Vide etiam Disputatio Usoris:Rolandus/2005-12.

Ioannes and Ioannes (nomen) recensere

What about moving the homines-section from the page Ioannes (nomen) to the discretiva page? We could write the translations of the name and all its variations on the ...(nomen) page and list all "homines" on the discretiva page. (oder sollte das eigentlich schon so gemacht werden, bei Iustinus (nomen) und Iustinus sieht das ja so aus?) ich geh jetzt erstmal schlafen, muss um 5 Uhr wieder aufstehen... --Amphitrite 21:52, 19 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply

I read this discussion some time ago and after reading it a second time today, I decided to stay away from all these name-pages, until someone else will find a solution ;-). But actually I like your proposal of having only one main page and all other pages being redirected to this page.
(for example we have at the moment
with a link to Ioannes (nomen) and a link to Iohannes
with a list of "homines"
with a link to Ioannes
with translations of the name into other languages
with a list of "homines"
with a list of "homines"
with a link to Ioannes
and maybe one main page would make it less complicated)

--Amphitrite 18:32, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply

New formulas recensere

I just wanted to say that I like the current designs. We sometimes go overboard with borders, flashing lights, etc. These two formulas (non latine and non stipula) look neat, practical and official! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:06, 21 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Then take no notice of me -- just do what comes naturally! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:59, 21 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply
I like the wider margin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:55, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply

usor: recensere

Vielleicht wollte er ja auch nur den Artikel loben ;-) -Amphitrite 21:22, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you!!!! recensere

Thank you so much for what you wrote me. I suppose I was quite rude while saying what I said, and I forgot you have too many work to do here. Sorry!!! :'(. From now on, I'll use that template almost every time .--Le K-li 22:14, 27 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry!!! recensere

Sorry!!! I didn't want to do anything wrong. Well, I guess I'd have to create that new template.--Le K-li 23:53, 27 Februarii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Periodicum? recensere

Cur "periodicum" in pagina de Kalendis Aprilibus? --Alex1011 14:39, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please recensere

could you check my Latin in Ernestus Kantorowicz, because I added a lot of things. Thank you--Massimo Macconi 20:18, 5 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply

thank you very much recensere

I asked you, because I saw that you were inserting the formulas about the level of Latin used in the pages. Ciao e grazie--Massimo Macconi 21:11, 5 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply

conservapedia recensere

Tuum exemplum mihi delendum esse videtur quia interea haec pagina in conservapedia elaborata est. Etiam in nostra vicipaedia nonnullae paginae sunt quae primum breviores sunt antequam amplius elaborabuntur. --Alex1011 19:47, 6 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Salve! recensere

Any recommendations on what I should do? Shall I join again with another username? I could do that. Amphytrite 04:52, 8 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the resources list! It helped a lot. Hopefully this name won't create as much confusion! Agriope 00:10, 9 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Latinitas recensere

I just noticed your -7s on some Russian towns. Actually I think the Latin in these articles was quite good (as good as my average, anyway). I adjusted the mark. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:28, 8 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I understand now! Fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:03, 9 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply
My feeling about TUGS is that it just isn't Latin (although, by random chance, some of the individual words are Latin!) So I put {{Non latine}} in place of Latinitas: maxcorrigenda. Revert me if you disagree. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:09, 12 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the Latinitas:pessima! I have added it to TUGS now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 13 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nexus carentes recensere

Hab' ich schon gesehen, aber da ich nur in der deutschen Wikipedia suche, weiß ich auch nicht, ob es wirklich keine Interwikilinks gibt ;-) Aber ich denke, dass vor allem viele unserer Namensartikel in eine solche Kategorie fallen würden...--Amphitrite 12:47, 11 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nice selection of pics on physica electromagnetica recensere

Dear Rolandus, thanks for the nice pics you posted on "Physica electromagnetica" and also about the advice on logging in which I will try out.Rafaelgarcia 00:52, 25 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply

If I close firefox, then reopen it and then go to my usor page, it indicates I'm logged in but I am not, even if I previously cliked "Tesseram meam inter conventa memento". If then I click on "Conventum concludere" and then "Conventum aperire" I have to reenter the first letter of my name, it autofills the rest and fills in my password, and then I'm actually logged in to Vicipaedia. Rather unnecessarily involved!Rafaelgarcia 03:09, 25 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Formula:Comitatus Angliae recensere

Quod problemam habes de hac formula? --Alex1011 10:01, 25 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Zacynthus recensere

I deleted a discretiva page you made a while back. I hope you don't mind. In reality Zacynthus the place in Ionia and Zacynthus the Ionian island are the same, and I don't think they will ever want two separate articles -- but if you disagree I'll bring it back!

Incidentally, I notice you are bringing to light lots of Dubcats and Nexus carentes right now. Very necessary work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:47, 1 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rursus salve! recensere

Okay, this is probably going to sound weird, so I'll explain first. I'm taking an Advanced Grammar and Comp course, and our final exam is to write a Vikipædia article and put it on here. In part I wanted to warn you that twelve really random articles about things like tennis and biology are going to (or should, anyway) pop up fully written around the beginning of May. Here's what I'm wondering: do you guys mind this? Would you rather the articles start small and grow slowly (I imagine that would be easier for grammar)? We don't really have a choice in this matter, but I'd like to know when I make new articles in the future. Thanks! Agriope 03:47, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)Reply

We only mind if you call it Vikipædia again... (noli uti k aut ligaturis). Other than that, we don't mind at all. Although, tenniludium and Biologia are already started... But I mean, as far as random goes... check out hangman, Magic 8 Ball, pesto, paper air plane, and Flying Spaghetti Monster. Randomness should not be your concern, but good Latin. Start with what you can manage in terms of size. Bear in mind, if you write a huge article, it might be harder to get someone to make corrections. I assure, for my part, that I will assist in any way you all need. Good luck!--Ioshus (disp) 04:10, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)Reply
Shoot, I almost forgot to add beer pong to the list of random articles =] --Ioshus (disp) 04:15, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)Reply
Of course, good Latin is always my first and foremost concern, whether I want it to be or not. They're writing on specific parts of biology and tennis as far as I know. I'm writing on a band called Say Anything--when I create the article, should I put the name in Latin (Dice Quivis)? Agriope 05:04, 12 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, we have the start of an article on Dies Viridis. ¶ Re: "Dice." You might want to recheck your paradigm. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor 02:47, 13 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, a couple of things there. Proper imperative of dicere is dic. And as far as quivis it should be quidvis or maybe better quodlibet but certainly better aliquid. "Anything" and "whatever" are close, but not equivalent.--Ioshus (disp) 03:42, 13 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)Reply
Quivis is stated in our book to be used for deliberate choice while quilibet expresses blind choice. Did you mean to say either of them would be a better choice than aliquid, or that aliquid would be the better option? Agriope 03:08, 14 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think aliquid is best...--Ioshus (disp) 06:18, 14 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)Reply
Got it. Thanks guys--I'll probably be asking lots more weird questions as I get close to finishing my article. Agriope 00:00, 13 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ha! Nothing in any wiki is ever "finished" ! IacobusAmor 02:44, 13 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)Reply
Lord knows that's the truth! Just check out Scacchi...featured article, yet, SOOO much work to do...--Ioshus (disp) 03:42, 13 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)Reply
An editor's work is never done. I'm still learning that one! Agriope 03:08, 14 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)Reply

Declinatio "asteroidae" sive "asteroidis" recensere

Scire velim, amabo, quae sit opinio tua de declinatione vocabuli “asteroides”. Vide et commentare, sis, quod scripsi hac de re in pagina Disputatio:Asteroides#Declination. Vale, --Fabullus 15:19, 22 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply

deletion recensere

Hi Rolandus,

could you please delete the userpage that has been nominated by me (see [1] )? It contains personal information and is an insult in german. Please also block the account. Thanks a lot. (I dont mention the page here directly, as that would be duplication of the insult etc, thanks for the understanding) Effeietsanders 09:31, 27 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Emendationes tuae recentissimae recensere

Non video quid emendaveris in paginis Thomas Morus, Tinti, Trachea, Urbanus VII et Teresia Lexoviensis. Nullam differentiam observare possum. --Fabullus 22:32, 27 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hae mutationes sunt tam subtiles ut non cadant sub oculos. Exempli gratia, in pagina "Urbanus VII," Rolandus "MDXC]] )" ad "MDXC]])" mutavit. IacobusAmor 00:37, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, in these cases I have just removed blanks before closing brackets which I think are typographically not correct. There is a page Vicipaedia:Dump/latest, which has a special section for this constellation: "Blank_before_closing_bracket". I create this list automatically from the periodical database dumps. Superfluous blanks are a minor problem but sometimes they are good indicators for other problems a page could have. --Rolandus 06:54, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thank you both. I didn't mean to criticise you, I just really didn't notice the changes. If you change a letter the difference is shown in red, but if you change a blank, there is nothing to print in red, I guess. Best wishes, --Fabullus 07:06, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Backlinks recensere

(comment on your user page) It's a very interesting point. But I often check for backlinks on other Wikipedias and add them myself if they are missing -- maybe you do too. No problem, but by doing this I might spoil your statistics! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:30, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it would be useful to see that dump of English backlinks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wow, that sounds like hard work. I don't want to give you work, Rolande! It's your choice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:12, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Interesting, those new files.
In the file Usor:Rolandus/temp/Interwiki_links_from_en_to_la, a redlink means (a) there's a special character that didn't work properly: well, never mind that; or (b) there's an interwiki link somewhere on English Wikipedia that leads to a nonexistent Latin page. For example, the redlink Papilio means that at en:Butterfly there's a link [[la:Papilio]] but no Latin article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:09, 29 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Vicipaedia recensere

Yes, I removed the two paragraphs intentionally as clean-up after incorporating the points in the portion I rewrote. But feel free to restore them if you want! Montivagus 20:40, 28 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Danke recensere

für deine Erklärung. Es ist jetzt mir klar. Ciao Massimo

für die Auskunft über Whitaker. Meine Frage war nicht rhetorisch - jedenfalls nicht ganz. --Neander 21:03, 9 Iunii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Danke recensere

Ich hoffe, dass ich als Verwalter behilflich sein kann. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 07:59, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Aber sicher! :-) By the way, "Verwalter" is a very nice word for "Adminstrator" (which is used in the German Wikipedia). --Rolandus 08:15, 10 Iunii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the Ido template, Roland!

Praenomina recensere

Hallo, ich suche die Übersetzung für Namen: Armand, Gaëtan, Fernand, Aristide und Lionel. Some users haben mir gesagt, dass du mir helfen kann. -- Thoma D. 16:25, 4 Iulii 2007 (UTC)Reply

So I suppose you can add in you list from the page Index nominum those first names: Caietanus,Aristides, Leonellus, Armandus. -- Thoma D. 06:42, 5 Iulii 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done ... but it is not my list. ;-) Feel free to edit it. --Rolandus 12:45, 8 Iulii 2007 (UTC)Reply

{{Finnia}}? recensere

Hi, Rolande! I need some help. I'm currently spending a lot of time on Finnish Geography articles but I don't know how to make a formula. Can only Magistrati do it? I have the following formula: ↓VOILA!↓

  Provinciae et Urbes Finniae
Provinciae: Finnia Meridionalis | Finnia Occidentalis | Finnia Orientalis | Lapponia (Finniae) | Uloa (Provincia) | Alandia
Urbes: Aboa | Arctopolis | Carolina vetus | Helsinkium | Neo-Carolina | Sala | Uloa | Vallis Gratiae | Vantania

Danke schön, mein freund. --Harrissimo 23:21, 6 Iulii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Creating formulas is not difficult, every user can make and edit them. You have only to put your above formula in the formula-namespace, for example on the page Formula:Finnia (btw the plural of magistratus is magistratūs ;-)) --Amphitrite 12:14, 7 Iulii 2007 (UTC)Reply

Unsourced place names recensere

Salve Rolande! Being a bit of an expert in this sort of thing, I thought you might want to look at the discussion in the Taberna about how to handle an unsourced place name and if we should include non-latin letters or not. Do we already have a policy on this? --Harrissimo 22:41, 17 Iulii 2007 (UTC)Reply


it's the first recensere

time I do it. I had no idea. Could I increase the period? Ciao--Massimo Macconi 17:22, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply

there's a problem with my discussion page recensere

there's a problem with my discussion page I can't see it anymore. Does it depend from vandalism? Thank you for your help?--Massimo Macconi 21:24, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ciao, Massimo. Il stesso problema è con molte discussioni. Non sapiamo perché, è un "glitch" . . . Credo che UV Rolando ha domandato i tecnichi, e speramo che tutti saranno bene domani . . . --Ioscius (disp) 21:36, 3 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! recensere

Thanks for the assistance with the category, Rolande. Now how do we make this category a subset of the category of (all) university alumni? IacobusAmor 13:32, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply

Categoria:Biographia recensere

There are so many names, it would be helpful if, to find a name near the bottom, we didn't have to scroll down through the whole list. Could names starting with any given letter be keyed to a list of letters at the top of the first page of the list?—and eventually a broken-down list of letters, as in Aa–Al, Am–Az, Ba–Be, Bh–Bo, Br–Bz (or whatever)? IacobusAmor 13:47, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply

It has actually been said (by UV and others I think) that Categoria:Biographia was intended for articles about biography, not for biographies of people. Most people don't add biographical articles to this category. When I'm editing a biographical article I normally remove this category if I have another to substitute, such as years of birth and death. Similarly with Categoria:Homines. I don't see any use in them, personally. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 5 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply

The dump recensere

Just in case there's something you can do about this ... The sections no-cat and stub-but-no-cat are larger than they need to be, because in many cases the page does have a category assigned by a formula (e.g. {{Praefecturae Franciae}}). The listing would be even more helpful if it could manage to exclude such cases. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:04, 7 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply

A and B recensere

A: Hi, Rolande. Thanks for finding the WSJ article (link on your user page)! I had looked, but for some reason I hadn't been able to track it down.

B: There was discussion over at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Latinitas. I notice you didn't step in -- maybe you were letting it cool off. As you see, there was doubt about the various positive Latinitas levels, though the negative ones seem accepted as very useful. Well, I was wondering whether to experiment with L 1: first to make it show a small tick at the right-hand corner instead of a line of text across the page (I think I can do that); second, to make it produce one category instead of two. But I have held off, because surely there is a reason why they all produce two categories (Latinitas +1 and L +1); it's just that I haven't seen what the reason is. Also because it's a well-built system and I am frightened of changing something and spoiling what I don't understand. And thirdly because I'm wondering what you think about it! Anyway, let me know if you're around. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:58, 18 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nice to see you recensere

Ave, Rolande! Drop in here if you have a spare moment ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 29 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your reappearance around Christmas, Rolande, though I myself wasn't able to contribute much at that time. Glad to see you back, and happy New Year! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:04, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)Reply

Portal:Germania et Portal:Francia recensere

Da ich gerade keine Lust zum übersetzen habe, wollte ich kurz auf deutsch fragen, ob wir nicht obengenannte Portale (lateinisches Wort?) gründen könnten. Eigentlich müsste, was in anderen Wikipediae geht, hier auch gehen. Mit Berolina als mittlerweile ausgezeichneten Artikel ließe sich ein nettes Portal machen. Ich würde mich wohl um die Zusammenstellung der Artikel kümmern, bräuchte dich aber für die Grafik. mfgVulpinus 17:56, 29 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the long delay ... I am not active at the moment. I hope you got an answer to your question. We have a Porta:Finnia, but I do not know whether we had a discussion before this portal has been created. If you need help, it is always a good idea to ask in the Taberna. --Rolandus 19:54, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)Reply

Benutzernamen ändern recensere

Hallo Roland, weißt du zufällig, wie man in der lateinischen Wikipedia seinen Benutzernamen ändern kann? Freundliche Grüße --Franck 15:30, 4 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! recensere

Salve, Rolande!

Thank you for your helpful advice!

Ahib 18:00, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply

Minor formatting things recensere

Salve, Rolande! If you are going to leave a picture without a description, it is best to put {{Imago sine descriptione}} where the thumb text would be and also it's important to tag those short pages you're making as urbs-stipulas. Vale! Harrissimo 21:06, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC).Reply

On a Latin encyclopaedia where there are no native speakers present, I see many more reasons to keep these formulas - but I don't want to start ranting. Harrissimo 22:21, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC).Reply
I think as the Vicipaedia:Pagina#Commendationes pro paginis bonis does:
  • Don't create non-stubs! Better no article than a one-sentence stub.
Rationale: Non-stubs that consist only of a sentence are a nuisance rather than a real contribution. Latin Wikipedia has far fewer users than the English Version for example, which is why our users have a correspondingly bigger responsibility for what they are contributing. Ask yourself: if not even you are interested enough to write an at least somewhat decent article about it, why should anyone else bother to do so?
However, if you do create a very short article, at least add the boilerplate text {{stipula}} so that others are pointed to it. (boldness added by me)
I believe that having a stub template is important to point out which articles need expansion if somebody comes along interested in ameliorating a certain subject at Vicipaedia, that they could be useful for a random page generator, that it may dissuade people to write such pages in the first place, that it fits in with our criteria for the basis of a good page (cf. VP:HP). The ugly issue seems to fit in with how they were thinking on when they started all those horrible orange-sided source templates which you can see at most articles over there. And since we are still a small edition of Wikipedia, I think it is important to mark our stubs out (that is to say all stubs, even if it makes up the majority of our pages). If we lost the stub template, I fear nobody would have access to the pages which need work in the future if we are to become a good quality and reliable encyclopaedia and it would seem like we are not discouraging short articles (which I certainly hope we are!). As you said "Our situation is different from the English or German Wikipedia where some of the users are fanatically trying to create the better Britannica or the better Brockhaus.". But that will not stop me trying to strive perfection ;) Harrissimo 23:09, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC).Reply
You are right. But ... ;-)
Yes, it is written Don't create non-stubs! Better no article than a one-sentence stub but on the talk page I write I think we should appreciate stubs as long as they have an interwiki link and I give some reasons. I know that most people - especially in other Wikipedias - think that stubs are bad. However, since in this Wikipedia there are several people with exotic ideas and opinions, I put the exotic idea of loving stubs up for discussion. I really think we should appreciate stubs. This sounds strange and although some people agreed - at least partly - we all were to lazy to change the written rules. This often happens here and I think this is not bad. If the community decides to appreciate stubs, it will happen, regardless whether it is written or not. The common sense is more important than what is written and might be outdated. I will not ignore that rule, especially if you think it is a good rule, but I take the chance to ask again to think about this rule. Really, it sounds bad, but stubs could be good, especially for small Wikipedias like us. I think the rule we have now has simply been copied from the English Wikipedia to the Vicipedia. Mostly it is good for us to follow the rules from the English Wikipedia, in this case I do not think so.
The argument that people should be able to find short articles, is correct as well. However, is it so hard to find short articles? I think here it is harder to find an article which is not short, so I tried to establish the marking of articles which are not short. ;-)
But I see a possible solution which could fit for you and me: If we designed the stub-formulas less eye-catching (e. g. smaller and maybe left aligned or even invisible or another small button or ...) I would be less annoyed by their uglyness (from my point of view) and you would be happy about the possibility to find the short pages via the categories? What about that? :-)
Even if nothing will be changed I can live with these ugly stub formulas. ;-) Ceterum censeo: We should think about appreciating stubs ... --Rolandus 20:13, 28 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply
Toning them down a little sounds good. It would be a big job though... Harrissimo 20:28, 28 Februarii 2008 (UTC).Reply
I guess one possibility would be to make the stipula boxes disappear (I mean: format them in such a way that they aren't visible) while retaining the stipula categories. In that way, it would still be possible to find the shortest articles in particular subject areas, if people want to work on those. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:41, 28 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply
Changing the layout would be easy, since most (all?) templates are based on a master template. There have been some proposals how to change the templates but nothing has been put into practice. I think it would be good, if we could make our stubs look nice. Because we have so many of them ;-) However, maybe someone likes this centered bold layout? --Rolandus 21:02, 28 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply
I made a test on page Botanica: left-aligned, no border, smaller image, clear=all. --Rolandus 22:02, 28 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply
Which I condensed further at Photosynthesis. Harrissimo 22:16, 28 Februarii 2008 (UTC).Reply
Not bad :-) --Rolandus 22:19, 28 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply
I like these. They are nice and discreet. And their positioning is similar to that of {{Dubcat}} and {{Nexus desiderati}}, which likewise indicate that an article needs completing. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I like them much better than the present ones. --UV 20:43, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply

Locus felix recensere

Hallo Roland!

Bei deinen Ortsnamen verwendest du häufig Genetive (die ja auch Lokative sein können). Wahrscheinlich haben deine Quellen einfach das Wort so, wie es irgendwo erscheint, verwendet ohne zu prüfen, in welchem grammatikalischen Fall der Name genannt wird. Loco- und Lacufelicis erscheinen mir jedenfalls äußerst suspekt. --Alex1011 22:29, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply

Mir ist es auch etwas suspekt, aber das ist in den angegebenen Quellen (Tabellen) so angegeben, also nicht von mir aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen. Daß die Quellen selbst suspekt sind, könnte sein. Streich es einfach weg, wenn Du denkst, es paßt nicht. --Rolandus 22:36, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)Reply

Urbes Austriacae recensere

You can use <ref name="siedlungen"/> for that same site now. Harrissimo 16:07, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply

Redundancy can be avoided if there is an Index urbium Austriae with just, say, the largest 10 cities listed on the page Austria. What do you think? Harrissimo 16:23, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply

Tom R recensere

Rolande, I'm sorry to be hasty, but I have deleted "Tom R". Looking at the supposed titles of his works, it was clearly a joke, and probably about a real person. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:50, 7 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply

Tom R is not a real name, but the article is claimed to be about a real person. Why would you want to restore it to that title? I don't understand.
Still, I'm not stopping you. But, if you restore it, you'd better read it carefully and think about the rules for biographies of living persons. The next person who reads it may be the subject! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:53, 7 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
OK, I've just checked and -- to my surprise! -- the book titles are correct. So I'll restore the article and move it to Tom Rohn. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:12, 7 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
I did not want to argue for the article or against it, just wanted to inform the author about the proposal. :-) --Rolandus 22:47, 7 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply

The new list recensere

As you probably know, some of the links we had made on the previous version of the page (copied from simple:wiki) don't appear on the new version. I expect you're working on this, so I won't do any editing. Robertus Schumann is one of several examples. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:13, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is an example where (and en: too) do not have interwiki links to us. This has to be fixed by adding the interwiki links to (and maybe en: as well). The bots seem to be lazy ... ;-) --Rolandus 21:19, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
Well done on gathering these lists. Is there any way we could get one strong list merged from your ones and Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnes Vicipaediae habeant? It could be potentially very useful at Vicipaedia:Collaboratio so I (and anyone else who may join) can see which pages need making. Hopefully it would also save you work translating the links from English-Latin or updating them. Harrissimo 23:34, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply
There are three different approaches, each of them has its pros and cons:
  • Updating the list Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnes Vicipaediae habeant ... is not in sync with the list on simple: and does not have the same structure, sorting etc. Very hard job and I think the list has pages which are not in the "List of 1000" any more. A useful list, however, the provided translations are very useful.
  • Creating redirects and simply copy the list from simple: over to us. This was my proposal. UV's requirement is, to categorize these links. Fine for me, but Mycēs does not like this, see [2].
  • Using that generated list Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages which does not work perfectly, I mentioned the reasons there. These English redirects could help even here: I could guess what pages do not have interwiki links on simple:.

--Rolandus 06:36, 10 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll stay out of this one then. Maybe I'll make an "official" version of Most important 1000 pages if I get round to it. Harrissimo 17:40, 10 Martii 2008 (UTC).Reply
Notice, when you have a moment, Constantinus I, Akbar Magnus and Aemilius Durkheim! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:16, 12 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
Marilyn Monroe and Birgitta Bardot. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:22, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
And Arnaldus Daniel. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:09, 17 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ernestus Rutherford, Ioannes Baptista Iosephus Fourier, Donatello (all Massimo's I think). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 17 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks ... and I got some from Ioscius. --Rolandus 18:10, 17 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply
Abu Nuwas. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply

thank you for your explanation recensere

sorry but I have already directly inserted Lacus Victoria. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 11:39, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply

...but i want to link to commons category. Gallery page is not exist. All wikipedias use {{Commonscat}}-- 13:03, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, kind regards-- 13:10, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply

Caribbean Sea recensere

simple:Carribean Sea is a redirect (it's a mis-spelling). The real article is at simple:Caribbean, and we do have a corresponding article, at Mare Caribicum; this needs to be added to the list. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply

Butterfly --> Papilio recensere

I added Butterfly --> Papilio to your list of existing pages. Is this what you want us to do? --Fabullus 20:16, 27 Martii 2008 (UTC)Reply

Requests for updating the List2 recensere

Please give me a note, if you want me to run my script which updates the list on page Usor:Rolandus/List2. The name of the Latin page suffices, if the Latin page has an interwiki link to en:. And the interwiki link on en: should link back to the Latin page. So we can be sure that the pages correspond with each other. Thanks.

  • Anima: en:Soul. ¶ Rolande, adsum quod pagina "Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages" me adhuc misit, praesertim nexus ad verbum "me" adfixus, in sententia "Instead, add existing pages to Usor:Rolandus/Existing pages and tell me." IacobusAmor 01:23, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC) Reply

Matrimonium recensere

At the moment, you're calling Matrimonium (sacramentum) the equivalent of en:Marriage. Even though a redirect then sends you to the right place, the title of your link is wrong. Probably some ardent Roman Catholic drafted the original article, implying that marriage was what the R.C. Church defined it to be—and then a different article, on marriage from a neutral point of view (though wrongly stated to be necessarily between a man & a woman), had to be written. These articles need coalescing, but I don't know how to do that. IacobusAmor 03:03, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's right, however, concerning "the list", we do not have a problem: The English page (marriage) now links to a Latin page and the Latin target page links back to that English page (marriage). The list is just for identifying missing pages. The links might be "incorrect", sometimes, from a more general point of view. This redirect is no problem for the list. It will disappear when I use a new dump for analyzing the Latin pages (maybe in some days/weeks). It should only be checked, whether each of the 1000 pages has a corresponding Latin page and whether they are interlinked correctly. My list is only a helper and it is not a a problem if it uses old redirects. --Rolandus 05:06, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply
OK. Fair enough. We don't have a problem then—except with the religiously biased text itself. IacobusAmor 10:03, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply

List of 1000 pages recensere

Rolandus, you may wish to look at the list of 1000 pages. It has been changed significantly. In fact, they now ask for special relativity and general relativity rather than Theory of relativity. Ack!...--Rafaelgarcia 23:28, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply

But hey, they've removed Voodoo, and that helps our score! IacobusAmor 23:43, 15 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the hint. However, I hope this change will not effect us much. At the moment I am checking against the pages which are used by the script (see m:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles/Source code). When the author updates his list and publishes the updated source of his script, I will check aigainst this updated list. We are comfortably below this magic 250 (missing pages), so I hope we will be listed on page m:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles/Absent Articles. As I suggested in the Taberna, we should put our pages into categories, like Categoria:1000 paginae, then I could use the content of this category to check against. We could also have a category Categoria:1000 paginae (pristinae) (or so ...) where we have our pages which should be listed as well, although they are not on this list on "meta" any more. Maybe UV's bot can help categorizing. And, most important, if we want to be on the save side, we just have to create a missing page in the Vicipaedia and put an interwiki link into the page on en:. Only this affects our rating. :-) --Rolandus 05:12, 16 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply
An excellent idea to have our own list! Each wiki presents a unique interpretation of the world—so in addition to the articles that all wikis should have, each wiki might well feature subjects of particular interest. Latin would of course feature: (1) important political personages of ancient Rome (all kings, famous generals & politicians, and all emperors up to 476 in the West, and some up to 1453 in the East); (2) important personages (in all fields of endeavor) who interacted with them; (3) important Latin-using personages of other ages; (4) important Latin-speaking figures of the Christian church; (5) important literary figures who wrote in Latin (up to the present day); (6) important works written in Latin, in all ages; (7) mythological figures and other concepts salient in the Latin-speaking world; (8) special terms (e.g., philosophiae doctor). You may think of other categories. Where should we start making the list? (I'd start it on my own page, but I don't know how to set it up.) Probably the most prominent name on it, to judge by presumed hits, would be Julius Caesar, and one might expect Vicipaedia's article on him to be the fullest & best of such articles in all the wikis. (At the moment, it most definitely is not.) Are Vicipaedia's articles listed anywhere by the number of hits each has received from unique IP's? IacobusAmor 13:15, 16 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply
There is a tool for measuring the traffic which certain pages create: Vicipaedia:Census#Wikipedia_article_traffic_statistics. You can either check a specific page or get the top pages.
Technically I see several strategies how we could produce such lists you mentioned above:
a) Categorizing the pages which should be included in a specific statistic
b) Creating lists of pages (in a simple format) which shall be used fro creating the statistics
c) We can mix these two methods
  • If you want to have a table of the "1000 most important pages" we have (including their size), you might put the existing pages into a category Categoria:1000 paginae or so and someone might make a script which compiles a table from all the pages which are in this category.
  • If you want to have an (maybe ordered) List of the most important 50 Roman people, you might put such a list on your user page and someone might create a script which produces a table with these pages and their actual Latinitas-rating.
  • If you want to have a list of missing pages and you want to discuss each page, it might be a good idea to create these pages as subpages (e. g. in your userspace) and categorize them. Then a script can produce a table from it.
  • You might also want to have a script which compiles a table from several lists.
--Rolandus 19:19, 17 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply
To Iacobus's groups above one might add (9) places that were important in Roman/ancient times. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:21, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hoover Dam recensere

I seem to recall that somewhere on one of your pages en:Hoover Dam was also listed as missing a Latin counterpart, but now I am unable to find the reference, although the Latin article does not seem to have been created yet. I propose Moles Hooveriana which I plan to add shortly. Vale, --Fabullus 14:07, 17 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply

This m:List of articles every Wikipedia should have is a moving target. Actually I am checking against the list of this script: m:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles/Source code. Page en:Hoover Dam might have been on the list from simple:. But it cannot do any harm to create a page for en:Hoover Dam. ;-) Thanks! --Rolandus 19:02, 17 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply

Re List2: Aegyptus Antiqua recensere

Hoc creavi. Leigh (disp) 16:26, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks --Rolandus 17:40, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hoc quoque. Leigh (disp) 23:52, 23 Aprilis 2008 (UTC) Reply

Armenia recensere

FYI: Somebody anonymous is doing a great job in boosting Armenia above 30,000 octets. Too bad it isn't on the list of 1000 pages! (Come to think of it, why isn't it? It's had a long history, occupies a strategic location, has produced a respectable body of literature, and supposedly was the world's first Christian country.) IacobusAmor 12:35, 23 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply

I fear, on m:Talk:List of articles every Wikipedia should have they have the challenge to reduce the number of articles. ;-) --Rolandus 18:01, 23 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply
I know, I know. I've given some advice at In all the sublists, the boldfaced articles are probably secure, and those are therefore the ones we should concentrate on. IacobusAmor 18:54, 23 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply

Summus Pontifex recensere

Rolande, I never thought I would do such a thing, but I reverted you at Summus Pontifex. Please forgive me. It seemed to me that the link to Pontifex Maximus which you added was not useful because pontifex maximus is a discretiva page leading to the same ultimate pages. So to go to pontifex maximus, rather than the other linked pages, would just waste the reader's time.

But I've had quite enough of summus pontifex now; everyone seems to have views about this page! I will leave it alone, and if you feel you want to revert back again, I won't mind at all :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply

Size matters recensere

Do you want to be told if we significantly enlarge a page from the list of 1000? I have added text to (and renamed) Goffredus Chaucer, now Galfridus Chaucer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:53, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good work, but even so, it's got only 4849 octets, and the magic barriers are 10,000 and 30,000!!! IacobusAmor 21:06, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh. OK then. I'll stick at it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:03, 28 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think it's above 10,000 now. I'll move on to the next ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 29 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply
At the moment I take the pages from the latest dump from these directories:, so the next dump will be available in 2 or 4 weeks. You can watch the dumps being produced: ;-) --Rolandus 21:24, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've just begun Samuel Beckett, who is on the list, I think. I've also expanded Alexander Magnus and Arnaldus Daniel beyond ten thousand, if I'm not mistaken. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:18, 8 Iunii 2008 (UTC)Reply
Notice a couple of minor changes made anonymously to your list pages this morning. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:16, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)Reply

Citrus and en:Lemon recensere

Hi Rolandus,

I have just rewritten Citrus, which now has interwiki-links to and from en:Citrus (instead of en:Lemon). This means that I have effectively eliminated one of the 1000 pages. I am planning to write an article called Limon to take its place, but not just yet. Best wishes, --Fabullus 14:14, 19 Iulii 2008 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't help myself: I have created the stipula Limon after all. I shall transfer the hidden category from Citrus to Limon, and also make a new interwiki link on the English page. I leave it to you to change the reference in the many lists you have under your own name. Vale, --Fabullus 14:45, 19 Iulii 2008 (UTC)Reply

Categoria proposita recensere

I would be happy if you could have a look at the my proposed translation of en's template "CatDiffuse" at the end of Vicipaedia:Index_formularum_Vicipaediae_Latinae#Paginae s.v. Formulae Propositae. Is it all right (or at least a sound basis for debate) in terms of content, language and technical stuff? --Iovis Fulmen 11:47, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply

Disputatio:Hominideae recensere

This is in your list of 1000 pages, Rolande, but I think there's a mistake somewhere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:00, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would have said English ape is German Affe and vice versa. However:
And on en:Ape Wikipedia tells that Romans called such an animal (   ) a Hominideae, which makes me believe that these animals must have always been kept in pairs or groups.
But when I look for German ape in my Latin dictionary, it says simia.
I guess this an example for this common-versus-scientific-name-problem wherever biologists are involved ;-) We should have two pages, because we have two contexts. We sometimes have two contexts (e. g. ancient and modern context) and run into this problem.
--Rolandus 06:58, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply
OK. It seems Hominideae is a pure misspelling. It shouldn't be in any list of 1000 pages. Was the ill-informed editor on en:wiki aiming at Hominidae, maybe?
My only problem is knowing what to do about the 1000-page list. For the present, I've removed the interwiki links from Hominideae and marked it for deletion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:20, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply
According to my page search, the word hominideae doesn't occur on the page en:Ape. I can't find any mention of Romans on that page, either. Maybe you'd better check again, Rolande! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:37, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply
This was meant to be ironical, because when I wrote this, there was an interwiki link to la:Hominideae. There is (and was) no explicit information on that page. Now en:Ape is linked to la:Hominoidea. Btw, there is also a German word de:Menschenaffe which is linked to la:Hominidae ... --Rolandus 08:55, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the English equivalent for de:Menschenaffe and our Hominidae is en:Great ape. No problem there, so far as I can see. I didn't catch the irony, I'm afraid! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:41, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ok, maybe it was not that funny, however, if for such a common word like en:Ape the Latin equivalent (?) la:Hominideae or la:Hominoidea is provided, I can laugh about it. What would a Roman child say, when it means "Hey mom, see this ape there!". For the German "Schau Mama, dort ist ein Affe!", page de:Affe has the English en:Simian. For the English en:Monkey no German (or Latin) equivalent is provided. There is much confusion here. That's funny. It really seems the different languages have different concepts here. Or different people (biologist and people like you and me) brought their different concepts in. :-) --Rolandus 08:09, 11 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply
For reference, here are some pertinent definitions in Merriam-Webster, a dictionary widely used in the United States:
ape, monkey: esp: one of the larger tailless or short-tailed Old World forms; any of a family (Pongidae) of large tailless semierect primates (as the chimpanzees, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon)—called also anthropoid, anthropoid ape
hominid, any of a family (Hominidae) of bipedal primate mammals that includes modern man (H. sapiens) and several extinct species
hominoid, resembling or related to man
monkey, a primate mammal with the exception of man and usu. the lemurs and tarsiers, esp: any of the smaller long-tailed primates as contrasted with the apes
simian, monkey, ape
Note that English supports a distinction between apes (larger, tailless or short-tailed, Old World) and monkeys (smaller, long-tailed). ¶ And according to Cassell's, Latin for 'monkey' is simia, and Latin for 'ape' is both simia and simius. IacobusAmor 11:40, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Iacobe. No mention of Hominideae there! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:47, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply
I get it now. My lateral thinking wasn't operative. A possible name for the 1000 page list is Hominoidea and I have moved the ghostly Hominideae to that. If anyone prefers to rename it Simia or whatever, that's fine by me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:02, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)Reply
Since Hominideae was never anything but a typo, I have now deleted it completely: it no longer exists as a redirect. This leaves four redlinks on the pages in your userspace: see [3]. If you want to correct any of them, they need to point to Hominoidea. OK? Salve, Rolande! -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:46, 24 Octobris 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am writing the Simia article by translating the first paragraph of the English monkey. Please feel free to emend.--Jondel (disputatio) 10:00, 26 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply

new dump recensere

Hello Rolandus, today a new Vicipaedia:Dump was made available - it would be great if you have the time to re-run your dump analysis! Greetings, --UV 19:06, 23 Novembris 2008 (UTC)Reply

Updating list 2 recensere

Inaktivität und Administratorrechte recensere

Lieber Rolandus, jetzt ist es leider schon mehrere Jahre her, seit du zuletzt in der Vicipaedia aktiv warst (und ich erinnere mich gerne an unsere früheren langen und konstruktiven Diskussionen und Gespräche!) Kürzlich wurde in unserer Taberna diskutiert, dass als Vorsichtsmaßnahme, um das Risiko zu reduzieren, dass ein Admin-Account geknackt wird, die Administratorrechte inaktiver Admins vorläufig entfernt werden und bei Wiederaufnahme der Aktivität dann formlos wieder erteilt werden.

Daher meine Einladung, zurückzukommen! Auch wenn du derzeit nicht viel Zeit hast oder deine Interessen woanders liegen, bitte melde dich mit deinem Benutzernamen an und antworte hier auf deiner Benutzerdiskussionsseite "Hallo", dann behältst du die Adminrechte für die nächsten Monate.

Falls wir hier nichts von dir hören, werden deine Adminrechte in einem Monat vorläufig entzogen – aber das soll dich nicht davon abhalten, jederzeit später zurückzukommen und du kriegst die Adminrechte, wenn du magst, sofort wieder.

(Falls du nicht mehr zur Vicipaedia beitragen möchtest, was mehrere, darunter auch ich, sehr bedauern würden, kannst du auf der entsprechenden Seite auf Meta deine Adminrechte aktiv zurückgeben.)

Wie immer würde ich mich freuen, bei Fragen oder einfach so von dir zu hören! Die Vicipaedia:Taberna steht dir natürlich auch offen. Danke für deinen jahrelangen Einsatz und deine Dienste für Vicipaedia, und hoffentlich bis bald! --UV (disputatio) 20:18, 14 Septembris 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have sent an e-mail to Rolandus/Roland2 asking him to read the above message. --UV (disputatio) 20:21, 14 Septembris 2012 (UTC)Reply

Lieber Rolandus, vorläufig wurden deine Adminrechte nun entzogen - aber das soll dich nicht von einem Comeback abhalten! Nochmals danke für deinen jahrelangen Einsatz und deine Dienste für Vicipaedia, alles Gute und hoffentlich bis bald! --UV (disputatio) 23:50, 17 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply