Grufo

Salve, Grufo!

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!

-- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

De terminologia

I should explain why sometimes -- as I said at Disputatio:Pasta vermiculata -- I want to limit my participation in terminology discussions. The topic interests me (it even obsesses me) but in some cases, in the context of modern Latin and in the context of Vicipaedia, it is bound to be inconclusive. You have found, I personally think, what appears to be a better-supported choice currently for spaghetti -- I would support a move -- but none of the sources yet cited is a "good secondary source" in English Wikipedia terms. Suppose next year we find a 17th/18th century Latin book by someone who knew Italian food and listed the forms of pasta? Perfectly possible, it is happening often: it would be a better source than all of ours, and the discussion starts again ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

I understand perfectly, Andrew! Let's see if something with an authority strong enough will come out in the future :-) --Grufo (disputatio) 09:54, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

I moved the discussion about vitaminum to that disputatio page. I hope that's OK. I'm really not involved, but would be happy with a consensus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:46, 12 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

You did the right thing! When I will have a bit of time I will try to import en:Template:Moved discussion to and en:Template:Moved discussion from to Vicipaedia. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:21, 12 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

I reverted your page move of Oxygenium: it needs discussion, as you realise. I hope I conserved your new citation: it looks interesting but from the quoted text it sounds speculative rather than decisive: I haven't time to read more tonight. Notice the citation that we already give in the first note: it has been useful in many cases.

If you want to move a category, you should either edit the dependent pages and subcategories yourself, or ask at the page Vicipaedia:Automata/Petitiones de categoriis movendis for this work to be done by UVbot. If you don't do this, those pages and subcategories get left behind. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:24, 13 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

De aestimationibus Latinitatis

I thought I'd mention this to you here before adding more complication to the discussion on the Taberna. It appears to me that two things about the proposal are against general Wikimedia policy and practice: 1, naming editors on an encyclopedia page; 2, counting votes. I'm sure both apparent problems could be dealt with, but it might be easier if the formula were placed not on the enyclopedia page but on the talk page (like, for example, the estimates of page quality that are fitted into project banners on the talk pages of en:wiki). It could be argued that all Latinitas estimates belong there really. If this were proposed and agreed, we could ask a bot to transfer the existing Latinitas templates to the talk page in every case. What do you think about that?

The other question in my mind is, considering the number of active editors, is it realistic to expect three estimates of each page? I myself give very few of these estimates, because I rarely take the time to read and judge a whole page, unless it's very short and very bad. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 16 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Hi Andew. Concerning the first question, of moving the rankings to the talk pages, I think it is a very good idea. In general having pages “officially” ranked might discourage improving them, both if it is a good ranking (because “what if my edit worsens the page?”) and if it is a low ranking (see what I was saying earlier about the broken windows theory in Vicipaedia:Taberna § "Latinitas huius rei dubia est"). But if the formula is in the talk page the problem is solved, because it is never “official”. Concerning the second question, if the ranking is in the talk page we could avoid the requirement of at least three editors (but still give the possibility to collect more than one vote). --Grufo (disputatio) 09:22, 16 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly. I agree with everything you say! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:36, 16 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

I will make some template experiments in the next days. --Grufo (disputatio) 03:32, 17 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: The {{Urna Latinitatis}} template should be functional enough now. What are your thoughts? --Grufo (disputatio) 23:12, 20 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

De "Latinitate culinaria"

I felt "Romanes eunt domus" was an unwise name to choose, so I'm glad you are thinking of moving the formula. Its obscurity to any encyclopedia user who doesn't happen to watch old English films; the fact that it doesn't say what needs to be done; and the distracting link, were my main objections! Just to clarify, three other objections, more delicate, are these:

1. it's a joke in atrocious Latin: if we mark text with it, it's potentially offensive to editors who may have been seriously doing the best they could
2. it's based on a xenophobic English phrase which it would maybe be better not to revive in our international context
3. in small font with a line through the middle it can just as well be read "Romanes cunt domus" incorporating an English gros mot. In fact that's how I first read the link text, aided by the fact that "Romanes" is not a Latin word, so there's no unambiguous clue what language is aimed at till you get to "domus". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 18 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Andrew. At first I found it so funny I could not resist, but I realize that I cannot be neutral. However, independently of that, I still think that a place like Vicipaedia needs a formula for d:Q10949119, especially for marking all template documentations that are still in need of a translation. Maybe I will think about something in the next days. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:04, 18 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

On template documentation, I strongly agree, but maybe a headnote template would be simpler. No need to mark every sentence if the whole page requires translation. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:18, 18 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

We have {{non latine}} that can be used when we want a banner for a whole page. We could think of having an inline template too that does the same limited to a few words (e.g. {{verba non latina}})? I think that having more than one tool available is not a bad thing. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:35, 18 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I had forgotten that "{{Non Latine}}" works in this way for non-encyclopedia pages. That's good. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:11, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Error?

Hi, Grufo. There's an error somewhere, perhaps in {{Nexus ad Vicidata absunt}}, resulting in unwanted text "|exhibitio" at the foot of a page e.g. "Bread and cheese and kisses". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:43, 24 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, there was no error, only the need to purge the page (the error is gone now). --Grufo (disputatio) 15:37, 24 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

De usoribus novis

Thanks for keeping an eye on new edits. I would have missed these but for your use of the Salve formula!

One of those new edits I reverted because it added a picture gallery with captions in Portuguese to a page that is crying out for more text ... but not for pictures. Additions of picture galleries by unknown users are nearly always reverted, because "Vicipaedia is not a picture gallery", and especially if the user hasn't added Latin captions.

The edits by a second user you greeted have been reverted and the user blocked. They follow a long term pattern, sometimes by anonymous IPs, sometimes by new usernames, of adding false information about praenomina beginning with the letter "H". You'd be surprised. By all means keep on looking out for this contributor, who has produced many of our illustrated pages about praenomina but, sadly, tends to go off-piste. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 6 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Hi Andrew! I apologize for not investigating deeper on the seriousness of those contributions (the H-fake-news would have been quite impossible to spot for me though… also, this edit seemed acceptable to me). I mostly wanted to check the new use as substitution of {{subst:salve}}. And apparently it works well! By the way, I also checked what they do on English Wikipedia, and, as it seems, they use a {{subst:welcome}} substitution too.

I wanted also to ask your opinion about a point that we can possibly add to the documentation of {{subst:salve}}. The template recognizes the gender automatically, but only when the user specifies it explicitly in their settings. The template also allows to assign a gender manually (e.g. {{subst:salve||f}}). The question is: What is the correct behaviour when a username is clearly masculine or feminine (e.g. “Usor:Votre Provocateur‎”) but the user did not specify any gender? Do you think we should add it manually, because it is clear, or do you think we should leave it unspecified instead? What would you normally do? --Grufo (disputatio) 11:24, 6 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Good question. This is what I do: if the name is clearly based on a male forename, or otherwise clearly masculine, I add "|M"; if clearly based on a female forename, or otherwise clearly feminine, I add "|F"; otherwise I do nothing. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 6 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I will see if some way of putting it in a documentation page comes up to my mind. --Grufo (disputatio) 12:46, 6 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Categoria:Deletiones celeres propositae

Hi, Grufo. I cleared out this category, but I left two items because each still has an incoming link, Please check them -- you'll see what needs to be done, I'm sure. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:11, 8 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Hi Andrew,

• Disputatio Formulae:Romanes eunt domus was moved to Disputatio Formulae:Verba latinizanda back then (so you can delete the former)
• Categoria:Movenda ad scriptorium now has no backlinks

--Grufo (disputatio) 16:15, 8 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Mutinus Titinus

Hi, Grufo. I considered hiding some edits in the history of this talk page, but I found that the spam website is mentioned in all of them, so eventually, since it contained nothing useful, I deleted the talk page, and protected it, so that it can only be recreated and edited by named users. I hope you don't object to this protection and deletion? By all means discuss. Thanks for trying to keep spam out! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:37, 24 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

You did the right thing, Andrew. I was using that page as a testbed for {{URL occultum}}, but it had already fulfilled its task. --Grufo (disputatio) 12:20, 24 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Cur id est non latine

Why do you constantly mark pages written entirely in Latin as "not Latin"? Yuzerneim (disputatio) 22:43, 14 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

I do not “constantly mark pages with ‘not Latin’” (as a matter of fact very rarely I do so), but the page Televisionis commercium is so poorly written that although (most of) the words used are Latin, put together they create another language. Let's start with the title: What does televisionis commercium (“commerce of the television”) mean? --Grufo (disputatio) 22:59, 14 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Then please do it in the harder way and improve it instead of deleting, if it's not too much to ask. Yuzerneim (disputatio) 07:32, 15 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me for intruding, Grufo :) A language is not just a chain of words. If the phrases and sentences cannot be understood -- do not "make sense" -- they are not yet in the target language.

A template like {{Non latine}} is an opportunity. Any editor can take the page and turn it into Latin, but needs to begin to do so within 7 days. Once the page is being worked on the template is removed. Pages that are not in Latin reduce the overall usefulness of Vicipaedia, so if no one wants to or no one is able to improve the page, they are deleted after the time lapse. In this case, Grufo marked the page, no one set to work and removed the template, so eventually I deleted it.

It isn't fair on other Wikipedians to choose their work for them. If you yourself haven't learned any Latin, it would be unfair and a waste of your time to put some Latin words on a page and complain when no one else sets to work on your text. We all have lots to do. But if you think it's a worthwhile topic, you can ask at the Vicipaedia:Taberna for someone to help you with the page. That often works. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:38, 15 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Pagina mensis

I put up the October pagina mensis already, because I'll be travelling later in the month. So I used {{PagMens}} inside the appendicula, and it seems to work fine, it's a very good idea, but it would be better still if it could also put the gold star on the top line of the page: at present a separate formula {{FA stella}} is needed. Can the two be combined? What do you think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:20, 17 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I am glad you liked it! Yes, they can be combined. In fact I just did it :) --Grufo (disputatio) 10:03, 17 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Rosa Christiana

Pars excepta, nunc apud: Disputatio:Rosa Christiana Ossouka Raponda § De urbe natali

Gratia Wan deletionem

Non quis ut deleniti. Propono quid delere. Volo ut amplio hunc articulum. Revertere ad "lingua latina". 70.68.226.203 07:46, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Non quis deleniti. Cur delere vis? 70.68.226.203 07:48, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Me dieron ganas de aprender latin. 70.68.226.203 07:49, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Non quis deleniti. Me dieron ganas de aprender Latin. 70.68.226.203 07:50, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Guinevere

Forgive me for editing your work without an explanation. Whenever I encounter a page with more than two lemmas, or more than three versions of the name in total, within the first sentence, I always try to reduce them to make the first sentence clearer and simpler than before. This page came up in the Nuper mutata so I did it here. I think there are several ways to add extra versions of the name without making the first sentence more complicated to read -- e.g. put them in a footnote as I did here, or put them in a later sentence, or have a paragraph about names and etymologies ... I feel entries in a grown-up encyclopedia ought to be easily readable, especially at the beginning: this is one way in which Wikipedia hasn't grown up yet, especially en:wiki. But tell me what you think ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:27, 3 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all, Andrew. I found the chronological evolution of the name interesting, I remembered how many Vicipaedia articles about cities are written (“alia nomina: …”), and so I only did 2+2. But everything can always be improved! --Grufo (disputatio) 13:51, 3 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)

Tedious lists of alia nomina seem generally to stem from the work of a single author, and some editors redo them when time is available. I agree with Andrew on the goal of making texts readable. Discussions of alternate names and the evolution of names, if they're important, can profitably be put in a separate section, on etymology or history. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:10, 3 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)

However, I've restored to the main text "Guennuvar" because it seems especially notable as being the earliest form of the name in any language. If it is. You cited another name with the date c. 1130, but I don't know what the source for that is. En:wiki says Geoffrey of Monmouth is the earliest source for Guinevere in any language but the best guides I can find say that Caradoc of Llancarvan is slightly earlier. In general, of course, Latin sources for Arthurian legends are dependent on earlier vernacular sources -- if they survive! -- you're right, the development is fascinating, but it makes much better sense if one cites other languages as well (e.g. Old French, Welsh, Middle English). Ideal for a later section of the text, I'd say.

Yes, as Iacobus says, the "(alia nomina ...)" parentheses were added by Nuada to Italian place names and a few other places that user was interested in. If properly sourced (which many are not) they deserve to go into a footnote or an etymological paragraph. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:26, 14 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I hadn't changed the incipit, “Guanhumara” was there before my intervention. You can find “Guennuvar” / “Guennimar” in Vita Gildae by Caradocus Lancarbanensis (i.e. Caradoc of Llancarvan – here on page 12 – if I am not wrong the form “Guennimar” is attested in one of the manuscripts of the same book, the one from Durham), which was likely written between 1130 and 1150. I believe it is impossible to know with precision which source is the oldest; but even if we did know, the geographical origin of the text would have its weight in determining the earliest form of the name, which is why I think that the best thing we can do is to mention all early attestations. --Grufo (disputatio) 01:32, 15 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree. Let's cite the sources, and let's avoid crowding it all into the first sentence. It seems both Caradoc and Geoffrey, via their manuscripts, offer several different spellings each. Both of them would be basing themselves on Welsh, and there are several Welsh possible spellings to mention. It seems from what I can read that the Welsh texts now existing are much later, but they go back to oral tradition of course, the same traditions that Caradoc and Geoffrey knew. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:40, 15 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)

It is truly interesting. We should also not forget about possible regional variations among the Welsh people themselves, and so maybe even during the time when Vita Gildae was written there were already different valid alternatives for the same name – especially if this was a common element of the folklore of different towns. By the way, I think that the first sentence looks good now. Maybe we can think of adding how Guenevera is spelled today in different Western European languages that still use it as a name, but that would be less important. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:31, 15 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for being a medical contributors!

The 2023 Cure Award

In 2023 you were one of the top medical editors in your language. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining for 2024, there are no associated costs. Additionally one of our primary efforts revolves around translation of health content. We invite you to try our new workflow if you have not already. Our dashboard automatically collects statistics of your efforts and we are working on tools to automatically improve formating.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 22:25, 3 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

Ancient Greek Wikipedia approval

Hi! I am sorry to bother you but I was wondering whether you could possibly sign this petition in order to get the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek approved. Thank you so much for your help. --Jon Gua (disputatio) 07:20, 16 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Jon Gua. Instead of change.org, I have casted my vote at the ongoing discussion on MetaWiki. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:48, 16 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Jon Gua (disputatio) 19:14, 16 Februarii 2024 (UTC)

We did our best, but maybe he was devoted to other causes all the time, and was never likely to remain a user. Who knows? People vary endlessly, Vicipaedians likewise :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:02, 4 Martii 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew: I am sure Jon Gua will come back at some point. But if not, we did try! :-) --Grufo (disputatio) 23:58, 4 Martii 2024 (UTC)

Moving Dependentia to Correlatio

Pars excepta, nunc apud: Disputatio:Dependentia (statistica) § Die 23 Martii 2024 — Estne haec pagina ad “Correlatio (statistica)” movenda?

Moving page with Japanese title

I moved to the standard transliteration Iroha, from the title in Japanese script, because we agreed back in 2019 that this was how we would treat books, films etc. whose titles have no known Latin translation. Previously their titles had always appeared in original script. In the intervening period I have moved many of them myself, but a few remain under Categoria:Paginae scripturis non-Latinis intitulatae. Hence, althougn anonymous IPs can't move pages, the anonymous IPer was undoubtedly correct in this case in wanting a move :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:25, 4 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. You did absolutely the right thing and no problem with moving pages. But preserving the page history is important. Therefore the IP address should place the {{Movenda}} template. It's even simpler than creating a redirect and creating a new page. Also, if IP addresses are not allowed to move pages (for whatever reason), what is the sense of allowing them to move pages in an even dirtier way? --Grufo (disputatio) 12:13, 5 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)