ae et non æRecensere

Salve ad Vicipaedia in latine! Reor alios te salutare. Solum dicere volo: Non uti æ sed ae ut hoc. --Misericordia 17:41, 14 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Nunc intellego. Gratiam ago! --Misericordia 18:35, 14 Martii 2006 (UTC)

SalveRecensere

I see, you have not been 'officially' ;-) welcomed ... Salve!

Gratus aut grata 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:

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" aut "Vicipaedianam" fieri velle!

--Roland2 07:19, 30 Martii 2006 (UTC)

AustriaRecensere

Your contributions to Austria are the opposite from what I have done some time ago: I have removed all links to the German Wikipedia and all translations, where there is a Latin page available and where the Latin page has either an interwiki link or a German translation. I do not want to destroy your work and I have not seen a discussion, how translations should be handled here, so I'd like to ask you about your opinion. I personally would remove at least the links to the German Wikipedia where there is a Latin page (the German links shoud stay where we do not have a Latin page yet).

Secondly, I think German (and other translations) should be avoided where possible. I know, some users might not agree, but I have not asked before.

--Roland2 07:19, 30 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Roland, I agree on perhaps one and a half counts. As many wiki links as possible should be intra not interwiki. If links to German related wikisites are requisite I would put them under ==vide etiam==. As for translations, I don't have a problem with putting the native form next to the latin one, but I would probably say ipso vulgo instead of germanice. I would also latinize mons Grobglockner. We usually only give the vulgate in the first sentence for the name of the article, but I've noticed this as trend, not policy. I can see how it would be useful in this article. But I would definitely take out the deutsch interwiki links.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:25, 30 Martii 2006 (UTC)
@Roland2:
If there are links to latin pages, they undoubtedly are to be mentioned in the article. Nevertheless, many of the "latin pages" are just abominable stubs! To get any senseful information, you are hence forced to rely on German (or English) wiki articles. This ist the reason why I added the interwiki links. I got the point why you removed them, but I think thast the inclusion of said interwiki links is more useful. Generally speaking - the inclusion of the contemporary names of ancient cities is, in my humble opinion, a must in such a geographical overview of Austria. If the latin vicipedia had 400.000 articels, we nonetheless would need the contemporary name not only in the respctive article, but also in a list of names. Take for instance a list of Italian cities in the English wikipedia. You will certainly agree that also the list should include (in brackets, o.k.?) the English translation e.g. of Napoli (viz. Naples), and not only the article "Napoli". --Christianus 16:32, 31 Martii 2006 (UTC)
I see we all know the arguments but we do not weight them in the same manner, so it is just a question of priorities. I think we should have a policy about this. ;-)
You are right that the referred stubs do not offer much information and it might be frustrating for the user to have to swith to the German Wikipedia after he has clicked on the Latin link.
From the concept I think this is ok: Redundancy should be avoided where possible. In the whole Latin Wikipedia there should be (theoretically) just one link to a foreign Wikipedia and it should be in the interwiki section in the left column.
In contrary to your opinion I think the inclusion of contemporary names should be generally avoided where there exists a Latin page which can or should keep this temporary name and - if they exist - interwiki links. Your example about a list of Italian cities in the English Wikipedia illustrates that very well: The list should not include the Italian names when there exists an English page about this city. You see, the same argument leads - for me - to the opposite opinion. ;-)
I think a language should just switch to another language when there is a real need. What is the intention of such a list of Italian cities in the English Wikipedia? I think - in the strict sense - this list is just a list and should not keep any other information but the names of the articles (see later). If the list should keep other information (translations, number of inhabitants, etc.) it would have more dimensions and were a "table". Sorry, I do not want to instruct you about the difference of lists and tables, I am sure you know it. But this might be the reason why we have opposite opinions. You see this case from a more practical point of view (in fact thinking of a table) and I have the theoretical (strict) position in mind. ;-)
There is another point: This English List of Italian cities would be a list of article names. I would call the article "Naples" and not "Napoli", which could be another reason, why we have different opinions. If there is an English name I would not care about the Italian name. Just in the definition of the lemma. I know this position does not conform to nowadays conventions and I know some discussions about it, for example en:Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol. In fact it was a political discussion. My position is, that a language should be able to cover all thoughts a man could have. If an Italian thinks of that city, he should have the word "Napoli" in mind, an English man would think of "Naples", I have "Neapel" in mind. There is just one real object (the city) and many representations in the several languages. Ok, it would be more political correct in the Latin Wikipedia to say "Österreich" instead of "Austria", but Latin is a Language of its own ... not talking about the troubles with the umlauts, Romans might have ;-)
So, coming back to our topic. I do not care much about what solution we choose, but I think the postion should be documented anywhere so that everyone can see what arguments have been considered and how the arguments have been weighted.
--Roland2 10:52, 1 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

@Roland2: Leider habe ich erst jetzt Ihre User-Page angesehen (nachdem mir Ihr "Neapel" aufgefallen ist). Sagen Sie - wär's nicht einfach, wir diskutieren das alles auf Deutsch? ;-) (es auf Latein zu diskutieren wäre wohl ein bisserl mühsam für mich, geb' ich ehrlich zu ...) --Christianus 21:37, 2 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Einfacher waere es schon, aber ich wuerde - wieder aus prinzipiellen Ueberlegungen - trotzdem versuchen, bei Englisch zu bleiben, damit andere die Diskussion mitverfolgen koennen. Die Privatheit ist ja hier nur relativ ;-) Wie schon gesagt, waere ich daran interessiert, eine Linie zu finden, die von mehreren Benutzern mitgetragen werden kann. Wenn es um Feinheiten geht, können wir aber auch jederzeit auf Deutsch wechseln. --Roland2 22:19, 2 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

LentiaRecensere

Hallo Christianus, hast Du die Änderungen an Lentia absichtlich auf die Diskussionsseite Disputatio:Lentia gestellt? Üblicherweise arbeitet man seine Änderungen gleich in die Seite ein, außer man glaubt schon im vorhinein, daß es Widerspruch geben wird. Dann ist es besser, man diskutiert das vorher auf der Diskussionsseite. Sag mir, wenn ich Dir helfen kann. --Roland2 16:49, 2 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Ja, ich habe das durchaus mit Absicht getan, da ich den ursprünglichen Artikelersteller nicht vor den Kopf stoßen wollte! Er dürfte ohnehin über eine Wortmeldung von mir in der deutschen Wikipedia etwas verstimmt sein und ich wollte ihm nicht auch noch das Gefühl vermitteln, daß ich "seine" Artikel auch noch hier gegen seinen willen bearbeite. Wenn Sie der Meinung sind, daß der Artikel (etwas) jetzt korrekteres Latein bietet als vorher (ich habe es im Rahmen meiner bescheidenen Lateinkenntnisse versucht), dann kopieren Sie ihn einfach auf die Artikelseite. MfG --Christianus 22:07, 2 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

I think we should switch to English so that other users can follow this thread. First I'll summarize the German text: You have put the changes according Lentia intentionally on the talk page because you do not want to offend the author and you are not sure whether your Latinitas is fine. — I'd suggest you copy your version into the article (and delete it from the talk page). Then we can see, what you have changed by clicking on the "historia" button. My knowledge of Latin is too limited to make a judgement about your Latin. To tell others that you are in doubt about the correctness of your text, just put {{maxcorrigenda}} into the page. Or {{reddenda}}. I am sure the author will not be hurted by your edits, this is just the way we are creating articles here. If he has objections later, then it is possible to hurt him in the following discussion. ;-) Hopefully this will not happen. :-) Please copy your version into the original text. All other methods are more complicated. The software is made for doing edits. Please tell me, if you need help. Or ask users like Ioshus or UV. Look for active users in the "Mutationes recentes" (left frame). If you want to provide sources for your text, see Vicipaedia:Fons. --Roland2 22:31, 2 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

I see you've applied your changes to the article. I'll ask Ioshus to have a look. --Roland2 16:45, 3 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Please see Disputatio_Usoris:Ioshus_Rocchio#Lentia. --Roland2 22:19, 3 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamedRecensere

03:12, 18 Martii 2015 (UTC)