Avitus

Salve, Avite!

Gratus in Vicipaediam Latinam acciperis! Ob contributa tua gratias agimus speramusque te delectari posse et manere velle.

Cum Vicipaedia nostra parva humilisque sit, paucae et exiguae sunt paginae auxilii, a quibus hortamur te ut incipias:

• Ops nexusque usoribus novis ( ca,  de,  en,  es,   ia,  it,  ru,  ro,  no,  tl,  eo)
• De orthographia ( ca,  en,  es,  tl)
• Enchiridion interpretis (Anglice scriptum)
• Taberna
• Lexica Neolatina
• Lexica Latina interretialia
• Fontes nominum Latinorum ( ca)
• Fontes nominum geographicorum
• Index formularum

Si plura de moribus et institutis Vicipaedianis scire vis, tibi suademus, roges in nostra Taberna, vel roges unum ex magistratibus directe.

In paginis encyclopaedicis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in paginis disputationis memento editis tuis nomen subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~, quibus insertis nomen tuum et dies apparebit. Quamquam vero in paginis ipsis nisi lingua Latina uti non licet, in paginis disputationum qualibet lingua scribi solet. Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis mea tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" fieri velle!

--Ioscius (disp) 12:46, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Res nonnullae

Ab initio, legi initium tuum in Societatem Viam Romanam, et spero ne aerumnas easdem apud nos videamus.

Et ego spero.

Non utimur littera J (alii credunt huic disputando, at nihilominus, nunc, non utimur).

Ego quidem censeo hoc disputandum. Si non mihi licet sive j et v úti, sive neque j neque v, ego híc non scribam. Absurdas tyrannides non tolero.

V, ita, j, non. Fortasse hic est "valere", et i in pace. Tyrannus non sum, modo magistratus regularum quae exstabant annos priusquam ego ipsea adveni.--Ioscius ^(disp) 20:57, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Ergo leges non licet mutare si absurdæ patent esse?

Me nolle confiteor (hunc legem, ad minimum) . . . --Ioscius ^(disp) 23:05, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Voluntas unius hominis aliis imposita appellatur tyrannis. Ceterum, "lex" Latiné est feminini generis.

Unius? Quis alterus vult mutare? Nemo, ut videtur... nemo praeter te... --Ioscius ^(disp) 14:14, 28 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Nemo præter me? Magistratus est hujus conciliabuli, tu ipse potes legere non paucos ante me de hac re jam questos esse. Equidem non jam plus temporis perdam transcribendo eorum verba. Vale. Avitus 19:07, 30 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Ecce tempus perdidi. Quæsivi. Fortasse nemo præter me de hac re est antea questus.

Unum saltem exemplum invéni: Disputatio:Pagina_prima/Tabularium3#V_u: Quia non semper u minuscula et V maiuscula scribimus? --Ibericus 11:18, 6 Maii 2007 (UTC). Avitus 09:06, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Ut tamen jam dixi alias, non est considerandum quis quid dicat, vel quot, sed utrum recté dicatur. Interea, quærendo vidi hanc gemmam: Disputatio:Pagina_prima/Tabularium2#Ligatures_for_AE_and_OE Ligatures for AE and OE: Why aren't these used? Because they look ugly, don't show up in all fonts, and were an invention of calligraphists of very late latin.--Ioshus Rocchio 03:45, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC). Quorum argumentum primum est opinio personalissima et tertium falsissimum, sed quid réfert dum aliis persuadeamus: Okay, just thought i'd ask.KAMERONUS MAXIMUS 17:34, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC). Infeliciter non omnes sumus tam simplices. Avitus 19:46, 30 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Etiam, si creas commentationem, quaesumus, i ad Wikipediam Anglicam, copia nexus illic intervicios, et inscribe eos ad fundum.

Hoc non intellego.

Opportet ire ad en:Phonograph et extrahere omnes nexus intervicios ut in Vicipaediae commentationem inscribas.--Ioscius ^(disp) 20:57, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Etiam, adde nexum apud Wikipediam ad Vicipaediam, ut modo feci in Phonographo.

Non de "photographo", sed de "phongrapho" agitur.

Mea culpa. Et tua culpa, non de phongrapho, sed phonographo. Spero ut possis videre "typo" fuisse. Ratio mea, nihilominus, bona est.--Ioscius ^(disp) 20:57, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Etiam, solemus addere partes "nexus externi", et "vide etiam", et, maxima gravitate, "fontes". Videas Infinitatem, pro exemplo.

Multa sub titulo "vide etiam" addidi.

Neque est titulus "vide etiam", neque verbum unum sub eo...--Ioscius ^(disp) 20:57, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Bene acceptus es apud nos, una spero laboremus.

Et ego spero.

Valeas.--Ioscius ^(disp) 20:37, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Valeas et tu. Avitus 20:50, 27 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Disputing rules

As I see, you have ideas about some of our practices. I think this is good. Now, how to cope with this?

You will have realized that we do not have many users and we have users with different interests, some of them are simply interested in writing articles and do not care about ongoing discussions at all. But this is ok.

However, for someone who has an idea, this might be frustrating because it sometimes seems as if the community intentionally ignores you.

This seeming ignorance might have several reasons:

• You have posted your idea in the wrong place (e. g. in an archive, like Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 5). Only a few people are watching the archives.
• You have added your comment to a talk page which nobody watches.
• You have posted an idea which has been discussed for several times. ;-)
• etc.

There are several facts:

• The best place for discussing things are the talk pages. E. g. Disputatio Vicipaediae:Auxilium pro editione (latine)
• It is better to discuss a topic on a spefic page than to use a page which deals with the topic just generally. E. g. Vicipaedia:Noli uti litteris J et j would be better than Disputatio Vicipaediae:Auxilium pro editione (latine)
• The best place for getting attention is the Vicipaedia:Taberna.
• There are many practices we are following but which have not been written down yet.

So, combining these facts, I'd suggest the following steps:

1. If you are missing a page, create it.
2. If the topic is non-encyclopaedic, please use the "Vicipaedia:" (or "Usor:") namespace.
3. Create a page for your special idea in the "Vicipaedia:" namespace, maybe Vicipaedia:Noli uti litteris J et j (there might be a better name) and explain your concept.
4. Point to that page from other pages like Disputatio Vicipaediae:Auxilium pro editione (latine) or Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (latine) (in the vide etiam section).
5. Annonce your page in the Vicipaedia:Taberna and invite the usors to discuss your idea on the (talk page of the) page which you have created.
6. Be patient ... ;-)
7. Don't be frustrated if nobody joins, maybe new users in the future will join the discussion, when they read your announcement in the taberna.

And there is another fact: Sometimes there is consense that "it would be good" to do this or that. But nobody does. Then the only chance is, to do it yourself. If there was a consense before, they will applaud after you have done the work. :-)

If you need help, just tell me. --Rolandus 11:54, 28 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

After re-reading what I have written, I see that it can be understood in a way I did not intend: When I said "do it yourself", I meant you should not wait for others when some work has to be done, like doing cleanup or writing down accepted policies. I should also have stressed if there was a consense before. This means, someone should not start changing anything when there was not a consense before. To be concrete: I think it would be a good idea if you wrote down your arguments on a page. If your proposal does not follow the actual practice, it has to be discussed. If there will be no consense, it will stay as a proposal. --Rolandus 12:49, 28 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Before I visit for the last time this ridiculous place where people who can hardly write in Latin try to teach the rest how Latin should be written, I want to thank you, Rolande, for your reasonable words, and in general to all the sensible people here who no doubt share my views on the intolerable imposition to adapt Latin to the procrustean spelling practices of modern Italian (for no other reason lies behind the law to force people to use v and to forbid them from using j) rather than follow the tradition and nature of the Latin language itself. Thanks therefore once more, and best of luck. May Latin survive the Italians. Avitus 19:15, 30 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Before that moment comes, Avite, have you time to visit, improve and extend your partial namesake Avitus (imperator)? Just now Massimo is working away at ensuring that we have an article on every emperor. As it happens, he "did" Avitus today, but he only does them briefly -- I'm sure there's more to say! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:13, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Again you stimulate me to "play" along under the present absurd laws before the spelling dispute is resolved. We had already discussed that. You said you were considering my arguments. I've had no answer yet. Avitus 09:11, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

As Dáin said to Sauron's messenger, "The time of my thought is my own to spend." Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:08, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Of course. No pressure. Avitus 14:39, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

So far as a quick perusal of reputably published Latin texts shows, about the only typographical way in which the style of Vicipaedia differs from the standards of modern Classical scholarship is that Vicipaedia capitalizes the first word of each sentence: the current style of the Loeb series capitalizes only the first word of paragraphs (and proper nouns) and sets the first word of other sentences in lowercase; it eschews the letter "J," but uses consonantal "V." This is the same style as that of Fisher's edition of Taciti Annales ab excessu divi Augusti (Oxford, 1906). Similarly, the Teubner 1917 edition of Horace (available online) eschews the letter "J," but uses consonantal "V." Two widely read general studies—Palmer's The Latin Language (1954) and Baldi's The Foundations of Latin (2002)—eschew the letter "J," as do, for example, Adams's The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (1982), such a venerable tome as Bradley's Arnold (1938), and such a linguistically echt study as Devine & Stephens's Latin Word Order (Oxford, 2006). Googling shows that The Classical Review was eschewing "J" so long ago as 1891. None of these works deploys ligatures (æ, œ), and none deploys acute accents over selected vowels. Vicipaedians will, I'm sure, be willing to consider a thoughtfully presented case against all this, but merely calling it absurd and attributing it to modern Italian sensibilities doesn't constitute an argument. I myself love the look of ligatures (which to Ioscius, you'll recall, seem "ugly"), but they defeat Vicipaedia's search engine (if you searched for Caesar and Vicipaedia spelled him exclusively as Cæsar, you wouldn't find him)—and that seems like a sufficient reason to avoid them, at least for the moment. IacobusAmor 11:23, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I can say in this argument, that I have not followed in full, is cum Romae fueritis, Romano vivite more--Xaverius 11:27, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to IacobusAmor for his reasonable argumentation (Xaverius just invites us to toe the line, which is an unacceptable line of action when reason doesn't support it, even more so when the argument has not even been followed). I beg you to proceed with the argument in its proper place, as suggested above by Rolandus, namely at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Auxilium pro editione (latine), where I am copying and pasting your words, and answering to them. Thanks once again. Avitus 11:43, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure your energy and skill at prose composition, far greater than mine (I formally studied Latin for only two years, in ninth & tenth grades), will be greatly appreciated, if only we can reach an understanding about the basic elements of style. A development that will eventually accommodate all angles will be the creation of multiple vicipaedias, each with its own style (English already has two: English and Simple English). One can easily envision a modern version, using neo-Latin vocabulary & syntax, and a Golden Age version, using only terms & grammar known through, say, Juvenal & Tacitus. For example: for English sprinter (as in various kinds of racing), I've coined (?) Latin properator, but a strictly Ciceronian vicipaedia might have to stick with qui properat. One can envision a version putting dates in a clipped modern style, as ours now prefers (e.g. 31 Iulii 2007), and a version putting them in the style of the Roman calendar (prid. Kal. Aug. MMDCCLX a.U.c.). One can envision several versions with regard to the use of "I" & "J" and "U" & "V." One can even imagine a version in ALL CAPS (with or without interpuncts). A practical way of working now will be to follow a style that will ease the transformations that will occur then. Ex animo. IacobusAmor 12:40, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

I beg you once again to follow the discussion elsewhere. I will not answer here. Avitus 12:52, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Dude

Please don't touch my page, man. --Ioscius ^(disp) 13:40, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

I found it paradoxical that in your own page you don't use the spelling you so fiercely defend; but don't worry, I didn't intend to vandalise your page, just to make you understand what I feel when I have my perfect Latin spelling "corrected". I don't intend to make a policy of that. I will revert my changes immediately. Avitus 13:50, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

If I thought your edits were in good faith, it would be one thing. I just have the overwhelming sense of snideness from you. You did not come here to be a part of the community, you came here to pick a fight, call us absurd, and pick on people who don't write Latin as well as you do. No matter how right you are or may be, it's hard to listen to someone with your attitude. I know, I have often been told the same thing.--Ioscius ^(disp) 13:58, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

This is not true, Iosci. I came here to contribute, and I had been contributing extensively before I realised my spelling was being changed. I proceeded to challenge that. That's all. I did certainly not come here to pick up a fight or pick on people. It is true that I think those spelling rules are absurd, and I have done my best to clarify why. It is not, it should not be or have become, a personal issue. The fact that you acknowledge having been told the above before often proves that you may have some attitude issues. Maybe I do too. It is a fact that I resent having my Latin changed by people who know far less Latin than myself. I cannot help that. Beyond that, I have nothing against anyone, and all I want is to be allowed to contribute in peace in what I consider to be exquisite Latin for the greater glory of our language. I find it paradoxical that I can freely do so in other languages' Wikipedias, using the various spelling systems those languages know of, and here, in the Latin one itself, I am forced to lay first in the bed of Procrustes if I want to contribute. I value my Latin tradition too much to find that acceptable. It is most unfortunate that a personality matter may be making it hard for some Wikipedians to accept a more than reasonable and sensible argument, but I hope one day philological reason will prevail and religious, national or personal considerations will be put aside. In the meantime, please be assured that I came here with the heartfelt desire to enrich this community and enlarge this encyclopedia. Avitus 14:35, 31 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Lost

Salve Avite! I've been trying to follow this whole discussion, but it's so long that I've managed to get lost in the whole thing. What is the actual question that sparked the whole thing and which spelling system do you want, the i/u/v system, the u/i system or the i/j/u/v system? --Harrissimo 00:25, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the i/j/u/v system for its phonetic transparency. I have no problem accepting the i/u system because it is in line with the one used by the Romans. I cannot accept an imposition to use the i/u/v system because it makes no philological sense. Further than that, please follow this discussion in the relevant page. Avitus 10:08, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Not so much a question as a complaint. Avitus noster prefers i/j/u/v, not without good reason.

Not so much a complaint as a request, as you say, with good reason.

As it seems to me there are two "questions":

1. What is the best system (ie philologically, linguistically, historically, etc)?
2. Should we change our system?

--Ioscius ^(disp) 01:59, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but please can we stick to the relevant discussion page for this? Thanks. Avitus 10:08, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

It's not just "our" style: it's the style, or very close to the style, that's in standard academic use (see the references I brought forward in another thread). "Our" style is identical to that currently used by the Loeb series (Harvard University); the only major difference is that we capitalize the first letter of all sentences, but the Loeb capitalizes the the first letter only of sentences that begin paragraphs. Oh: and the Loeb does not transliterate Greek. IacobusAmor 02:22, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, this has been answered elsewhere. Please follow the argument there. Avitus 10:08, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

No; but "the Loeb" is not writing an encyclopaedia! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:39, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There are many irrelevant considerations been put forward in this debate. Thanks, Andrew. Avitus 10:08, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

It may well be the most relevant consideration anybody has brought forward: the Loeb is widely read, and it's tip of the spelling iceberg: as my quick search (recounted elsewhere) shows, its spelling-conventions—I/i/U/u/V/v—appear to be standard in academic use. They're substantially ours. The only alternate system that readily seems to turn up is the I/i/U/u system. The letter "J/j" looks moribund. IacobusAmor 11:32, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Here, from an online site, is the style required at the University of Virginia: "The initial words of Latin sentences (and lines of verse) may be either capitalized or left uncapitalized provided that a consistent format is followed. Similarly, you may distinguish between vocalic ‘u’ and consonantal ‘v’ (virtus) or use ‘u’ for both (uirtus), provided you do so consistently." No mention of the letter "J/j." IacobusAmor 11:54, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

First thing, I have said that I have no problem with the i/u system. Second, you are once more provincial in thinking that a collection of bilingual editions with an English translation is the universal standard; if Latin instead of English was the working language in this encyclopedia, you would obtain a more universal picture, as I have repeatedly tried to explain. Third, the use of j may be moribund; but I prefer to heal and preserve, where others prefer to kill. Many people would argue that Latin itself is moribund and understand that as a justification to kill it off. I cannot follow that line of argument. Avitus 11:42, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Re: "thinking that a collection of bilingual editions with an English translation is the universal standard." That's not what I was thinking, and I see no reason to belittle the qualifications of (and to set ourselves above) professors Philip Baldi, G. P. Goold, E. H. Warmington, D. R. Shackleton Bailey, and other influential scholars. Their style should be ours—and evidently, to a large extent, it is. If there's doubt about that, will someone with access to the major academic journals go check them out and report to us what their style on the challenged points is? Likewise the current Teubner & Oxford editions, and any other pertinent authoritative ones. IacobusAmor 12:03, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

I have asked you repeatedly to follow the argument in the relevant page. The names of Oxford editors who follow the i/u system have been given. If anything, their style should be ours. Avitus 13:53, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Your questions this morning

Avite, I have a life outside Vicipaedia (and money to make somehow) so this may well be my last comment for today.

Me too, and I am also reaching my limit.

On your two questions,

1. How will a decision be reached? I think: by consensus

Thanks. This is a great consolation.

in the "college" that consists of Vicipaedia editors. Magistrates have no special influence on this.

So magistrates and editors are different? I have seen pages relating to applications to become a magistrate, but how does one become a member of the college of editors?

"College" is just my word for it, hence I put it in inverted commas. You have an account, therefore you are a member. One tends to gain influence among other members by editing usefully. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:14, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, the I find it difficult to forsee how or when such a consensus is going to be possible to be settled among an undefinite but I'd say rather large number of editors. Avitus 11:35, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Consensus will be reached slowly; the look of Vicipaedia pages and the way words are spelt are issues that affect the work of every contributor. It's no good trying to rush it; and people who want consensus find that it's a bad idea to impugn the knowledge or linguistic skills of their colleagues.

All very true, although my request for flexibility would not affect the work of other contributors; only inflexible options affect us all. I admit that impugning the knowledge of others is an awful way to proceed; but, since you seem to be quite a reasonable person here, you will also acknowledge that philological arguments can only be poised properly by people who have a sound amount of knowledge in the area, so it becomes very frustrating to debate with people who don't accept your arguments just because they lack the relevant knowledge. For instance, and again putting all my hopes in your reasonability as a person to take this instance in a friendly spirit: you were opposing the ligatures because you were only superficially aware of their import (presence in history, meaningful use, etc.). After I explained things a bit further, you started to see I had a point. Now, there are many more things that I could explain, many more books that could be brought forward, etc.; but I am human, I am struggling to cope, and at the end of the day it all feels pointless when there is such level of guts opposition stemming mainly from ignorance of the facts. Although an argument based on authority alone is unacceptable, people who know less should be a bit more prone to accept that it is going to be more likely that they are wrong than that those who know more are. It is no conicidence that people with the best knowledge Latin are also the ones that are more ready to support my requests (cf. Neander Non solum in orthographia consistit lingua Latina. Vera medulla Latinitatis dependet a regulis grammaticis (morphologicis, syntacticis) recte observatis, ab emendato usu vocabulorum secundum genium linguae nostrae, a sententiis ita compositis, ut concinnus producatur sententiarum textus. His virtutibus excellet Avitus noster, quem equidem libentissime in numerum nostrum excipiam, etsi suos habeat mores. Cum ceterum tanta liberalitate patientiaque simus erga varietates grammaticas, quin et varietatem orthographicam toleremus, quae tamen non temeraria est sed internam cohaerentiam ostendit. Iam aspeximus necessitatem variarum litterarum notarumque diacriticarum in nominibus Francogallicis, Fennicis, &c adhibendarum. Ne infantem cum aqua abiecerimus!)

1. Can we consider it settled about the ligatures? No, that's going too fast, for the reasons just given. Others must have their say. Anyway, even I did not say yes to ligatures on Vicipaedia, though I have changed my previous view that anyone proposing them was mad!

Well, is there no temporal or strategical framework therefore? How many others can we expect to express a view on this?

I suggest starting new sections on the "Auxilium" discussion page, and stating briefly in Latin (and English, probably) what precisely you propose; then putting a message on Vicipaedia:Taberna asking people to go and give their views. I say "sections" because people may well have different views about v/j, about ligatures, and about accents. And then I suggest waiting; and contributing meanwhile. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:39, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

A lot of extra work, but I'll see what I can do. Thank you in any case. Avitus 10:31, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

I have now tidied up the page. I will try later to add the introductory clarifications you suggest, and then go to the Taberna. Oof! Avitus 11:08, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

I really apologise for misinterpreting your suggestions, and for misrepresenting them as instructions. Avitus 15:09, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Forget it, Avitus, please. As a result of my training as a periodicals librarian long ago ("shovelling shit", as my former boss used to put it) it pains me to be thought to have prescribed any unnecessary work to anyone! And, in any case, sorting out the discussion was no bad thing. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:24, 1 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Editing help needed

Obsolete pages

I have been working on the pages for the letters of the alphabet. Most of them had a single page whose title was just the letter ("A", "B", "C", etc.). A few had alternative pages called "A (littera)", "B (littera)" etc. One only had yet another name: "B (discretiva)". This had all been done for disambiguation purposes, but the information was distributed among the two/three options in a chaotic manner. In most cases, the disambiguation was only between the letter used as an abbreviation and everything else; but the abbreviation information appeared in the main letter page of most other letters though. I have just, at least for the time being, put everything together on each letter's main page, without further qualification.

Now, some pages (like one lonely "B (discretiva)" or a few of the form "C (littera)") have thus become obsolete and now hold no information. How can they be deleted?

Thanks ever so much in advance for your help.

Avitus 09:59, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, consider whether it is better to turn the unwanted page into a redirect rather than delete it. This is because there may well be links within Vicipaedia, and also interwiki links, that point to it. We don't want those blue Vicipaedia links to turn red; and there is (so far as I know) no easy way to check whether in-bound interwiki links exist.

OK. If deleting is what we want to do, deleting pages is one of the few things for which magistratus have power and others don't. To signal the need for deletion, you can put the formula {{Delenda}} at the top of the page. Before doing this, however, make sure to click "Nexus ad paginam" (over on the left there). Any pages that are linked to the "delenda" page need to be edited, to link elsewhere, before it is deleted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:42, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, optime mi Andrew. Very wise advice once more. I will endeavour as aprinciple to try to produce as few red links as possible, and turn as many of them as I can into blue as soon as possible too. I am now about to start a rather busy weekend, but I will also mark as suggested those (very few indeed) pages I think are really not needed when I can come back to the desk. Avitus 17:56, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Tables

I am back at work now, as variously suggested. One of the things I need help with though is tables. If you go for instance to the English Wikipedia page on the International System of Units, you will see, under the title Units, two nice tables, one for the base units and one for the prefixes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units#Units

Now, if you click on "edit", the first one appears in full, as it were, i.e. completely decoded, and it is relatively easy to copy and paste on to our Latin encyclopedia, as well as edit it into Latin (although I cannot still reproduce it in full as it appears there):

Unitates basicæ SI

Nomen	Symbolum	Magnitudo physica
metrum	m	longitudo
kilogramma	kg	massa
secundum	s	tempus
amperium	A	[intensitas fluidi electrici]]
kelvin	K	temperatura thermodynamica
moles	mol	quantitas substantiæ
candela	cd	intensitas luminica

The second one, on the other hand, appears as a mere < center > { { SI-Prefixes } } < / center >.

My questions are: first, what am I missing in the first table that it doesn't have the aspect of the one in the original English page; and, second, how can I crack the second one, i.e. access the code in full, so I can do the same as with the first table.

I know our Latin encyclopedia already has equivalent tables in the relevant page which are equally nice and easier to edit, but this is just an example for me to learn. Can anyone help?

Thanks again.

Avitus 10:00, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

I hate tables, and I'm hoping someone else will look in and answer this! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:42, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

The first table is fine, but it looks a bit different from the one at the English wikipedia because class="wikitable" defines a particular formatting on the English wikipedia but we do not have the same formatting rules defined as yet. If you wish to display the table borders, just add border="border" after the opening {|. See meta:Help:Table.

What you see in the second case is a template call. Templates are pieces of content that are intended to appear on more than one page. Instead of copying the same content onto multiple pages (which would make coordinated changes to this text extremely tedious), the text is written once, in a template, and can be included (or, in jargon, “transcluded”) in multiple pages. If the template is changed, the change will be visible (immediately or after a short delay) on all pages that include the template. On the English wikipedia you can go to Template:SI-Prefixes to view the template (and to edit it, unless it is locked to prevent editing – but even if it is locked to prevent editing, you can still view the source code). On the Latin Vicipaedia, templates start with Formula: (although Template: works as well). See meta:Help:Template.

For a MediaWiki manual, see meta:Help:Contents or mw:Help:Contents. Greetings, --UV 12:14, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much to you too. I will start experimenting with all of this after the weekend. Cheers. Avitus 17:56, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

De origine litterae V

Fabullus Avito s.p.d. Quod scripsisti de origine litterae V mihi merae, ignosce, ineptiae esse videntur, quas potius delendas esse censeo. Fac valeas. --Fabullus 15:19, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Rectissimé dicis, stupiditates sunt supinæ, at non ego scripsi! Tantum transtuli ab aliá paginá quæ appellabatur "V (littera)" a nescioquo scriptá quæque fluctuabat in spatio virtuali. Nunc rem paulatim emendabimus. Patientiam exerceas precor. Avitus 15:42, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Da veniam. Properantius perrexi. Expecto emendationes tuas. Vale. --Fabullus 16:05, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Cum primum possim. ;-) Avitus 16:24, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Taberna

Avitus, I see you are requesting help on your user page. This might work, however, the recommended method to get attention is to post in the Vicipaedia:Taberna.

• The Vicipaedia:Taberna is the best place to get attention, because most users watch the taberna page.

• A talk page is the best place to discuss an article.

• A user's page (like Usor:Avitus) is usually seen as the user's private place and should not be edited by others.

• A user's talk page (Disputatio Usoris:Avitus) is the place to talk about things which are not of interest to other users.

• Then we have namespaces: The article namespace is the encyclopaedia itself.

• The "Vicipaedia:" namespace is the collection of pages praefixed with "Vicipaedia:". Here we write about policies and all things which do not fit well into a Latin encyclopaedia but are necessary or helpful to build such an encyclopaedia. For these pages even other languages are accepted, although it is highly appreciated if someone translates these pages to Latin.

• For the user namespace (pages with titles starting with "Usor:") the rules are even more liberal. We do not have explicit rules about this namespace, but it might be obvious what should not go there. Other Wikipedias do have explicit rules. Our's are not written yet. Volunteers are welcomed. Such a policy page will start having a proposal-status and later be accepted as a settled practice or it will stay in this proposal-state until there is a consensus about what to do.

• You can even create subpages in your userspace. Just choose a title which starts with the name of your user page, then add a slash and then a page name. Examples: Usor:Avitus/xxx, Usor:Avitus/Subpage, Usor:Avitus/xxx/yyy/zzz.

• Pages can be simply moved between namespaces, so, if you want to start a page, you can even do that in your user space. This might be a good idea if you fear that the content might not be appropriate for the "Vicipaedia:" namespace or the article namespace. If it is appropriate, it can be moved within seconds.

• Every user can "move" a page. This automatically creates a new page, moves the content over there and leaves a redirect-page in the old location.

• Redirect-pages are normal pages with the text #REDIRECT [[pagename]]. See Vicipaedia:Redirectio.

• Normally it is not necessary to delete pages, because you can use redirects to gain nearly the same effect. Deleted pages can be restored by administrators. It's just a click for them. If you really want to have a page deleted, you can request that, see Vicipaedia:Delenda.

• It is part of the normal editing to split pages or to merge two pages into a single one. When joining two pages, the empty page should get a redirect to the page into which the content has been merged. Generally we do not have a problem with short pages, since we hope they will be expanded in the future. In my opinion we should not have only a single page where other Wikipedias have 5 pages. I think it is better to have 5 (maybe short) pages which correspond (via interwiki links) with the pages in the other Wikipedias.

• If you think that something is inconsistent, it is a good idea to ask what should be done or at least to announce your plans (in the taberna, for example) and give the others the chance to make their objections. If nobody cares within a reasonable period, this mostly means that nobody has objections. As an example, see our templates {{non stipula}} and {{non latine}}: If nothing happens for one week, such pages can be deleted.

• If you are missing a template, you can create it. Example: If the English Wikipedia has "Template:User de" you can copy the content and create a page "Formula:User de" here. Mostly we try to translate the titles into Latin, so - in this case - we have "Formula:Usor de". In the German WP it is "Vorlage:Benutzer de". However, sometimes templates are using templates are using templates are using ... this might get a bit complicated then. But it can be done.

• Even the interface of the Vicipaedia (the menues, buttons, system messages, ...) can be changed/configured. UV and Ioscius are the specialists for this. See Vicipaedia:MediaWiki and Specialis:Allmessages.

--Rolandus 10:33, 4 Augusti 2007 (UTC)