigen Ktesiphon am Tigris liegen sehe.
Heber lebte noch zu der Zeit der Semiramis. …
…This language was the pure Hebrew, or Chaldaic.
The first tongue, the mother tongue, spoken by Adam, Shem, and Noah, was different, and it is now extant only in isolated dialects. Its first pure offshoots are the Zend, the sacred tongue of India, and the language of the Bactrians. In those languages, words may be found exactly similar to the Low German of my native place. The book that I see in modern Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, is written in that language.
Heber was still living at the time of Semiramis. …
____Neuindische Mundarten
____Pamiri und Mundarten
____Niederdeutsch und verwandte Sprachen
______Altniederdeutsch=Plattdeutsch (वार्ता) 09:00, 11 मई 2013 (UTC)
What do you want by way of mentioning this on Hindi Wikipedia forums? Hindustanilanguage (वार्ता) 10:08, 11 मई 2013 (UTC).
I want to terminate post-Babel course of unreligion, unhistory, unlanguage and unnationality plaguing whole humanity since Tower of Babel once and for all. This will free humanity from its orwellian newspeak misfortune existing since thousands of years. In this way, whole humanity will be reenabled to return to its nominal way, truth and life. (वार्ता) 10:37, 11 मई 2013 (UTC)
This may be a good idea, and thank you for the links above. There are many possible methods of spreading this information via the Internet, but Wikipedia is not a good choice: it will not be able to help you very much (I think you already know this really). All the Wikipedias are based on verifiable information in reliable sources. Information that you add is pretty sure to be deleted unless it is already published in sources that other Wikipedians judge to be reliable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:02, 19 Novembris 2014 (UTC)Reply

Villa Culturae aut Villa Culturae ?


Ave, Andrea. Anceps toponymum istud est, aut Villa nom. s. et Culturae gen. pl. aut Villa nom. s. et Cultura nom. pl. Quia in fontibus Latine invenitur "apud Villam Culturas", mihi videtur Villa acc. s. et Cultura acc. pl. agitur, inde sequitur, nisi fallor, quod utraque nomines substantiva feminina sunt quae sui quoque genitivo Villae Culturarum reddunt. Eo modo Petrus Ronsardus Villá Culturis natus est. Vale. --Leonellus Pons (disputatio) 13:25, 22 Novembris 2014 (UTC)Reply

Optime, mi Leonelle. Nomen mihi admodum insolitum videtur, sed e fonte a te citato recte locativum "Villá Culturis" derivavisti. Da veniam propter dubia mea! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 22 Novembris 2014 (UTC)Reply
Secundum fontem citatum, Bovani villa = la villa de Boinville: "Habet in Bovani villa culturas III"; quod fortasse = "Habet ibi culturas tres." Quid significat hoc verbum cultura, cuius sunt tres? Ager cultus? ¶ Fortasse Boinville non est Couture-sur-Loir, et haec citatio ergo nil ad rem pertinet. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:10, 22 Novembris 2014 (UTC)Reply
In "Polyptyque de l'Abbé Irminon" p.227 fontem citatum legere possumus "Habet in Bovani villa culturas III habentes bunuaria XXVIII..." quod mihi sonat "Habet in Bovani villa tres agros cultos (culturas) qui mensi sunt XXVIII bunuariorum (Francogallice bonier quid agrorum mensio est iugerum aripennumque non absimilis) et qui possunt seminari de modiis frumenti C".--Leonellus Pons (disputatio) 15:07, 22 Novembris 2014 (UTC)Reply


Ave! Gratias tibi ago, Andrew, ob tuum auxilium et consilium. Discipuli est discere. Meum est discere. Vale! :) -- Knixnik (disputatio) 22:57, dies Mercurii, 26. Novembris 2014. (MMXIV) (CET)

Movere Categorias


Salve Andrew, gratissimus tibi suum, quia passus meos in territorio novo inspicis et corrigis. Heri mihi scripsisti, qualis sit optima versio theodisci nominis "Wilhelm" philosophi "Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel" in Latinum. Tibi consentior et nomen in pagina sicut et nomen paginae ipsius de novo mutavi. Sed mutatio categoriae eiusdem tituli mihi non contigit, quamquam me de modo hic faciendi certiorem fecisti. Potes tu hanc categoriam adaptare aut me adaptationem subtilius docere? Te de Bavaria tota alba laete saluto Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 14:22, 31 Decembris 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you


I thank you for your welcome back. I will sure have less time than in the past but I hope I can again work with youHelveticus montanus (disputatio) 20:59, 4 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dioecesis Tonganus


Salve, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes? HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Haec pagina nuc creavi, et tibi peto parvam relecturam quia categoriae non adsunt, et deinde rubeae sunt. Tibi gratias ago!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 13:34, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank youuuuu !!! Rei Momo (disputatio) 13:51, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Feci!!! Proximus die 24 Ianuarii Inter Amnis ibo. Estne domus tua in haec regione? Rei Momo (disputatio) 14:14, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Locum pulchrum olim visitavi! Sed satis longe a me distat, Rei Momo. I feliciter Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Categoria paginarum Latinarum!


Salve Andrea! In commentatione Lex Salica creanda categoriae:Articles containing Latin language text apparuerunt - unde? quomodo deleri possunt?--Utilo (disputatio) 14:38, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Removi, mi amice -- categoriam haud utilem postulavit Formula:Lang -- sed an aliquid malum in aliis paginis effeci, haud iam scio ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply
removisti, gratias tibi ago, sed quo modo? Si fontem ad recensendum aperio, hanc categoriam ne videre quidem possum!?!--Utilo (disputatio) 15:58, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Recte dicis. Quando fontem aperuisti, videbis ad pedem paginae "Formulae in hac pagina adhibitae" (vel sim.) cum nominibus aliquibus quae in fenestra editionis minime videntur: formulae enim alias formulas postulare possunt! Res haud facilis est, sed possumus, ea formularum enumeratione perlecta, formulas suspectissimas ad recensendum aperire et (si fortuna subrideat) rem molestam reperire et corrigere. Id feci ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Nunc intellego! Numquam pedem paginae accuratius aspexi.--Utilo (disputatio) 17:50, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

North Coast Inland Trail‎


Andrew, thank you for your help about the cardiac arrest. Could I ask your help with this article as well? Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:18, 1 Februarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

en:Do not buy Russian goods!


Hello! Could you translate an article about boycott of Russian goods in Ukraine for the Latin and Italian Wikipedia? Thanks for the help.--Trydence (disputatio) 21:45, 22 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't know Italian. As to Latin, I suggest you ask at the Vicipaedia:Taberna. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 23 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thanks--Trydence (disputatio) 22:20, 25 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

De attibutione


Ave Andrew. Gratias tibi ago pro notitia tua. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 18:59, 27 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply



Salve Andrea! Gratias tibi ago propter comes "alerts" tuos (-as?). Tamen nescio, quomodo fiant; vixdum lecti - mirabile visu - evolant e conspectu!--Utilo (disputatio) 17:25, 28 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Andrew,


These new pages were created by me a lot of time ago, I have kept the files on my PC. Now I am inserting slowly all them on vicipaedia. I will update them eliminating PND if not of interest. Also here is cold. have a nice dayHelveticus montanus (disputatio) 14:20, 29 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply



Andrew, translating from other Wikipedias is generally not to my likings, and therefore I haven't taken much interest in the translation discussion. For the article on dilemma captivi, however, I snatched the table from fi:Vangin dilemma, making a few cosmetic changes in it. Except for the sketch of the table, "dilemma captivi" is entirely based on external sources. Now, if I need to give credits to the source of the table, could you please indicate how to do that. I'm afraid I haven't got the σπλάγχνα to read through a long discussion replete with Administrese (of which I've got an overdose in the university). Vale, Martinus a.k.a. Neander (disputatio) 13:15, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

I did it for you -- it was the work of a moment. I created a disputatio page for your article and put the formula in there as you will see.
I don't do much direct translation either, but I guess it is a good habit to acknowledge the source when we do :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Andrew, but the thing is that I have not translated the article (not an iota of it) from the Finnish wikipedia, but only snatced the sketch of the table from it. Neander (disputatio) 13:27, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see, I'm so sorry, I was in the middle of John Singer Sargent's Le Verre de porto and I didn't read your message with sufficient care. We can add to that formula the optional indication "partim". If you're happy with that, please take it that it will be done (Maria Martelli had already observed that this would be a good option). But if one wanted to give a more detailed and specific acknowledgment, one would simply have to write it out in real language on the talk page. We're getting towards the lower limits of what's necessary. If in an academic article you would have acknowledged the fact that some previous author gave you the makings of a diagram or table, then it's sensible to acknowledge it here too. If it's too minor for that, then no need to do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:41, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks again for the backgounding! Yes, I now think a more specific — if any at all — acknowledgment is in order in ths case. Therefore, I decided to delete the discussion page and added an acknowledgment as a note to the table. Thanks for letting me to use you as an arbiter elegantiarum! Neander (disputatio) 16:35, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Capsa hominis Vicidata


You are doing a very nice job with Capsa hominis Vicidata. Ciao--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 18:08, 15 Februarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rogationes in taberna a Bis-Taurino scriptae


Salve Andrea, gratias iterum tibi dico ob responsum tuum in taberna datum. Nonne potes, si tibi manet tempus, fortasse et responsum dare ad problemata a me in capitulo 44 tabernae nominata? Sed res non urget. Semper gratus Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 00:11, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Pages of January 28-29, 2015


Dear Andrew, yes these pages were prepared a lot of time ago. I thank you for your help in correcting them--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 18:41, 20 Februarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Userpage deletion


Hello. Could you please delete my userpage (for global user page's display)? Thanks. Hausratte (disputatio) 09:44, 21 Februarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 21 Februarii 2015 (UTC)Reply



Salutem tibi do. Anglicene dicere gratum est? I hope this is the proper way to contact you; my apologies if it's not.

My apologies also for not contacting you sooner. I believe Ryan McGrady may have told you about me and my students; we're looking at Vicipaedia as part of our advanced Latin course on Lucretius this semester. As part of that course we plan on revising the Lucretius article. That will be later on, of course, once we've gotten some practice in. As I'm sure you've noticed, we've started with some basic work on the pages for Spokane and Gonzaga University. It's a small class; just five students. You can see them all on the Historia of the Spokane page. The students have really enjoyed learning the basics of editing, linking, and creating pages. They've also been very impressed at how quickly members of the Vicipaedia community have contributed to the work.

I just wanted to formally introduce myself. Ryan said you might be willing to help us out with our project. That's very kind of you and we would be most grateful.

All the best,

Dave Oosterhuis Dr Ostorius (disputatio) 01:15, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, it's you, Dr Ostorius! And it's the Spokane people! That's very good. I was afraid the students mentioned by Ryan would turn out to be another group, who appeared about the same time, whose contributions were much more difficult to improve. You are all welcome to continue to ask questions here (or at the talk pages of the articles you are working on). I am travelling for the next 2 days and am not on line so much, but others will of course help too. I am sure Lucretius will repay your attentions when you get to him. You probably already know this, but if you happen to start any new pages you need to save them from being classed "Non stipula" so as not to waste your work: you can check the minimum requirements for a page by looking at Formula:Non stipula. Half-done pages can be marked by authors with Formula:In usuNomen formulae mutavit --Grufo Formula:In usu (which asks for patience) or Formula:Succurre (which invites help). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! That's very helpful. Safe travels! Dr Ostorius (disputatio) 16:04, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Communia Francica


Dear Andrew,

if you explain me:

1) why had all wikipedias used in the past (but also now) the pages on the French Communes to enhance their quantity of artcles. The most of these wikis have shorter and worse articles than the ones I created; 2) are you sure that in the future with bots we could not add new external sources or change the pages of the no more existing communes (other wikis has pages on old communes)? 3) if nobody adds new articles, how can we increase these Wikipedia (last week I was practily one of the few who created new articles); 4) I would do with pleasure other less dull and boring work therefore I will stop here with la.wikipedia.org.

Best regards

Massimo--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 10:36, 2 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't want you to stop, Massimo! I will answer on your talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 2 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Dear Andrew, in any case I was already doing a remaking work on old communia pages e.g the oldest ones Index communium praefecturae Indis(now I am at letter G), and those of Corsica. Now I will try to be more careful and add more external links and especially those links which will not be delated also in the case the commune will be united with an other one Ciao--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 10:08, 3 Martii 2015 (UTC) Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 10:08, 3 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Quaestio tironis


Salve! Vidi recensionem tuam, non usurus formulam "attributio" sum? Hi! I've seen you edit, shouldn't I use "Attributio" template? Thanks for answer!--Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 18:52, 6 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh well, thanks :) I'm going to replace each template then. --Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 18:58, 6 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply
P.S. I used your text ;)
Ha! Thanks for the attribution :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:04, 6 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply



I thnak you for your kind words. I'm a little worried about the monument. In Italain we say tocchiamo ferro (touch iron). Ciao--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 15:44, 10 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Besoin d'aide


Bonjour Andrew Dalby, J'ai mis un bandeau de suppression sur ma page utilisateur, puisque le contenu sera repris avec celui de ma page utilisateur de Meta. Merci pour votre aide, cordialement. Argosy (disputatio) 01:25, 15 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, supprimée. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 15 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Arsenius Boca


Salve, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

I opened this page, but in Wikidata it looks 29 September and 29 October, because in Russian page there's 29 October, may be for Orthodox Calendar?

Thanks a lot for your precious help!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 09:34, 20 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Rex. First, there is no need to worry. Wikidata is based on all the Wikipedias, and sometimes shows differences or inconsistencies because of that. You need not change your information simply because of Wikidata. You can let it pass.
But if you want to find out why Wikidata has two dates, you can look at the Wikidata page (click on the word "Vicidata" in the box): perhaps it is different calendars; perhaps some Wikipedias have written a different date, and they may be right or wrong! It seems, from what you say, that this is the case here. So you can look further, if you want to, to see whether the Russian Wikipedia cites a source for the date or has a footnote about it. This might lead you to decide that the other date is more accurate: then you can change your text, and cite the source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 20 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks a lot, this week end I'll look something to put the sources. Rei Momo (disputatio) 12:08, 20 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply
It can't be the different calendars; since 1900, the Julian and Gregorian calendars have only been 13 days apart. This site looks somewhat official, and gives 29 September, but there may be an even better source somewhere. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:46, 20 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply



Prima di dire che c'è una edit war, ti prego di prendere in considerazione che non sto facendo vandalismo... forse avrò messo solamente delle fonti in maniera sbagliata. Ma se Lei è più intelligente e più colto, me lo dica. Perché con me non ci casca. Arrivederla. Sacreum (disputatio) 14:14, 25 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for writing. I understand, there is no suggestion of vandalism. And I'm sure I am not more intelligent!
When I think of moving a page, I try to consider alternatives (not just one name, and not just one source). The purpose is to choose the best name. It often helps to discuss the choice with other editors.
But if we have no Latin name (as with many French communes) it is always very good to find a Latin name and to move to it. Thank you for doing this! There is no perfect source, but Graesse is a very good source, and your work is really useful. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:24, 25 Martii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Manum tuam peto


Post tres menses, per quos ad Vicipaediam Latinam contribuere conatus sum, paginam mei usoris "creare" volerem. Multi usores in paginas suas capsam Babel ponunt. Me dolet, ut nusquam explicationem ad faciendam illam capsam invenio. Potesne me adiuvare?

Praeterea iam diu in taverna sub capitulo 44 quaestiones ad diputandum spripsi. Nemo respondit. Credo, quod tu opininionem huc pertinentem habes. Gratus tuus Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 18:38, 28 Martii 2015 (UTC) (qui nolit diutius ruber scribi).Reply

Request for help


Ave, Andrew. I think you know that I understand far more Latin than I can write. So I wonder if you wouldn't mind giving me an idea of how to translate this user box that I use on several of my home pages. (The "his/her" parses out by means of the #gender parser variable.) Thank you! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 04:51, 2 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Steven. Nice to hear from you. I'll have a look later today. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:24, 2 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)Reply



Freedom of editing - why edits are bananized despite of "libera encyclopaedia" slogan?

Edits have to be encyclopedic -- to contribute usefully to the encyclopedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:23, 14 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)Reply

De Mabelina


Ave Andrew! Bonum auxilium et consilium. Vale et gratias tibi ago. M Mabelina (disputatio) 12:12, 19 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear Friend, Please help creation this article in your Language and start this article. Thank you very much.

Translating the interface in your language, we need your help

Hello Andrew Dalby, thanks for working on this wiki in your language. We updated the list of priority translations and I write you to let you know. The language used by this wiki (or by you in your preferences) needs about 100 translations or less in the priority list. You're almost done!
To add or change translations for all wikis, please use translatewiki.net, the MediaWiki localisation project.

Please register on translatewiki.net if you didn't yet and then help complete priority translations (make sure to select your language in the language selector). With a couple hours' work or less, you can make sure that nearly all visitors see the wiki interface fully translated. Nemo 14:06, 26 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)Reply

Abecedaria Georgiana


Thank you very much for your help and your explanations--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 04:24, 6 Maii 2015 (UTC)Reply



Ciao Andrew, how are you? The data in vicidata about Sancto Bernardo Menthonensi are completely wrong, how do you correct them?--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 16:02, 8 Maii 2015 (UTC)Reply

This can often happen, because the Wikipedias do not always agree. In this case, the dates on Wikidata are taken from the Russian Wikipedia, and what sources they used I don't know.
It is not essential to correct it -- it may sometimes help the reader to know that there are different opinions. But if we want to correct it, we can.
The first step is to add the correct data. This is how to add a correct date of birth, for example:
Go to the Wikidata page. Make sure your language is "Latina" -- you choose your language at the top of the window. Then, in the section "Statements", scroll down to the word "Natus". You see the false entry "923". Below, on the right, you have the option "addere". Click it, and type in the box the correct date "1020". Then click "save".
The result of this will be that our Vicidata box will now display two dates, "923; 1020".
The second step, if you choose to do this, is to delete the incorrect information. Beside the entry "natus" ... "923" click on "recensere". Then click on "remove". Then click "save".
Try it, Massimo, and see if it works! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:08, 8 Maii 2015 (UTC)Reply



Animadverterunt administratores quemdam et eius opera hodie? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:03, 12 Maii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Gratias tibi ago. Recte anonymus Anglicitatem nostram reprehendit, sed medicinam malam applicat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:54, 12 Maii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Crimes of the Heart


Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

Tibi peto parvam relecturam huius paginae quae nunc feci. My Latin isn't so good as your, please, can you help me? Tibi gratias ago!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 07:54, 25 Maii 2015 (UTC)Reply



I thank you for pointing that out I'll correct it in the next days. Ciao--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 16:38, 31 Maii 2015 (UTC)Reply

De scriptoribus


Gratias tibi infinitas ago, mi Andrea, pro perspicua explanatione de usu Vicipaediae latinae quoad categorias de auctoribus pertinentes. Vale perquam optime.--Viator (disputatio) 17:20, 3 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply



Vale Andrea! I wanted to inform you about this fact. The user Sacreum on Provincia Cremonensis is doing lot of confusion: in particulary he deletes much of my work and he makes many mistakes; often not getting their sources. It should be stopped.--Nuada (disputatio) 10:28, 8 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message, Nuada. I have noticed that there is much activity at Provincia Cremonensis. I suggest that you first discuss the problems with Sacreum directly at Disputatio Usoris:Sacreum. If Sacreum replies, we will see whether agreement is possible. If Sacreum does not reply, and continues to delete good information or to add incorrect information, we can take other action. I will watch the page.
It is probably best for you to write to Sacreum in Italian. My impression (possibly mistaken) is that Sacreum does not understand English or Latin well. If you write in Italian, I will watch the conversation. If necessary I or another magistratus (perhaps Helveticus?) will be able to add a comment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 8 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sono mesi che qualcuno mi controlla quello che faccio, non capisco in cosa sbaglio! Molte volte ho corretto addirittura le J. Ripeto molto volte ci sono link sul Graesse che poi non esistono (le ho controllate più volte) quindi non sono io quello che fa errori, non sarò perfetto avrò fatto confusione a volte. Ma appena scrivo, c'è qualcuno che poi deve controllare quello che faccio. Ma diamine... Sacreum (disputatio) 16:33, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
I have asked Nuada to comment. But it is normal for other Vicipaedians to observe your work and it may sometimes happen that others disagree with your decisions. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:48, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Nuces (Noci) è plurale di Nux (Nuces-um) Nucum è errato... Non capisco perché viene messo Nucum (al genitivo) anche il libro dov'è citato mette il genitivo. Poi sono io quello che polemizza Sacreum (disputatio) 11:47, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

De capsa hominis quaestio


Salve, Andrea! Gratias ago quam maximas pro categoriis, quas commentationi Miles Davis addidisti. Etiam capsa hominis mihi placet, sed hoc velim quaerere, num capsa illa ad dextram partem paginae poni possit. Potesne capsam ita mutare, ut alterautra positione uti liceat? Neander (disputatio) 07:43, 9 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Salve et tu, Neander! Locum sinistrum nactus sum ne imagines, quae iam in permultis paginis brevissimis ad dextram partem positae sunt, inutiliter submitterentur. Si pagina iam eandem imaginem continet, quattuor solutiones iam habemus et saepe applicamus:
  1. Imaginem iam positam in pagina retinere, rebus valde utilibus in rubricam additis (si imago bona est, id facere soleo)
  2. Imaginem aliam apud Vicidata promovere (id quod rarius facio)
  3. Imaginem delere (id quod tu fecisti) ...
  4. Capsam delere (est enim "facultativa")
  5. Ita, pro certo, possibile erit locum capsae variabilem reddere. Quomodo (admitto) hoc tempore nescio. In re capsarum faciendarum, etsi tu non es Cicero, ego sum Tiro. Conabor ... sed fortasse solutiones 1 et 2, mihi simpliciores, antea temptabo (scaevola enim sum, censeoque te minime partem paginae sinistram, sed coniunctionem imaginum similium arcere). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:15, 9 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Solutiones 1 et 2 applicavi. Potes imagines movere sicut vis! Sed si non placet, dic mihi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:42, 9 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Iterum gratias tibi ago pro solutionibus propositis! Imaginem ad dextram positam abstuli non solum ob similitudinem sed etiam ideo, quod duae imagines parallelae mea quidem opinione nimis artum spatium ipsi textui relinquunt (non enim maximo spatio monitorii uti soleo). Imaginum mutationes quas fecisti ad tempus conservabo. Ubi primum in textu evolvendo ad annos 1950 pervenero, imaginem ad annum 1955 pertinentem deorsum in loco apto ponam; quo facto imaginem in initio positam in loco liberato ponam. In capsis faciendis si tu Tiro, ego Tirunculus. :-) Neander (disputatio) 20:11, 9 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Bene! Conabor igitur ... sed licet capsam delere si molestum esse videtur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:35, 9 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

De hac re plura cogitans, locum capsae mutare hoc tempore abstinere volo. Rationem aliam huius formae et huius loci, supra omissam, nunc addo. Haec capsa res continet ex alio datorum thesauro illatas, Vicipaediae certe socio et amico, sed verificationi nostrae non subiecto. Locum igitur, ubi nos rarissime capsas imaginesque a nobismet ipsis verificatas et rubricatas monstramus, gratissimum censui. Eadem ratione formam capsae ab omnibus aliis differentem, umbrá cyaneá e paginis nostris distinctam et prominentem, praetuli.

Capsas huius formae creavi praecipue quia lectoribus haud paucis utiles esse possunt, sed etiam quia multae paginae Vicipaedianae capsis male constructis atque embryonicis farciuntur, pulchritudinem et utilitatem Vicipaediae nostrae (mea mente) nocentes laboremque infinitum, operariis carentibus, silenter postulantes. Hoc modo igitur duabus necessitatibus labore minimo respondere coepi. Sed ad tertiam necessitatem, q.e. tuam, non respondi. Mi paenitet! Rursus te suadeo: capsam simpliciter remove si vis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:35, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Maximam gratiam habeo, Andrea, quod tantam complendae voluntati meae operam dedisti. Capsae antea mihi displicuerunt, quod duplices nuntios acervant atque interdum lineas textús nimis coartant (mihi saltem qui latissimo visu uti non soleo). Sed capsam hominis paulum deorsum movi inque initio posui eandem imaginem, quam tu antea, et denique novam eiusdem aetatis imaginem addidi loco ita liberato. Nunc puto capsam illam utiliter exhiberi. Neander (disputatio) 09:06, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andrew


Hello Andrew, can you please translate this from Latin into English? I need to understand what does it say and maybe you could help? Here it is:

"Fragmentum ad Antonini Pii tempora pertinere recte collegit Nesselhauf cum e lapidis natura tum e nominibus Fabiani consulis et Pharasmanis Iberorum regis. Si anni aetatis illius, e quibus ultimum par coiisulum notum est, aeque atque anni in fastos Ostienses relati excluduntur, non restat, nisi ut de annis 141 — 144, 149 — 150, 157 — 159 cogitemus, Heriberto Nesselhauf auctore de annis 141 — 144 potissimum, nam Pharasmanes primis Antonini Pii annis potius quam posterioribus Romam venit. Si Fabianus, ut editor proposait, re vera idem est ac L. Annius Fabianus tituli CIL III 7972 (Groag, PIR2 A 643), praeses praetorius Daciae inter annos 135 — 157 (sic Stein, Dazien, p. 26)."

Thanks again. Jaqeli (disputatio) 11:27, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Try this :) "Herbert Nesselhauf rightly gathered, from the nature of the stone combined with the names of the consul Fabianus and of the Iberian king Pharasmanes, that the fragment belongs to the times of Antoninus Pius. If the years of Antoninus' age, of which the last pair of consuls is known, along with the years listed in the en:Fasti Ostienses, are excluded, we must think only of the years 141 — 144, 149 — 150, 157 — 159, and according to Nesselhauf principally 141 - 144, because Pharasmanes came to Rome in the early years of Antoninus, not the later years. If Fabianus, as the editor proposed, is indeed the same as the L. Annius Fabianus of the inscription CIL III 7972 (Groag, PIR2 A 643), who was praetorian praeses of Dacia between the years 135 — 157 (as stated by Stein, Dazien, p. 26) ..." This last sentence is incomplete. Either because I don't know enough of the context, or because I'm not clever enough, I don't understand the logic of the passage I have underlined: perhaps someone else will see this and be able to improve my translation at that point (or indeed elsewhere). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:14, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
"If the years of Antoninus's reign . . ."? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:28, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, possibly, and thanks for trying to help, but I still don't understand the logic :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:56, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Calendarium Hebraicum


Hi, Andrew. I'm currently translating a template I've written for several other wikis (mainly just because). I've got it most of the way there; see Disputatio usoris:StevenJ81#Calendarium Hebraicum. (I had originally considered also adding the Roman calendar nomenclature, but until/unless I work on a separate template for that purpose I'm not doing it here and now.)

With respect to the Hebrew months: If you look just above the draft template, you'll see the names of the Hebrew months as the parser function spits them out here. They appear to correspond to common English spelling, and do not have separate genitive forms on this wiki. (They do on others, like hewiki, for example; I think it depends whether something has been programmed in.) Separately, the months are named at Calendarium Hebraicum, with different spelling. So here are my questions:

  1. Is the spelling at Calendarium Hebraicum reliable/authoritative for Hebrew months in Latin?
  2. Would one typically decline them? If so, can you help me with genitives for them? ("Sivan" would need to be in genitive just as much as "Iunius" does.)

Thank you! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 00:22, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Steven. The first answer is easy: one treats such foreign words as indeclinable. The Latin eye, seeing "XI Iunii" below and a parallel locution above, would understand that "Sivan" is in the genitive case. No problem there.
The person to tell us how best to spell the Hebrew names from the Latin point of view is Usor:Iustinus. Well, he is the chief contributor at Calendarium Hebraicum and if you look at the page history you see some of his reasoning. I would rely on that page since he produced it, and, if you have questions, it's best to ask him directly :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:01, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
OK. Thanks. I'll ask him directly. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:40, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply



Still working on this at my user talk page. Thanks. Here's a heads-up/question, though. Once we've settled on a schema for the months, I have two choices of how to proceed. I could create an "inner" template that simply converts the months as the server spits them out into months as we've decided to transliterate them here. Alternatively, since the server isn't really putting out a Latin version of the months anyway, we could try to program the interface to do that. It is a localization that the MediaWiki software is built to take routinely, though: the month Tamuz (in English, and as this wiki also currently names it) comes out as תמוז in the Hebrew and Yiddish wikis, Tamouz on frwiki, and so forth. Can you do that as an administrator? Do I have to put in a request at whatever they're calling bugzilla now? Does it require a formal community consensus? I don't want to make you or anyone else go through a lot of work, but if it's easy and straightforward to do, it would be a better way to go, IMO. Just curious what you know/think. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:20, 14 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and there are some other variables that it would be at least equally desirable for the server to convert to Latin (for example, the dates of birth "7. century" etc. (wrong in every language) that come across to us from Wikidata). My knowledge in this area is small to vanishing. We might ask UV, and he might look in here anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:01, 14 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
While it would be possible for a Vicipaedia admin to configure the Hebrew month names for la.wikipedia only, the better choice would be to add the translations to translatewiki: so that not only la.wikipedia will (automatically) use them, but other projects as well. You yourself can register at translatewiki: and add the translations once we have reached an (informal) consensus here. Here is the list of Latin translations for you to change:
Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:00, 14 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, @UV. I registered at translatewiki and got cleared over the weekend. I put in one of these as a test edit (m11 nominative to "Ab," since I didn't think that was actually controversial) to see how it works. If everything works ok with that, I'll fill in the rest once we come to an agreement elsewhere about a consensus. (@Iustinius agrees that these are considered invariable nouns, so nominative and genitive versions will be identical.) Will keep you both posted, too. (Once this stuff is cleaned up, I can start helping you figure out how to do some of these other things, too, Andrew.) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:44, 15 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Test successful, Andrew and @UV. If you look at Disputatio usoris:StevenJ81#Calendarium Hebraicum, you'll see that one of the months is now rendered "Ab" by the server, because I edited it at translatewiki per the above. At this point I will start updating the six of the twelve Hebrew month names for which there appears to be no question or dispute (see at Disputatio usoris:StevenJ81#Calendarium Hebraicum II, while awaiting consensus on the rest. (Your contributions would be welcome; I'm especially keen to get a read from you on the "u"/"v" dichotomy in three of the names.)
Separately, if you can start describing other things you'd like me to try to look at fixing from translatewiki, I'll try. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 12:59, 17 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Closing questions


Hi, Andrew. I closed the discussion on my talk page. The last transliterations are being processed in translatewiki, and should be here in a few days. So I have two remaining questions, mainly because I haven't studied enough Latin to really understand subtleties of declension:

  1. Translatewiki had a phrase it was requesting translation of: "Name of month in Hebrew calendar." Name is nominative (no pun intended), and month is genitive. But are the others genitive or ablative?
  2. What should I call my template when I publish it? I was thinking "Dies Hebraicus," but do I have that right?

After this, I'll leave you alone for a while. (Separately, I am trying to work with UV and Wikidata on the other problem.) But thanks very much for your help! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:47, 23 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Genitive or ablative, you could look at it either way. They are months of the Hebrew calendar, or they are names by, with or in the Hebrew calendar. I'd go for the genitive, but I bet the next speaker will differ.
"Dies Hebraicus" seems OK to me; or plural, "Dies Hebraici". All of the above assumes that you are happy with the term "Hebraicus". I think of it rather as the Jewish calendar, hence "Iudaicus", but you'll know better on this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 23 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I'll go for singular, because the template shows you today's date only (on both calendars). So it represents only one day. Hebraicus/Iudaicus: Good question. I've always called it "Hebrew calendar" myself, and that tends to be the name I hear in English, though not exclusively. Beyond that, a quick survey of Wikipedias shows that German-derived languages (including Yiddish) use something related to Jewish, while Latin-derived languages (including Djudeo-Espanyol), as well as Hebrew, use something related to Hebrew. (The above is probably why English is a mixed bag ...) So I'm going to stick with "Hebraicus" for now. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:41, 23 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Done. Thanks again for all your help. (Would you mind checking if I wrote the one bit of documentation correctly?) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:50, 24 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

We have had some luck on the "century" issue: See d:Wikidata:Contact the development team#Century dating—localization and phabricator:T104447. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 20:46, 1 Iulii 2015 (UTC)Reply

American comic actors


Hi, how are you?

It's not a problem, I'll check these pages more carefully. This user adds a page a day isn't a big work. Ciao --Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 05:29, 14 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for sending this message in English.

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Gli angeli di Borsellino


Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

Parvam relecturam feci, set tibi peto magnum adiutum relecturae argumenti. Please, can you? Thanks a lot for your precious help!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 14:18, 19 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Noster Wikiamicus Viator relecturam argumenti fecit! Vale. Rei Momo (disputatio) 12:46, 20 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ok, but is it possible to take off, now, the latinitas -3? Please... :-) Rei Momo (disputatio) 18:02, 20 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'll take it off now. But another time, Rex, you or Viator can take it off! It doesn't have to be me! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:05, 20 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Suuuuuure, carissime amice, I was thinking that in Ltin Wikipedia it had to take off from the samw Wikipedian who put! Thnaks a lot and see you soon!!! Rei Momo (disputatio) 18:32, 20 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
P.S.: Sorry, no more Rex or Rei :-) I like more Momo Thank youuuu!!! Rei Momo (disputatio) 18:34, 20 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you


Dear Andrew, I thank you for your correction. I have already changed the wrong categoriesHelveticus montanus (disputatio) 09:13, 21 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

Block User


Hi Andrew, can you block this user? thanks in advance.--Syum90 (disputatio) 17:49, 22 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply

The same vandal, I think: CopiaVia.--Syum90 (disputatio) 17:57, 22 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply
I think so too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:58, 22 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply



I've the German ones in store :-)--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 03:53, 24 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply



Vale, carissime Adreas, quomodo te habes?

Tibi huius novae pagine parvam relecturam peto, quia iam scis meam latinitatem non magnam esse! Tibi magna gratias ago!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 23:27, 26 Iunii 2015 (UTC)Reply



Hi, please block this ip. Matiia (disputatio) 22:27, 21 Iulii 2015 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't around at that time. Blocked now: thanks for your work meanwhile.
At that time of day you might try Lesgles: he was around in fact, but evidently not watching the recent changes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:04, 22 Iulii 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes indeed! Lesgles (disputatio) 16:36, 22 Iulii 2015 (UTC)Reply



I do not know I took the reference as written on the page of the list of the departments communes. Ciao Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 11:48, 6 Augusti 2015 (UTC)Reply

    • here too very hot. After the warmest month in Lugano's climatic history (July 2015 mean temeprature:25.8°) now again 33° today



We all deserved to be thanked. Concerning me I hope only I have also in the future enough time to partecipate to this project. Have a nice day! Ciao--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 12:28, 10 Augusti 2015 (UTC)Reply

As we say in the Latin dialect of my people, Mazal Tov! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:57, 10 Augusti 2015 (UTC)Reply

De arte celandi


Andrea, hodie usor quidam nomine celato nuntiolum ad meam disputationis paginam scripsit Suecice inscriptum "Julgubben" ('father Christmas'), quem ilico delevit. Quid scripserit, parum mea interest, sed scisne, quo modo nomina celari possint. Mihi quidem haec celandi ars plane ignota est. Neander (disputatio) 15:12, 5 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply

Mihi quoque! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:51, 5 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply
Pro certo habeatis vandalum aliquem, nomine usoris inurbano, res malas in varias Vicipaedias inseruisse; quas statim delevit nomenque infandum celavit unus magistratuum semidivinorum qui de talibus rebus per omnes Vicipaedias curant.
Credo Neandrum et me nomina usorum [non nostrorum sed aliorum] celare posse, sed nunquam feci ego quia fere nunquam necesse est! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:43, 5 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply
Possumus omnes de talibus celationibus hic Anglice legere. Ad caput historiae paginae alicuius, mi Neander, videbis verba "Monstrare/celare emendationes selectas". Sed non licet inconsulte facere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:00, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply
And that's Greek to me. However, there's some English to be read. --Pxos (disputatio) 13:14, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply
Gratias ago maximas pro consilio tuo, Andrea. Expedit enim et talibus machinis uti scire, a quibus manus auferre prodest. Neander (disputatio) 17:28, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply

Archidioecesis Seulensis


Vale, carissime Andrteas! Tibi peto parvam relecturam huius pagine quae feci. Tibi magna gratias ago.

See you very soon!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 10:09, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Andrew Dalby


Thanks for say "thanks" in my change of lingua lusitanica. --Gato Preto (disputatio) 13:41, 8 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply



If I'm right I haven't seen you on vicipaedia since the last October 15th, are you all right? Ciao --Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 14:17, 21 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply

You were right, mi Helvetice! Thanks for your kind message. I was criss-crossing Europe to speak at two colloquia. Now I'm home. Having verified that my wife, mother-in-law and apple trees are all OK, the next priority is to look in on Vicipaedia, so here I am ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 24 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply
I kept looking for you in pometo, but didn't see you there! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:56, 24 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply
O quanto opere gaudeo te et tuas "ok" valere! Martinus [a.k.a. Neander (disputatio) 16:04, 24 Octobris 2015 (UTC)]Reply

Capsa hominis Vicidata


Dear Andrew, did you enjoy your time in Portugal? Were you well back home? I write to you because sometimes the capsa doesn't work properly. If you look for istance at Mauritius Pollini the birthdate appears in English and not in Latin. Could we fix it and how? Ciao--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 17:16, 29 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Massimo. I had a very good time in Portugal. I love Coimbra. I wish I was still there, but my apple trees called me home.
As regards the capsa, I think maybe all of them are wrong just at present. Every one I try is wrong. Yet if you look at the Wikidata page, all the dates are in Latin. Well, my conclusion is that this is far beyond us. Either (a) the Master of the Universe has decided that English is the only language that matters, or (b) some programmer somewhere pressed the wrong key. Let's look again tomorrow, and if it's still in English, we'll get advice from someone more intelligent ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:09, 29 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply
they are again all in English. Aren't you angry all the work you did to create these capsas and now they do not work because somebody has changed a parameter?  :-) --Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 16:36, 30 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply
I know what you mean, but I say to myself, "Vicipaedia is a work in progress"! We'll ask UV if he can understand it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:59, 30 Octobris 2015 (UTC)Reply
Wikidata is even more a work in progress, methinks. Sigh.
It's very odd: dates come out in English, but everything else seems to work ok. (Where a "Qnnnnn" appears, that is because there is no Latin label in the entry, so someone needs to go fill that in. Where multiple values occur, that is because none of the values has a more favored rating in the Wikidata item.)
I'll tell you what I've been told before over there: using Modules makes all of this much more flexible and robust. Calling things through the use of modules (such as en:Module:Wikidata and en:Module:Wikibase) just seems to be more flexible. But I'm not an experienced coder, so I'm not the one to do this.
Still, I'm willing to ask over there again, if you like. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:26, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, OK, to be honest, I knew all along I had to learn about modules and Lua and all that. It's just finding the time ... Thanks, Steven!
There is the other point (note what you said about Wikidata above): the more esoteric and useless information is added to Wikidata, the slower and less productive it is to work with Wikidata. It was worth spending about a day creating our simple Wikidata infoboxes, but whether the time spent learning Lua etc. will be repaid, I'm no longer quite sure! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:18, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)Reply
I hear you. I've been stumbling through it myself. I've successfully implemented a module or two that someone else gave me (directly and personally), but that's about as far as I can go. (I'm admin/crat on Judeo-Spanish [Ladino] Wikipedia now.) These Wikidata modules are pretty involved, too. I agree with you: I'm not sure the time is going to be repaid in many cases.
One of the other issues around Wikidata is this: how often do we want a page to pull those data? How often do we need to check if a Wikidata page is updated? Obviously, it depends on what the page is. If the page is pulling the current identity of the President of this or Prime Minister of that, that's one thing. But how often do the facts about Charlemagne change, really? I do worry that Wikidata is sucking up a lot of time and energy we could use in other ways.
I've put in a handful of test calls to Wikidata in ladwiki, just to play. But I'm not very likely to work on that in any broad-based way in the short-to-medium run.
Was this template actually pulling dates out in Latin before? If so, maybe we can report that as a bug. If we can do that simply, it's probably worthwhile. If not ... 'Nuff said. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 19:34, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it really was. Helveticus noticed the change, and I did too, on 29 October, and that must be very soon after it happened, I'm sure. If you know how to report that, please do! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:03, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)Reply
Will do. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 22:41, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)Reply

Brief translation question


How would you translate the text of my standard userbox, seen here? (The last word is a transliteration of the Hebrew phrase "the Name", which is a common substitute word for an actual Hebrew name of God.) Thanks in advance. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 19:40, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)Reply

Always seems odd to me the way we use the third person so impersonally in these boxes. Xenophon and Julius Caesar used the third person, but with their own names; we're different! "Hic usor paginam suam Nominis ope construxit", or, more personally, "Paginam meam Nominis ope construxi". "Nominis" seems right, but there may be a conventional way of expressing this substitution in Latin that I don't know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much. In re "Nominis": I'd guess, more likely, just "HaSem" (transliterated and indeclinable) or "Dei," I think. Speaking English, we either use some Hebrew locution (such as the one transliterated as "HaShem") or just the English word "God." We never actually say "The Name" in English. As to the third-person construction, that's a great point! (;-) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 22:41, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)Reply
See my user page. I went with first person and Dei. Gratias! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 23:08, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wikiproject Georgia or anything related?


Hello Andrew, just interested if here's ever been any kind of monthly or annual wikiproject for Georgia or Georgia-related articles to be created in Latin wiki? There are literally lots of articles that would be great to have translated in Latin as for now only some few Georgia-related articles are presented here. Any plans on expanding a bit towards Georgia in la.wiki? Jaqeli (disputatio) 08:02, 16 Novembris 2015 (UTC)Reply

I do not agree at all. From my point of view the big problem is not for vicipaedia the presence of a lot of short pages, but that sometimes we have long ones that have anything to do with the Latin language or are full of big language mistakes. When I look at other wikipedias I do not see a big difference in the kind of pages (most of wikipedias have pages on the French communes with no more information than ours) of course if we do not include the biggest ones (English, German, French, Italian ecc.). With this unkind sentence " We're adding a thousand pages a month, of which about 900 are so short that they would count them as "placeholders", not stubs." I understand that the pages I do each month and each day (and whom I'm trying to ameliorate when I have time to do it) are completely unuseful. I stop here I have better things to do in my life. Bye Bye.--Helveticus montanus (disputatio)


Intermissa, Venus, diu

rursus bella moves? Parce precor, precor. Autokrator (disputatio) 22:14, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)Reply

Capsa hominis Vicidata


Dear Andrew, We've an other problem. Now the links to nationality are always red also for the nations we certainly have a page (USA, Germany etc.). Really we have a page for all the world's nations--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 17:01, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's not a new problem, Massimo. It's a question for Lesgles really: the links that he added usually work, but sometimes cause this confusion. In my view, the links were not very necessary because they usually are for details that should appear in the text as well ... but I must admit that they are sometimes handy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:42, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)Reply
Do you have an example of a page where the problems occur? I might remove some of the links. Lesgles (disputatio) 04:35, 1 Decembris 2015 (UTC)Reply

Non stipula


Vale, mi Andrea, nesciebam an possem ipse indicem "Non stipula" amovere, putabam enim hoc officium esse cuius hunc indicem posuisset. Faciam igitur ut me mones. Omnia optima tibi.--Viator (disputatio) 08:31, 3 Decembris 2015 (UTC)Reply

De huius VP superficie


Salvus sis, Andrea! Dubito an tibi notum sit, cuinam instituta illa mutare liceat, quae ad eas huius VP partes spectant, intra quas hic versamur. Certe memineris illius mutationis nuper factae, qua pro Paginis custoditis nunc Paginae observatae positae sunt. Mihi quidem plura alia mutanda videntur, velut illae reliquiae exemplaris Anglici, velut ea, quae in taberna nuper proposueram, velut ea, quae nusquam effugere possis, cum aut nomen dare velis (illud enim conventum aperire certe quavis Latinitate caret) aut nomen tuum retineri velis (et legas keep me logged in). Quid tibi videtur optimum factu? Laurentianus (disputatio) 14:24, 11 Decembris 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cum te vehementer consentio, mi Laurentiane, sed ego has res technicas male intellego. Sunt fortasse plures qui melius possunt: quaere fortasse apud Disputatio Usoris:UV ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:31, 11 Decembris 2015 (UTC)Reply
Gratias tibi ago maximas, mi Andrea, qui hanc rem etiam in taberna collocasti. Et peractis laboribus subeundis UV pariter alloquar. Vale. Laurentianus (disputatio) 15:05, 11 Decembris 2015 (UTC)Reply

Citri et cervi


Since we're in the process of making Vicipaedian New Year's resolutions, I thought I'd remind you about the Citrus pages which are still marked "in progressu"Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo "in usu," and also about Cervus torquatus from a while back, in case you were planning on doing anything with those. Of course, I myself have a few pages to clean up. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 23:53, 14 Decembris 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're quite right, I had completely forgotten all of those! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:34, 15 Decembris 2015 (UTC)Reply

De histrionibus


Dear Andrew,

Happy New Year. Yeah I agree with you the new list can be deleted when we have inserted all the new artists' names our old lists do not already have. CiaoHelveticus montanus (disputatio) 08:26, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

De iubilaeo Vicipaedianorum

Annum 2016 prosperum et felicem omnibus amicis Vicipaedianis opto! Apud Tabernam consentivimus annum 2016 (quem iubilaeum nostrum Helveticus nuncupavit) praecipue dedicare ad textum paginarum Vicipaedicarum augendum et meliorandum. Huic proposito consentiens (si tu consentis!) sic pro communi inceptu nostro agere potes:

  • Quando paginas novas legibiles, fontibus munitas, et non brevissimas creare vis, crea! Ne timeas!
  • Quandocumque paginam aut breviorem aut mendosam aut male confectam reperis, cura! corrige! auge!
  • Si paginam novam brevissimam creare in mentem habes, recogita ... An potius textum longiorem scribere oportet? An prius aliam paginam, iam exstantem, augere potes?

Quo dicto, Vicipaediani liberi sumus. Paginae etiam breves, quae inter veras "stipulas" admitti possunt (vide formulam "Non stipula"), accepturae sunt sicut iam antea accipi solent. Scribe igitur sine metu, sicut iam scripsisti! [en] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:24, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Appius etc.


Cur "habuerint"? Est perfectum coniunctivi an futurum secundum?Burzuchius (disputatio) 15:46, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Perfectum coniunctivi. Ego iam diu "habuerunt" scripsi: alii mox varias paginas in "habuerint" correxerunt. Ego eis credidi! Quid censes tu? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:50, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Quid de (sub)titulo "Appii clari"? Laurentianus (disputatio) 17:01, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Ego contextibus generalibus verbum "notabilis" praefero. Omnes, quos describimus, "notabiles" esse debent, sed non omnes iam "clari" sunt! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:36, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Usor Neander mihi responsum dedit. Vide eius paginam disputationis.Burzuchius (disputatio) 19:36, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Tarlac urbs


Hi Andrew, I would appreciate a warning, like a delenda notification before you delete. Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:25, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Jondel, it was an extremely brief article but I would have intended to put "Non stipula" on it, not to delete it at once. I'll restore it for you.
Done. I never guessed a Vicipaedian had created it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much Andrew. We all have to struggle with out time. Best regards.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:48, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Six months


Does Vicipaedia have a list of the nonstubs sorted in order of imposition of the formula, so that anybody can easily find the nonstubs in the most urgent danger of deletion? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:46, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Anne created such a list for us, but I don't recall where. I don't think the danger is urgent: no one is working to that date, so far as I know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:01, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Found it. I'll put the link on your talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply



Salve, mi Andrew! Pictura Alkaios et Sappho, 2416, Staatliche Antikensammlungen Monaci, ut mihi videtur, nunc bis hac in pagina apparet. --Bavarese (disputatio) 19:21, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Debbora non Debora


Debbora in latino. [2]Driante70 (disputatio) 14:50, 8 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cur me? An de Debora quadam scripsi? Haud memini. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 8 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

de iubilaeo


Andrea si valeas quoque valeo! Nescivi nos hoc in anno iubilaei causa gaudere! Quam optime! Morbum scribendi loquendique Latine iterum patior, quare librum de rebus classicis tempore et civitatibus socialisticis ad censendum accepi. Puto me hic mox iterum versari. Consilio tuo (nostro?) et energiam in paginas nostras breves augendas dabo. Vale interdum! -- Ioscius 18:00, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Valeo, mi Iosci, et gaudeo te apud nos rediturum! Ubi es? In Slovenia? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:38, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Gaudeo, quod revenisti! --UV (disputatio) 23:17, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply



Tibi gratias ago causa adiuti istae paginae! Rei Momo (disputatio) 16:38, 13 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is getting 15 years - WMF projects - translation of Wikidata labels and descriptions


Wikipedia is getting 15 years - WMF projects - translation of Wikidata labels and descriptions

lang=la : ?lang=la&props=31,218,219,220,506,1406&q=claim[1800]Latina

Dear Andrew; There will be a birthday soon: Wikipedia is getting 15 years. I want to let you know that the number of d:Wikidata:Database reports/WMF projects there is also the page Wikipedia versions has increased to more then 409; there are also pages from Wikibook project pages to Wikiversity and Wiktionary project pages in that list. You may be interested in adding Wikidata labels and descriptions in your language. Please follow also the discussion at d:property talk:P218 and comment there. Best regards Gangleri also aka I18n (disputatio) 01:23, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Gangleri. Nice to hear from you. I edit Wikidata a lot, but I don't know how or where to ask questions there.
For example, I would be happy to add some labels and descriptions automatically, to groups of Wikidata pages. I guess, following the link you gave me, that AutoList 2 is the way to do it. I never knew that before, so thank you! but I'm no further forward because I don't see how to use it. Is there an explanation somewhere? Example: if I wanted to add the description "Capsa navigationis" to everything that is under our category "Categoria:Formulae capsarum navigationis", could I do that? How? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:34, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply
There was never a reply. I still don't know how to add multiple labels to Wikidata quickly, or whether one can do such a thing, or who to ask, or where to find out more. Ah well ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:41, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply
I can add multiple labels to a single item quickly, but I don't know how to add labels across a multiplicity of items quickly. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:20, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply
I really meant to say: add descriptions to multiple items quickly :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well, change "labels" to "descriptions" in what I wrote above, and the same is true. (;-) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:18, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hymnus Germaniae


Salve Andrew! Paginam Hymnus Germaniae partim rescribere ausus sum, eo modo, ut verbis Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit incipiat (like God save the Queen, but not Hymnus Angliae). Ita necesse est eam movere ad dictum novum lemma. Id quaeso facias. Gratias tibi agens --Bavarese (disputatio) 16:30, 22 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Butuan and Las Pinas


Salve Andrew. Would it be possible to restore these pages? I will work on the sources as well as beefing up the content. Thanks in advance. --Jondel (disputatio) 12:48, 27 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, restored. If I were you, I'd deal with them quickly, Jondel. They had been marked "Non stipula" for 11 months, and they will still be in that same list, so, until improved, they risk being deleted again by others!
In case it's useful, the simplest way to find a source about a place is usually to look for the official website. Make a section "Nexus externi", and just add a link to that official website. I know you often do it by adding footnotes. That's another way, nothing wrong with it, it's fine, but I think it takes longer, and a one-sentence article really doesn't need footnotes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 27 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply
A one-sentence article is unlikely to have enough text to qualify as a stub. :/ IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:18, 27 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Well, there's that too! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 27 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

We'll do. rolling up my sleeves now.Thank you again.Jondel (disputatio) 13:40, 27 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

De aestimationibus removendis


Andrea, timeo ne bellum editorum mihi et Jondelio oriturum sit de medicina succursoria. Quam enim commentatiunculam Latinitate-3 instruxi, quam autem notam ille bis removit. Aestimationem Latinitatis nequaquam puniendi causa feci, sed eo consilio, ut legentes hortarer certa benevolentia uti. Perperamne Latinitatem aestimavi? Licetne cuilibet sine causa aestimationes Latinitatis removere? Mihi quidem vandalismum redolet. Neander (disputatio) 17:04, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Neander, si tibi placeat, quod dubium sit, indices. Causam habeo quod emendavi. Malisne res manere cum erroribus? Minime indica cum signo dubsig quod non intelliges , si tibi placeat. Quomodo adhunc procedere? Asseverasne latinam meam extra Vicipaediam attestari non posse?Jondel (disputatio) 17:37, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nadina Sierra


Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

Haec parvam pagina aperii et tibi peto parvam relecturam. Tibi magna gratias ago.

Rei Momo (disputatio) 11:25, 15 Februarii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for understanding and cooperation !


Dear Andrew Dalby, Thank you for your cooperation on article about Igor Janev. Best wishes! Institut za političke studije (disputatio) 09:38, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Andrea gratias tibi ago pro tuo beneficio


--Excelsius (disputatio) 05:53, 23 Martii 2016 (UTC)Reply



Salve, condimentum dictum possis? Egerunt: Christophorus Bencomo y Rodríguez.-- 12:09, 27 Martii 2016 (UTC)Reply

De Eliana et lingua valentina


Humanissime collega: Valde miror te “valentianum, -am, -um” (!!??) scribere contra opinionem omnium auctorum, qui semper et constanter “valentinum, -am, -um” scripserunt. Ecce pauca exempli gratia: Cicero, Orationes in C. Verrem, 2. 5. 40: “Cum ad te valentini venissent ...... ipsis autem valentinis ex tam illustri nobilisque municipio ...” Bernardinus Gomesius, De Vita et rebus gestis Iacobi regis aragonum, libri XX, Valentiae 1582: p. 57: “.... ingresus est fines valentini regni.” p. 94: “... in valentinum regnum profugisse” p. 221: “.... ab electo primo valentino episcopo fuit celebratum”. p. 273: : “... dissidente canonicorum valentinorum collegio”. Alexander VII, papa, Bulla “Super Universi Orbis”, Romae 1657: p. 4: “... in ecclesia valentina, totius regni Valentiae metropoli” p. 5: “... archiepiscopus valentinus et capitulum dictae ecclesiae valentinae...”

Item, “valentinice” (!!???). Sed “in lingua valentina” habet auctoritatem Marci Varronis: “Quemadmodum vocabula essent imposita rebus in lingua latina, sex libri exponere institui”. (De Lingua Latina, lib. V, 1). Concedo “valentine”, si adverbium optas.

Item, “in illo tempore” est celeberrima locutio in toto orbe, et vide Mt 11, 25: “In illo tempore respondens Iesus dixit”. Et Mt 12, 1; Mt 14, 1; Eph 2, 12 et cetera. Sed “illo tempore” latine est.

Item, “relativus, -a, -um” in omnibus thesauris latinis apparet; et sensus “relationis” a Logice antiqua et medievale usus est. Sed concedo orationem obscuram haud parum esse.

Item, “decas, decadis” in omnibus thesauris latinis apparet, sub auctoritate Tertulliani, De Praescrip Haeret. 49 et Hieronymi, in cap. 41 Ezech. Sed optimum quoque est “decennium, -i”.

Item, “mercatus, -i” habet novum sensum. Vide: “Mercatus, qui nunc globalis efficitur, in primis promovit, ex parte quarundam nationum divitum ....” Benedictus XVI, Encyclica “Caritas in Veritate”, cap. II, 25. “Civitas” habet sensum arcaicum, cum Roma et civitates graecae “civitas - res publica” essent. Latinitas abhinc saecula “nationem vel gentem” optat. Vide Bedam: “ad quos haec eadem historia peruenire potuerit nostrae nationis” (Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, praefatio). Modernae linguae quoque: nación, nazione, nation, nação.

De positione verbi in oratione regula non est, ergo non necesse est verbum in finem semper ponere.

De gentilicio vocabulo (in maiuscula vel minuscula) regula non est. Usus linguae anglicae et gallicae est primam litteram in maiusculam scribere. Inter hispanos, italicos et lusitanos haec consuetudo non est.

Ultimum huius orationis erit me gratias tibi agere propter correctiones, sed rogo ut, antequam mutes textum, quaeras.[[3]] Spqv (disputatio) 16:51, 3 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Salve optime, Spqv. Haud scio ubi de lingua Valentiae iam scripserim. Fontes de nomine Latino illius linguae nunquam vidi.
De adiectivis geographicis vel ethnicis maiusculizandis: recte dicis alios aliter scribere. Nos Vicipaediani, ad regulam saepe in textibus Latinis recenter impressis adhibitam obtemperantes, litteras primas talium adiectivorum maiusculo scripsimus.
De aliis locutionibus, de quibus supra disseris, nescio cur me interpellas. Fortasse tibi oportet historiam paginae "Eliana" rursus perlegere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:39, 3 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply



Hi. I'm working on Jewish and American non-stipula topics. I think we could move this page from non-stipula to stipula (or get it closer) by adding the equivalent of the following two points:

  • "...abecedarii Hebraici[1] and other Semitic languages.
  • At end: "This letter eventually evolved into Greek Δ, Latin D, and Cyrillic Д."

My Latin skills aren't up to this, so if you can help, I'd appreciate it. (I read much better than I write.) If that doesn't get us quite to 200, let me know, and I'll come up with something else. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:28, 4 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can do. I'm surprised we don't have articles for the other letters of the alphabet, but, since the emphasis this year is on longer articles, I'll abstain from adding them just now ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:48, 4 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your help. I think you're right on priorities, too. (Part of the problem with Hebrew-alphabet articles, I think, is that to get much past 200 characters, one needs to start delving into either Semitic linguistics, or phonemes, or both, and those are both fairly specialized topics. Unless someone here can manage that in Latin, it's going to be hard to write worthwhile articles here.) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:53, 4 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
When we want to do it, we could decide to link all the articles together as a set of "paginae breves" and thus not be constrained to lengthen them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, along the same lines, would we automatically keep Cyprus (provincia Romana) and all other Roman provinces? I found this article while looking through non-stipulae, and marked it for merger into Cyprus#Historia. Objectively, we should do that, leaving a redirect behind so that the links on the template remain blue. But perhaps we want there to be a pagina breve about each province anyway? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:20, 26 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the long run I think an encyclopedia needs entries for major administrative units, separate from the histories of regions. I don't now recall how good our other articles on Roman provinces are and haven't time to check more right now. If sources are lacking, they could easily be added. We have many articles on Roman provincial governors, added by Schulz-Hameln mostly: that makes me think it is better to bring the province articles up to at least the brief standard and keep them. I probably created many of them and could have a go. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:17, 27 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Your call. I don't have the Latin chops for it. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:13, 27 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
I've created a template to complete the article. You can see it being used here. --Katxis (disputatio) 15:14, 27 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Formula:Historia Hispaniae


Could you please correct this template? Katxis (disputatio) 14:06, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply

What's wrong with it? Why don't you improve it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:10, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
I don't speak Latin so I would like you to check if there is any mistake. I added the main articles in each category but if you feel that some more are needed, please feel free to add them. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:12, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I understand now. I'll have a look. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the explanation about Spanish cities. I didn't understand the first time. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:35, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Could you please check the title in ablative in here? Thanks. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:42, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, done. "Historia" is ablative, correct, but what follows needs to be in the genetive: "history of the United States". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:48, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
I see. Thanks for your help. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:52, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Andrew! May you add the interwiki links to my recently created Skånska Dagbladet, Wan Chai and Enter the Dragon? It doesn't work for me no matter how much I try. It worked yesterday for some people. It is really bugging me. -- Donatello (disputatio) 12:04, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC).Reply

(tps) Done. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 12:36, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Donatello! No need for me to edit Wikidata, because, as you see, Usor:StevenJ81 did it first. Don't worry about it, you're not the only one: my impression is that Iacobus and Helveticus have never learned to do it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:14, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Glad to help out. Um ... I used {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to italicize the appearance of Enter the Dragon as a page title, since it is the name of a film. But I suppose I should ask: does that convention hold in Latin? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:16, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
In general, yes, it does. I don't think we have ever really discussed italicizing article names (and surely not those for film titles in particular), but some users do it, and I guess we will do it wholesale eventually. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:24, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
I saw that there was a template for it: {{Titulus italicus}}. That template seems to suggest that there is a problem with the "straight" way of doing italic titles if the title is long enough. I don't know if that's still valid, or if it's a leftover from earlier versions of the software. But most of the time, pasting {{DISPLAYTITLE:''{{PAGENAME}}''}} will do the job just fine. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:30, 27 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply



Is it correct the title "De disciplinis zoologiae" (I tried to translate it into ablative plural, but I am not sure)? --Katxis (disputatio) 20:12, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that title works fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:45, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks :) --Katxis (disputatio) 20:47, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Nouns in the genitive case and adjectives are functionally identical, though specifics of their use is a matter of stylistics. Woodcock's New Latin Syntax says: "The genitive inflexion thus turns a noun or a pronoun into a sort of adjective: compare, for example, fratris mors with fraterna mors, 'a brother's death'; domus regis with domus regia, 'the king's house'. . . . The genitive appears capable of expressing adjectivally all the relations which the other cases express adverbially. . . . The genitive has become a 'grammatical' case, i.e. a syntactic device for enabling a noun or a pronoun to perform the function of an adjective" (1959:50–51). ¶ So the phrases de disciplinis zoologiae and de disciplinis zoologicis are saying more or less the same thing, and which is to be preferred is a matter of style, not grammar. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:24, 27 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your kind words :) I don't speak Latin at all so I try to help in other ways. I am trying to translate small articles with the help of a dictionary but most of my work here will be related to images, categories and templates. --Katxis (disputatio) 09:21, 30 Maii 2016 (UTC)Reply

In that case, I think it would be better to delete it as it causes more troubles than helps in the article. --Katxis (disputatio) 12:38, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply
I see. Let's wait to see what others think. If it is not necessary, better to delete it. --Katxis (disputatio) 12:52, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Litterae Asturianae


Besides that, I would like to ask you if you could possibly take a look at Litterae Asturianae. I've just started translating and apparently its Latin is very bad. I cannot see where I made the mistakes so if you could please check it out it would be great. --Katxis (disputatio) 12:52, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Since it was Iacobus who evaluated it (and since I have something else I must do right now!) I suggest that you ask Iacobus first -- OK? In general it's not so very bad -- I mean, I can always understand what you want to say. That's good, believe me! It's not like that with Google translations.
Iacobus is right, there are many minor corrections to make, of various kinds, but I think you will not find it difficult to understand the reasons when explained. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
"Very bad" would be –6 or –7. Many small grammatical infelicities. No time to explain today. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:34, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Deus solis


Salve Andrew! Quaeso, amabo te restaures rem Deus solis. Gratias tibi ago in antecessu.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:44, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK. It's a new dawn. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:51, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is! Thank you Andrew!--Jondel (disputatio) 04:16, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Estoria de España


Thanks for your edition in Estoria de España. I will change the bibliography as soon as possible. --Katxis (disputatio) 15:03, 2 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

World No Tobacco Day


Could you please merge Dies mundi sine tabaco and Dies mundialis sine tabaco? --Katxis (disputatio) 09:18, 6 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done.--Jondel (disputatio) 05:24, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cultura Romana antiqua etc.


Thanks for your help. I will continue working on them little by little. At first I would like to get the structure of the article done and then I will start translating. Sorry for creating more work. --Katxis (disputatio) 11:57, 13 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

No problem at all. The work you're doing is very valuable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:00, 13 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Sorry to bother you again but could you please translate the following sentences so that those articles don't look that empty at the beginning?

The culture of ancient Rome existed throughout the almost 1200-year history of the civilization of Ancient Rome. The term refers to the culture of the Roman Republic, later the Roman Empire, which at its peak covered an area from Lowland Scotland and Morocco to the Euphrates.
The history of the Roman economy covers the period of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. Recent research has led to a positive reevaluation of the size and sophistication of the Roman economy.

Thanks in advance. --Katxis (disputatio) 12:16, 13 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am done with the structure of the article Usor:Katxis/Cultura Romae antiquae. Could you please take a look and tell me if there is some topic that might be missing and, also, could you please help me with the translation? I've done the section related to languages. It would be great if you could correct any possible mistake. Thanks in advance and sorry for bothering you. --Katxis (disputatio) 10:41, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

I want to be helpful, and I will look at the section on languages certainly ... but I don't have time for everything! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:47, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply
You don't need the {{In progressu}}Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo {{In usu}} formula at the top of the page, since your user-pages are yours in a semiprivate sense: other people may see them, but altering them without an invitation would be unseemly. In the definition, per 1200 annos is clumsy; the usual idiom for duration in time is the plain accusative: 1200 annos. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:51, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your help @IacobusAmor. I've already changed it. --Katxis (disputatio) 12:04, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

As a general thought, you're very ambitious to take on such a long task when (if I understand correctly) you are at an early stage in Latin. What's more, I have a feeling that shorter articles are more likely to be read, and that many articles on English Wikipedia are far too long. But it's your choice! And Iacobus, who wrote Cultura for Vicipaedia, will probably disagree with my generalizations :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:22, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

I see. But the problem I have is that when I write short articles, they put a template on them that say that they will be deleted in three months because they are too short. Nevertheless, I believe you are right. I will shorten the article. Katxis (disputatio) 12:27, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ha! This one certainly won't get that template.
You can read here about the minimum requirements for an article: 200 characters of text (i.e. about 2 lines of text), one reliable source of information (not a Wikimedia project), internal links to and from the article, a suitable image if available, a link on Wikidata. That's it! Many editors forget to add a source of information, but if you're translating from another Wikipedia you simply have to copy one suitable external link or bibliography item. It should be easy really. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply
I should add, also, that if there is an item missing from the list, it's more likely someone will add it than that the article will get deleted. But it's better for you to add it while the subject is fresh in your mind. The real aim of those guidelines is to try to ensure that, when people visit the page, they do not judge it to be useless. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:06, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've created the article Cultura Romae antiquae just with the portions of text in Latin. Once I finish other parts, I will add them. Katxis (disputatio) 14:25, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

(tps) Articles whose lemmas are Latin (unless the Latin name is well-known) are also supposed to carry an explicit source for the Lemma, which may or may not be the same as the source supporting the article itself. Andrew has reminded me in the past that one important reason people come to Vicipaedia is to try to get definitive Latin names for things. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:53, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply
I still agree with myself, that's really important wherever the Latin name of a thing is in doubt or not found in every dictionary. It applies to all the articles I've touched yesterday and today, about cities in south east Asia and Australia (hard to check, rarely found in Latin reference sources). It doesn't apply to Katxis's article today (for example) because the pagename "Cultura Romae antiquae" is merely descriptive, not needing external support: we just have to be happy with the grammar of it and to have an external source for some main facts.
So the requirement for support for the pagename isn't in the non stipula definition. We just ask for an external source: we don't insist that it supports the Latin pagename in particular. Nice if it does. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I added another paragraph to the article. However, I would like to ask you for you advise, would it be better to create a new page titled "Linguae Romae antiquae/Linguae Imperii Romani" or shall I leave it as it is now? --Katxis (disputatio) 08:06, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

I haven't yet looked at your addition to the article, but I had already read your draft about languages in your userspace. It is an important topic on which there's lots to say. I didn't think those few sentences were a very good summary, but (if I'm right) that's because they are based on an English text which is itself not a very good summary. The large-scale en:Languages of the Roman Empire is excellent, but long. We want an artiucle like that in the end, but whether we want it now I'm not quite sure! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:19, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply
May it be better to create a separate article based on en:Languages of the Roman Empire? --Katxis (disputatio) 08:28, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yes, certainly, if you have the energy for it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:51, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

How can I translate "semi-circular" into Latin? --Katxis (disputatio) 13:56, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

The adjective "semicirculus -a -um" exists, used once by Columella. A good classical author. Use it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I've added more information to the page. I think that, as it is now and regarding the topics that convers, it could be considered done. Nevertheless, I would like to ask your opinion whether I should add the following topics to the general article:

  • Sports
  • Cuisine
  • Philosophy
  • Science and technology
  • Clothing
  • Hairstyle

Thanks for your help. Katxis (disputatio) 20:17, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Any of these can be considered ramifications of culture, I guess, but honestly it would be better to ask IacobusAmor to comment. As an anthropologist he will have a far more informed opinion about where an article headed "Cultura" should go next. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:28, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Why not write separate articles first and then link them here, perhaps with a summary paragraph. See, for example, Ancient Roman cuisine. You could add something Roman to match Philosophia Graeca antiqua. If you search for "Ancient Roman" in the English wikipedia, you'll find separate articles on Roman architecture, units of measure, bathing, pottery, military clothing, and so on. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:10, 20 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply



I just want to express my appreciation for the extra work you did for finding the latin names of the Japanese provinces!--Jondel (disputatio) 01:14, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Historia Romae


Hi! How are you? I've seen there is an article entitled "Historia Romae" which refers just to the history of ancient Rome. However, there is also an article about "Ancient Rome" with a section dealing with history. Wouldn't it be better to keep "Historia Romae" for the history of the city of Rome until today and talk about Roman ancient history on the section in "Ancient Rome"? In that way there wouldn't be a duplicate and both articles could be completed dealing with two different topics. What do you think about it? --Katxis (disputatio) 09:15, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Roma antiqua, being one of the 10,000 pages, wants to correspond to the article on the same subject in other wikis, though of course it doesn't have to correspond in every particular. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:29, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Good point. I have no connection with this topic, and I think remodelling this or other articles should be discussed on the article talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's good that Katxis took up this misnomer. In antiquity, Roma referred to the city of Rome alone, not to the imperium Romanum. That's why I shyly and heedfully wrote the title Romani antiqui and directed it to Roma antiqua (Apr. 2015). I didn't change the title, because I hadn't the time to make the textual & stylistic changes required. Although it may sound natural to say Roma antiqua in the wake of Ancient Rome or Rome antique, this would be an anachronistic neologism, if it's supposed to refer to the Roman empire or civilisation. Neander (disputatio) 13:13, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Oh, Andrew, I'm sorry. I didn't notice your wish to discuss this issue in due place! Neander (disputatio) 13:18, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply
It's quite OK of course -- and I am with you in my heart of hearts -- but I was feeling this might be a topic that didn't really need my opinion :-) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just moved it to the article's discussion page. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Katxis (disputatio) 13:46, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply



Hi! Sorry to bother you again. Could you please take a quick look at Expugnatio Daciae and Occasus Imperii Romani to see if there is any error? Thanks in advance for your help. --Katxis (disputatio) 01:33, 22 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Both have numerous errors. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:11, 22 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Acta Vandalorum


Hello dear Andrew! I would like to bring to your attention, on the Latin pages works of the users: Usor:Driante70 and Usor:Sacreum. Unfortunately they also destroy, erase or delite the research work done by me or by others, do not respect the rules of Vicipedia and and the few good things that they do, they are never under the rules, often their jobs are incorrect, partial or incomplete. I have often tried to contact them but they did not have my answer. I believe and I hope that they should be stopped. I ask you to intervene with your authority.--Nuada (disputatio) 13:17, 29 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message, Nuada. Since you, Sacreum and Driante70 all three make a large number of edits, and a large number of page moves, it is difficult for another editor to make a correct judgment without more details. Please give me examples: please list for me some recent edits by these two that are clearly incorrect, and edits that delete work done by you or others. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:31, 29 Iunii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Scusate ma l'unico idiota che mette nomi inventati da lui per niente enciclopedici non sono io... non faccio nessun atto vandalico cerco di trovare fonti consone e di togliere nomi che non hanno fonte. Qualcuno crede che Wikipedia latina sia monopolio suo tipo Nuada. Che si contenesse e mettesse per una volta almeno il template del FONTE MANCANTE. Così almeno si capisce chi scrive fandonie e chi collabora. Perché veramente mi ha rotto... CiaoDriante70 (disputatio) 12:20, 1 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Usor:Andrew Dalby Non è la prima volta che Nuada che mi dice che faccio atti vandalici. Se vuole che i suoi toponimi non siano cancellati usasse il template Template:Fontes desiderati, perché di solito aggiunge nomi che si inventa o che crede corretti e io cerco di mantenere solo quelli con una fonte. Queste accuse io non le tollero piùDriante70 (disputatio) 12:39, 1 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Ambobus eodem tempore loquor: ab opprobriis "idiota", "vandalus" etc. abstinere necesse est. Si de rebus male vel inconsulte factis aut me aut alios magistratos certiores facere vultis, nexus "differentiarum" praebete. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:20, 1 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Exempla actorum vandalorum usoris Driante70: Mugla, Cigala, Nura, Policastrum--Nuada (disputatio) 12:24, 8 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply



Veramente nella voce Cigala ho inserito il nome originario del paese fondato nel XVI secolo e la sua sua variante del XVII, essendo Cigala una famiglia nobiliare. La fonte Cicala del XVIII si riferisce ad una forma tarda, come attestato anche nel sito del comune. Quale vandalismo ho fatto? Nessuno. Quanto alla voce Mugla non è vero che ho cancellato le fonti, anzi avevo messo due fonti dal Graesse che non c'erano e ho messo il redirect perché Castrum Muglae è una derivazione di Mugla. Ma forse questo non va a qualcuno, che pensa che io faccio vandalismo e addirittura ha cancellato le mie aggiunte da Graesse poi le ha rimesse lui, come se stessimo giocando a chi scrive prima una cosa di un altro. Per far vedere come io abbia tolto le fonti, quando invece le stavo sistemando. Io non ho mai cancellato le fonti quando erano con le referenze, mi limito a togliere quelle fonti che non hanno il Fontes desiderati, che atto vandalico ho fatto. Forse qualcuno non vuole che si modifichino i lavori degli altri, ma Wikipedia non ha il monopolio ed è libera e uno si limita a migliorare le voci, non ho mai fatto vandalismo.Driante70 (disputatio) 16:40, 8 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

La voce Mugla era così https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castrum_Muglae&type=revision&diff=3079355&oldid=2822222 prima che la modificassi in https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castrum_Muglae&type=revision&diff=3079360&oldid=3079355. Qualcuno poi ha deciso di modificarla così https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castrum_Muglae&diff=next&oldid=3097050 per poi rimettere le mie fonti. Cioè assurdo, il vandalo è qualcun'altroDriante70 (disputatio) 16:44, 8 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Nelle voci Nura e Mugla hai cancellato la formula: {{Municipium Italiae}}.

Questi perciò sono atti di vandalismo, amico! Inoltre il Graesse che tu privilegi non è una fonte sempre attendibile perché spesso soggetta ad errori grammaticali e di trascrizione!--Nuada (disputatio) 08:27, 9 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sports or festivals


Hi! Sorry to bother but I was thinking of creating an article entitled "Sport in ancient Rome" and I had the doubt if "Ludi" can be included in there or they should be classified as "(religious) festivals". What's your opinion on that? Katxis (disputatio) 11:02, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sport is linked with religion in the ancient world; it is linked with nationalism in the modern world. It can still be identified and discussed as sport. I am not sure if this answers your question ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:25, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Problems with Nuada!


I can understand what I do vandalism? Sometimes it happens to only remove sources without notes, sometimes it happens that, to removing the wrong name, the template is automatically deleted. I do not understand this pedantic admonition to me by Nuada. Can anyone tell who is giving me trouble?Driante70 (disputatio) 18:40, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

I will reply on your talk page and on Nuada's. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:51, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply



Hello, I can't understand why you move Escaflone Caelorum and Puella Magi Madoka Magica to the Japanese title. There must are some people can't read Japanese. Can you tell me your reason that you have to move? Thank you! --Suchichi02 (disputatio) 06:14, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thanks for asking, I will explain.
Some people can understand Japanese. I think no one can understand the titles you quote: they are not in Latin or any other language.
Our rule for articles about books (and films, and magazines) is that unless the title has already been translated into Latin in a reliable source, we use the original title. The general reason is that Wikipedias have to be compiled from reliable sources. The special reason for book and film titles is that translating titles is a difficult art. Incorrect translations do not help anybody. But in the text of the article there is plenty of room to explain the meaning of the title. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:10, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Catholic Dioceses

You say that "Catholic dioceses are not a source for Latin use of "Suzhou": it's an English source, using English". It is that, but...

As you say, it is a useful source for adjectival Latin forms. If you missed it in the edit, though, my objection was that specific citation where the Catholic Dioceses article was being used to "verify" that Suzhou was the Latin placename. It actually is, but only because it's official for all romanizations of Chinese in all Latin-alphabet languages per the PRC. The source being used was simply writing that part of the page in English and it wasn't a source for that point in Latin. — LlywelynII (disputatio) 09:00, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Then you're 100% right. I have never encountered Catholic Hierarchy being used here in that way: heaven knows why it was so used in this case. It is indeed a useful source only for the Latin adjective "... Suceuvensis" and it does not show that the name Suzhou is Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Chinese names

This seems to imply that the name 杭州 is not official...

No it doesn't. It implies that in Chinese the name is 杭州 and (one) official Latin romanization is Hangzhou, even though other traditional forms Hanceu(m), Suceu(m), etc. are in more general use. My edits are based on English Wiki policies that I assume (possibly wrongly) are carried over here: Articles should be at their most common modern Latin location, official forms of the Vatican or other relevant country should be noted, and everything else should be cited and kept out of the lede and in a special name section once it gets beyond one or two alt names.

Sorry I can't give more official Vatican forms along with the Pinyin, but there's only a few Latinitas articles I've seen on Google Books and those are all in snippet view. If you have access to a scholarly database and can get full issues, kindly let me know and I'll add them in.

And incidentally I do know the Latin names for Chinese cities is very odd stuff (most of the real use is going to be the early missionaries who'll have no system at all and most of the modern official use will be at the Vatican, but only very rarely used), but if you have any knowledge (or way to find out more) about how to decline the forms Hanceu and Hanceum, I'm curious. I assume the later might be a simple 2nd decl. neuter, but I'd want to know for sure before starting to add Wiktionary entries. — LlywelynII 09:23, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

And btw thank you for your time, help, and kind words. — LlywelynII 09:25, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for replying so fully! If you're going to be improving pages about Chinese cities, that's great, I assure you that you have lots of leeway, and it will be enjoyable to discuss any points of doubt. You know most of what's below already, but I set it out for what it's worth.
Our guideline on the first sentence is to keep it readable. One or two well-chosen Latin forms, one or two vernacular forms, and try not to have more than three lemmas in total: further forms to be mentioned only in footnotes or to be discussed in a paragraph about names and etymology. If you encounter pages that don't keep to this guideline -- yes, there are many -- feel free to improve them in this direction.
Latin names (assuming they differ from the everyday name) should be sourced, and this sourcing footnote is appropriately placed immediately after the name.
With well known modern towns and cities, where there are often many variants, we tend to prefer Latin names that are used in some official source, frequently used, not too different from the everyday name, declinable in Latin. (In scientific articles we usually prefer modern scientific Latin nomenclature. These are both exceptions to our general rule: generally we aim for classical Latin.)
"Declinable in Latin" because it's useful in writing the article and because it's the only thing that proves the name was originally intended as Latin. I don't really know about "Hanceu". You could decline it as a 4th declension neuter, but that is not a productive declension in recent Latin, and I would probably have preferred "Hanceum". You're quite right that "Hanceum" can be taken as a 2nd declension neuter.
Vatican nomenclature is a very handy guide for cities that have a bishop (though often we can only find an adjective, which rarely guarantees the form of a parent noun); the Latin name of a well-established university is also a handy guide (but same problem); but we aren't necessarily ruled by these if other Latin sources also exist. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:05, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure about your phrase "official Latin romanization". I know pinyin is the official romanization, but in Latin? Is there a source for that? And is this what really matters, anyway? Think about it in the international context. London and New York have official names, but we don't say "Novum Eboracum, officially City of New York". What does the reader of Vicipaedia care about officialdom? We say "in everyday speech New York or New York City" ... or something like that: that's what the reader most needs to know, I'd say ... and I'd say that it's the same even in China :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC) [emended in accord with Iacobus's note below]Reply
For reference, the city does have an "official" name, and it's City of New York. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:22, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Delete pages


Hi. I contact you as the admin with most recent activities here since I didn't find a suitable page to report this. Could you have a look at the pages created by It's both in the wrong language and I can't see the relevance for the content. -- Tegel (disputatio) 22:56, 20 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Since Andrew is on European time, I went ahead and deleted and reverted the vandalism; there was no useful content. Lesgles (disputatio) 03:01, 21 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Correct, Lesgles. I was fast asleep :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:16, 21 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply
Someone must have gone to bed early! If I'd had Lesgles's email address, I'd have included him in the email I sent at 5:58:05 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Is there a list somewhere, in case of emergencies? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:21, 21 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply
(tps) We don't have an Administrators' Noticeboard here, right? If not, it seems to me that a couple of things would be helpful:
Emphasize periodically on Vicipaedia:Taberna (probably written in la and en, at least) that all administrators have Taberna on their watchlists, so reports can be made there.
Consider asking all administrators to include their local timezones on their user pages, so people know who is typically around when. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:10, 21 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply
There wasn't a problem: the address was blocked by the Timelords. Lesgles dealt with the vandalism overnight, with help from Jondel.
The theoretical difficulty of finding a single place for urgent messages is a cross-wiki issue, in my experience, not just Vicipaedia, but it is much alleviated by the fact that on smaller wikis active users tend to watch "Recent changes".
On my user page I've indicated roughly where I live: I think that's as far as I want to go :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 21 Iulii 2016 (UTC)Reply

Le doute de Joseph



Je me permets de vous solliciter pour vos connaissances en latin et en français. Travaillant actuellement sur les estampes françaises de Dorigny, je suis tombé sur la phrase suivante :

« Quid dubitas Joseph ? coelum tibi foedera nectit, Divina faciet Virgo te prole parentem. »

Je comprends en gros le sens car l'estampe fait référence au doute qui taraude Joseph lorsqu'il découvre la maternité de Marie. Mais comment traduire cela en bon français ? Auriez-vous une idée ?

Cordialement vôtre,--TG 642 (disputatio) 14:46, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)Reply

Je traduirais ainsi:
Pourquoi tu doutes, Joseph? Le ciel conclut une alliance avec toi. La Vierge te fera parent et l'enfant sera divin.
Ça ira? Cordialement -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:06, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)Reply
... par l'enfant divin? --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:26, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)Reply
Oui, peut-être. J'ai pensé à un ablatif absolu, mais je n'en suis pas certain! Merci, Bavarese ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:46, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)Reply
Cette phrase forme un fr:Distique élégiaque. --UV (disputatio) 19:40, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)Reply
Malheureusement non, mon ami; le second vers est un exemple simple d'un hexamètre dactylique, et non d'un pentamètre. Voici la scansion:
Dī-vī- | -nā fa-ci- | -et • Vir- | -gō tē | prōle pa- | -rentem.
La césure est au milieu du troisième pied, où l'on trouve le plus souvent, comme dans le vers d'ouverture le plus célèbre dans l'ensemble de la poésie latine:
Ar-ma vi- | -rum-que ca- | nō • Trō- | iae quī | prī-mus ab | ō-rīs.
Nous ne devons pas ignorer les macrons! :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:59, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)Reply
Merci beaucoup de votre obligeance. Cela ira très bien. Cordialement vôtre, --TG 642 (disputatio) 05:56, 6 Augusti 2016 (UTC)Reply
Ah, j'avais tort. Merci de l'avoir rectifié! --UV (disputatio) 10:06, 6 Augusti 2016 (UTC)Reply



Animadverti te, Andrea, ablativum singularem adiectivorum comparativorum i littera terminare solere (sicut a superiori, &c). Qui usus apud auctores mediaevales recentioresque frequentissimus fuit et vestigia constantia reliquit (sicut a priori, a posteriori). Cum quidem hic usus apud antiquos ignotus fuerit, velim scire, cur usum antiquorum (a superiore, &c.) tanta diligentia vites, quamquam certe hanc differentiam nosti. Reprehendere nolo, curiosus sum. Neander (disputatio) 09:03, 8 Augusti 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ha! Differentiam haud recognovi. Scribere soleo secundum exempla mihi praesentia (a priori, a posteriori) et lectiones meas recentiores (praesertim mediaevales): ita regulae classicae de ablativo adiectivorum comparativorum, olim mihi notae, oblitus sum ... Gratias tibi ago, mi Martine! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:21, 8 Augusti 2016 (UTC)Reply

Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire‎


Hi! I added more links and information to the page. Could you please take a look at it and take the template out? --Katxis (disputatio) 10:46, 23 Novembris 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Katxis. I'd say it needs more. There are lots of books in the world, not all of them notable. It's like writing an article about a living person: you have to show independent evidence that they are notable. With a modern book, you could say something about the author (with a good source cited); you could link to reviews in reliable publications. Obviously a book about ancient Rome tells about its life and its corruption: it has to! But what else? The English page says that too, but the English page also has no sources -- see the template there -- and will eventually be deleted if no good external sources are found.
A different point: the external link you give is to a complete pdf of the book. I wonder whether it is a breach of copyright? If it is a breach of copyright, we cannot include this link. Maybe somewhere the site "cultor.web" explains why the pdf is there ... maybe it's OK ... but it's unusual to find a complete copy of a new book, with no link to the author or the publisher. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:56, 23 Novembris 2016 (UTC)Reply