PastelKos

Salve, PastelKos!

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) 14:54, 28 Octobris 2021 (UTC)

De nomine "Belavia"

Motum tuum reverti quia, nisi fallor, fontem nominis "Belaviae" non habemus; Vicipaedianus aliquis hoc nomen ficticium invenit. Si erravi, s.t.p. fontem fidei dignum cita (in ipsa pagina). Quo facto, paginam libenter iterum move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 28 Octobris 2021 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: Linguae anglicae usum ignosce sed latine scribere bene non possum. Don't you think that since the use of Belavia is common in the Latin Wikipedia, we should move the page to there? I mean, what's the difference between finding a source somewhere that uses the form Belavia (which could well be taken by the many findings of it here), and just using it? Sorry if my opinion is against this Wikipedia's policy, I do not know it. PastelKos (disputatio) 15:04, 28 Octobris 2021 (UTC)

English is fine in talk pages, don't worry. And thanks for your editing!

There's a general rule of all the Wikipedias, and we accept it here: "Wikipedia is not a reliable source". So the fact that the name can be found on Vicipaedia doesn't mean that it can be accepted as a pagename. One of our aims is to be a source of real, good Latin for others -- and in fact our pagenames are widely copied across the internet. So we take Latin from reliable sources: in the case of names of modern states, this might be 18th/19th century geographical books, in which Latin is often used, or it might be a Catholic Church source since Latin is an official language of that church, or we might find a name used in modern botanical Latin. We have in fact found a real Latin name for almost every modern state, by way of sources like those, but Palau, so far, is an exception. But we always exclude (just as other Wikipedias do) Web sources that took their information from Vicipaedia or Wikidata: that would be circular.

I apologise for the fact that the category name was still "Belavia" and that Wikidata still listed Belavia: this was obviously confusing. I have now corrected Wikidata and marked the category as "Movenda", so that in a few days the category name will agree with the pagename.

If you find a real Latin name that Vicipaedia doesn't seem to know about, in a reliable source, for any place or thing, please feel free to move the relevant page -- and cite the source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:36, 28 Octobris 2021 (UTC)

OK then. Thank you very much :) PastelKos (disputatio) 18:18, 28 Octobris 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Andrew Dalby:, do you think this is a reliable source? PastelKos (disputatio) 18:26, 28 Octobris 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid it isn't. That page of data is surely built up from other web sites, probably including Wikidata. We haven't found GigaCatholic to be reliable in the past.

It gives a clue, though. The real Catholic information there is that an Apostolic Nuntiature to Palau was set up in 2001 as part of the Nuntiature to the Pacific Ocean. That fact, if true, ought to be mentioned at around that date in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (the official gazette of the Vatican) which is in Latin, and can be found on the Web. So all you have to do, if you really want to prove this point one way or the other, is to search through the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 2000/2001 to see if there is a reference to Palau (in which case we know that Belavia has no real support, at least from the Latinists at the Vatican) or Belavia (in which case you have the reliable source that you want). My impression so far is that if this information is really there, a Google search can't find it. But maybe you are better at Google searches than I am :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:51, 29 Octobris 2021 (UTC)

FYI: the name of the country in its own language is Belau. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:49, 29 Octobris 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Knowing that, I wondered whether "Belavia" was invented by our anonymous geographical contributor, who is keen on indigenous names and also (illogically) on personal inventions in "Latin". But I have no idea really and I never tried to trace it back; it could be any of several early contributors. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:17, 29 Octobris 2021 (UTC)

And to make matters worse (so to speak), Belavia is the national airline of Belarus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:49, 29 Octobris 2021 (UTC)

A good reason not to use the same name with a different meaning, unless supported by good sources. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:17, 29 Octobris 2021 (UTC)

Data possibly supporting an alternate solution, Insulae Palauenses, are listed at Disputatio:Palau. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:40, 29 Octobris 2021 (UTC)

Victor Orbán

I reverted your changes because they were against our expressed longstanding consensus, which is based on common usage in modern Latin. If you want further explanation, I'll give it when our dinner guests have left. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:44, 19 Martii 2022 (UTC)

Oh, ok I am sorry, I wasn't aware of them. PastelKos (disputatio) 16:47, 19 Martii 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. About the names of modern people for whom no Latin source happens to be available: there's a strong general consensus among reliable sources of modern Latin that forenames are converted to their Latin forms if such forms exist (thus, "Victor Michael") but surnames are not converted (thus "Orbán"). This consensus is shared among writers of Vatican documents; writers of university orations etc. in the many places where these continue to be published in Latin; and the publishers of modern academic and scientific books, either completely in Latin (not so many now) or with title pages in Latin (still very frequent). We follow this consensus -- we are very lucky, to tell the truth, that Latin is so widely used in the modern world. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 20 Martii 2022 (UTC)

Footnote: if we find a mention of Orbán in a reliable source in Latin -- which is not impossible! -- then we would generally prefer to follow the reliable source rather than simply apply the general rule. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:57, 20 Martii 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: Ok then, thank you very much for explaining this to me! PastelKos (disputatio) 10:13, 20 Martii 2022 (UTC)

Proper adjectives, however, can be a different story, since the living Latin of botany & zoology forms them freely (according to Latin morphological norms) from proper nouns. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:26, 20 Martii 2022 (UTC)