Teutonius

SYSTEMA TAXONOMICUM

Hi vicipaedians... are there any objections to my taxonomic setup, or shall I use it instead / in addition to of the existing one? I propose that I/we only use the main taxons (that are not debated) and that I (we) start up from the highest category downwards: describing only the main features of each subsequent level, especially those that are different from the neighboring and previous ones... Teutonius 18:13, 20 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

This may be a question for the Vicipaedia:Taberna rather than your talk page, since quite a lot of Vicipaedians work on taxonomic articles.

I don't think I know what you mean by your "taxonomic setup". What are the differences from what is done currently? Are you proposing to edit existing articles, to use a different setup in future, or both? It would make it clearer (to me, at least) if you would edit one article as an example, changing it to your taxonomic setup, so that I could compare the old version with the new one and see what the difference will be. Is that possible? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:45, 20 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Dear Andrew, I can only see some few people working at this issue at the moment... and we are not really working TOGETHER ... I think we should follow my example below: edit a taxonomic pulldown menue that includes all categories down to the families and typical species (others can be added later by those who want to ... the existent taxonomical system can be stored in the discussion page) AND each new category to be added must have at least one example! So we could get rid of those empty "grades & clades" that are really of no use... How do you think about that? I want to setup an index page and starting from the biota page we could gradually proceed... (I cant access the taberna from home, but only from work, perhaps there is some kind of bug in my computer slowing down that page? Tomorrow I can shift this section to the tavern. Hopfully some others will at least say their opinion... Teutonius 19:19, 20 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. That's interesting about the Taberna running slow. Occasionally it does that for me too, and I guess it's a sign we ought to reduce the size of the page and archive older discussions.

Sure, about how many people edit, you are right: the fact is, taxonomists, like others, come and go!

On Vicipaedia, I find it's a useful method to try a few pages; pause to see how people react; then go ahead. New editors, good information and consistent presentation are always welcome! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:53, 20 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Well fine, Ill go ahead then! Teutonius 11:15, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

That isn't what I said! I can't really comment, for or against, until you answer my question (what's different about your setup?) or until you follow my suggestion of editing one or a few pages to demonstrate what the difference would be. If you go ahead without responding to questions, you risk wasting your work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why all these levels don't already have Latin names in biological publications. IacobusAmor 20:31, 20 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Well, the names replaced by "?" differ from author to author, or some authors didnt deal with the whole complex but only with certain levels and so there are different / lacking categories... I only took those that are accepted in general and that dont contradict with others.

Teutonius 05:28, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

The words "parvregnum", "parvcladus", "parvphylum" and "infimphylum" are incorrectly formed. Are they already in use, or did you invent them?

[Added later:] But I now see that "parvclassis" is already well-embedded in the Latin column on the English wikipedia page, so, however incorrectly formed, these compounds are not new! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

If I may call into question the entire enterprise of "Linnaean" taxonomy.—The modern consensus is that these levels of classification do not correspond in any meaningful way with the real world: they're artificial constructs, used for our convenience in making sense of the (infinite) variety of living things. We shouldn't be surprised if DNA analysis, reduced to the zeros & ones of computer-based knowledge, won't soon be showing that the most convenient taxonomical depiction of human evolution will differ markedly from that of leonine evolution, or canine evolution, or sawfish evolution, or sunflower evolution, or whatever. The levels most useful for depicting the history of species X won't be the same levels most useful for depicting the evolution of species Y. In other words, today's taxonomical activity may have the approximate value of rearranging the deck chairs on Titanic, not worth our time, except in so far as it records (as an encyclopedia should) what the most informed scientists have been doing in their professional works up to this point. I suspect the whole antiquated verbal structure ("regnum"! "classis"! "genus"!) will one day be abandoned—in favor of numbers. This prediction may seem bizarre now, but just you wait! IacobusAmor 13:25, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

How true!

I feel that the basic skeleton built by Linnaeus is still useful; rather as a clockface helps us to conceptualise time, this structure happens to give non-specialists a handy way of conceptualising large-scale groupings. The many additional levels are useless (to nearly everybody) and personally I would avoid incorporating them in encyclopedia pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:07, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

The parv- and infim- taxons are from here [1] (and following, linked pages)Teutonius 20:35, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC) I also see the disadvantages of the Linnean system, and thats just why I want to reduce the number of hierarcic taxons as far as possible. Teutonius 20:40, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I think basically we're in agreement! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:45, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Just as you said in the taven, my aim is also to describe things (mainly plants & anmimals) and not to argue about (controversial) phylogenetics ... but the problem will be: what to do with all the existant phylogenetic diagrammata? Rafael told me it was not allowed to delete things (exept for obvious mistakes) in wikipedia!? The clado-schemata are more logical though, but also more difficult to conceive because of the lack of (hierarchical & temporal) structure. So I think they are of no/little use for the hobby-scientist that mostly refer to our wikipedia.

Another problem is that in the cladistic system the knots dont get names (that would be the higher level taxons in Linnaeus system).

Teutonius 21:19, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

You'll get accustomed to us! We are all working in the same direction really.

The rule is, you shouldn't normally delete discussion -- and I'm aware of that little misunderstanding ...! What that misunderstanding shows, perhaps, is that it's always a good idea to explain what you're doing (in the summarium, for example) especially when doing something big.

Yes, you can delete from the encyclopedia pages. In the same way as you may be suggesting, I have deleted some genetic subdivisions of language families from infoboxes about languages, because many of them are useless or actively misleading and they represent an old-fashioned, narrow and partial view of language history. But (as you are rightly doing!) you need to see what others think before making systematic deletions. I suspect, when we see some examples, there will be a consensus that you're right. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:19, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I have renamed the "systema taxonomicum" as "index taxonomicus vitae" (iincluding plants & viruses) and moved it to the (formerly olmost empty) page "biota" now. Teutonius 11:53, 25 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Overlap with Wikispecies

The pages at wikispecies [2] are quite good (no superfluous content, spacy taxon chains...), but its content is somewhat overlapping with wikipedias (my/our) attempt to setup a taxon- system too?Teutonius 21:37, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I moved this comment down here because I think maybe it's a separate issue -- OK? My personal view is that a partial overlap with Wikispecies is no problem. And if there is some disagreement over classification, that may be a good thing for the reader, to see that opinions differ. Wikispecies pages have interwiki links to Wikipedia, and so it would be a good idea (I think) to add a link to us on Wikispecies when we make a new page here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

OK, Andrew! Teutonius 09:30, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

COLORES

Hinweis: Es gibt eine Seite color, wobei nicht so ganz klar ist, wie die einzelnen Farben zugeordnet wurden. --Alex1011 11:51, 20 Augusti 2008 (UTC) Meinst du bei den Römern, oder auf jener Seite? Teutonius 12:22, 20 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Diese Seite meine ich, einige Zuordnungen scheinen recht phantasievoll, wobei es wohl auch schwierig ist, herauszukriegen, welche Farben die Römer im einzelnen meinten. Unter Arcus (caelestis) habe ich mal Ammianus Marcellinus und heutige Farben gegenüber gestellt. --Alex1011 15:00, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Ive already asked what the others think about my color page, but it seems there is no interest, because nobody answerd... Teutonius 12:44, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I answered somewhere, giving the advice that you should look at how botanists classify colors. Their terminology has the value of being standard, worldwide. For example, on Ridgway's color scale in the vicinity of 11 to 15, you'll find croceus, aurantiacus, senatus, umbrinus, salmoneus, bubalinus, armeniacus, ochraceus, fulvus, hinnuleus, griseo-sepiaceus, and others, but some of these are nearer to 11 and others are nearer to 13; salmoneus goes down to 9, senatus and umbrinus stretch from 10 to maybe 18, but hinnuleus stretches only from about 10 to 14. Hardly any color has the same range. Just the root flav- yields the colors flavus, flavissimus, flavicans, and flavidus. Conventions exist. IacobusAmor 11:24, 18 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Is there an online edition of Ridgeway's work, with the hexadecimal codes? I couldnt find any. Teutonius 09:41, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Pagina Mensis

Ex dictionario Annamitico* Lusitano & Latino ab Alexandro de Rhodes SI (Romae 1651)
Piscis, vel ostreorum genus quoddam valde molle ad modum massae rotundae in qua nullus sensus apparet nisi quidam motus intra aquam, sed cum litus attigerit ita quiescit, ut nullus sensus in ea massa penitus appareat, illam tamen multi comedunt praesertim orientales. Lusitani vocant agoas mortas: aestus maris emissores, quia scilicet cum aestus sunt remissores, in littore saepe inveniuntur illae massae.
*) nomen pristinum Vietnamiae Teutonius 11:41, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Teutonius, non oportet usores scribere talia in formula paginae mensis. Omnia scripta ibi consensum omnium usorum requirit apud disputationem paginae mensis.--Rafaelgarcia 12:45, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Cur non? Non vidi vos scribere "taliam" explicationem ad lectorem notitiam habeat ... antea!? Teutonius 18:30, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Formula paginae mensis paginam quae pagina prima praebitur continet. Scribisti commentionem supra datam in formula ipsa. Formulae non sunt paginae disputationis! (The page of the month template contains the page that is displayed on our front page as the pagina mensis. You wrote your comment on the template itself. A template is not a discussion page!)--Rafaelgarcia 18:46, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Raphael, I didnt write any whatsoever comment - I only filled in the form you (wikipedia) offered me to do so as to create a proposal for the next months page, and if theres any need to discuss it, I dont know? However Teutonius 19:48, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I can see how you got confused, but no the "form" you filled out is actually the page that is displayed on the front page. The place where we propose pages for paginae menses is here:Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis. Also one only proposes pages that are already completed and have been rated for latinitas; one doesn't propose to create a pagina mensis page. And the above comment seems more like pointing out some text as part of discussion not a proposing of a page.--Rafaelgarcia 20:07, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Canticum Europaeorum

Teutoni, quis est auctor verborum quod hic scripsisti? --UV 19:04, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC) Petrus Roland & Petrus Diem? Cur (me) id rogas? Teutonius 19:17, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC) Hallo Teutonius, Du hast hier eine etwas andere Textfassung eingestellt. Um keine Urheberrechtsverletzung zu begehen, sollten wir diese Fassung nur dann im Artikel anführen, wenn wir auch ihren Urheber (Textdichter/Übersetzer) anführen können. (Aber selbst dann ist es eher ein Grenzfall, da ja die Wikipedia als freie Enzyklopädie eigentlich keine urheberrechtsgeschützten Inhalte umfassen sollte. Insofern steht auch der Text im gegenwärtigen Artikel Hymnus Europae auf recht wackeligen Beinen.) Oder hast Du diesen Text selbst übersetzt? Dann ist es natürlich kein Problem. Grüße, --UV 19:23, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC) Nein, diese Fassung ist von mir! (Kanns nat. leider nicht beweisen...) Teutonius 19:29, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Alles klar, ich habe Deinen Text jetzt in Hymnus Europae eingefügt, hoffe es passt so! --UV 19:37, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Habe dem Text noch eine deutsche Variante hinzugefügt, kannst es ja übernehmen und dann "meine" Seite löschen? Wäre nett! Kenne mich damit (noch) nicht so aus... Teutonius 19:43, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Ok! Ich habe jetzt aus Ode an die Freude eine Weiterleitung auf Hymnus Europae gemacht. Das geht ganz leicht: Einfach als Artikeltext #REDIRECT [[Hymnus Europae]] eintragen. --UV 19:55, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Quid rogas?

Vide Vicipaedia:Taberna#QVOMODO DICITVR:--Rafaelgarcia 20:51, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Me qua de causa non rogare debere rogavi!? 92.195.67.160 21:48, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Sodes, hic multum nostra interest scribere nec poemata convoluta, sed prosam rectam, ut omnes facilius nos intellegant. (Maxime tirones quod latinitate bona carent.) Sic agendo forsitan ei erunt, qui ad nostras rogationes intellexas respondeant. --Rafaelgarcia 23:53, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Ubi sunt poemata "convoluta"? Haec omia nonne sunt prosa recta? Quod verbum non intellegi potest (a tironibus)? Qua re neminem respondere posse dicis...: Die Ruderstange in den Grund stecken um das Boot daran festzumachen, bis das Wasser wieder steigt.
= infigere contum vado ad navigium (ad eam) alligandum donec aqua/flumen iterum/rursum augeat/augescat/accrescat. ???
- vergeblich warten = frustra/nequiquam exspectare ???
- den Text am Rand ausrichten = litteras ad marginem aequare ???
Vos quidem non intellego...
Teutonius 00:15, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Teutoni me paenitet minime intellegere linguam Germanicam. Haec sententia "Me qua de causa non rogare debere rogavi!?" haud prosa recta est, sed mihi est enigma vel crucigramma. Forsitan dicit modo recto "Me rogavi cur minime debeam id rogare"? At quid est id? Est ista rogatio? (Teutonius, I'm sorry I don't understand German. This sentence "Me qua de causa non rogare debere rogavi!?" is hardly straight prose, but for me is an puzzle or crossword to solve. Perhaps it says (in straight prose) "I asked myself why I shouldn't ask it." But what is the it? Is this a question?)--Rafaelgarcia 00:29, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Well, Rafael, actually I was asked: why do I ask (here = in the tavern) I replied: Why not? Then you asked me: What do you ask (Quid rogas?) and then I replied: I asked, why shouldn't I ask!? (Me qua de causa non rogare debere rogavi ->ACI = accusativus cum infinitivo)... I asked myself would be: Miror cur...) I thought the tavern was a place to freely ask what you want to (concerning Lain language) unimportant if you are an active or passive Vicipaedian, because just those who aren't yet bold enough to write articles must have the right to ask, no matter whether they really want (dare) to post something or not. Teutonius 01:16, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

OK, hmmm. Lets answer each one of these in turn:

• Iacobus asked you "why do you ask" because he wanted to see if there was a context to your question. He was hoping you would point him to a specific page or essay you were trying to translate.

Correct. Contexts usually help. Sometimes we find that, when people ask "How do you translate X?" the context shows they should actually be asking "How do you translate Y?"! IacobusAmor 14:49, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

• I asked "What do you ask" because I wanted to know your question, since I didn't know if you were asking a question. This has nothing to do with "why", so that your reply "I asked, why shouldn't I ask!?" is a non sequitur.
• You've got your grammar wrong "me rogavi" = "I asked myself" all personal pronouns are reflexive in latin if the subject and object are the same person. "Miror" means I wonder, not "I ask myself"
• "I asked, why shouldn't I ask!" = "Rogavi, cur non debeo rogare!" or "Rogavi, cur mihi non oportet rogare!" or "Rogavi, cur mihi non licet rogare!". What you wrote in Latin makes no sense at all, really, and certainly does not mean what you intend.
• The reason people aren't answering your question, is because we don't know what your question is. The above isn't a question, it's an exclamation, or an animated statement. You are not asking anything that requires an answer. If you want an answer you need to ask a question. It is not because it is wrong to ask. Please do ask on the Taberna and elsewhere.
• Certainly no one can answer you unless they understand you in some language, whether latin or german.
• But remember that no one is obliged to answer you. None of us is being paid or anything. Vicipaedia is all caritas, good will and kindness. Sometimes if people perceive you are just idly asking questions to no end, they will get tired and stop answering you. Also most people here don't look kindly upon those seeking to have their latin homework done for them. Also most people don't like being someone else's dictionary. You should show you did your homework before asking a question.
• The reason I did not previously try to help, is that I was hoping some other german-speaking user might help out. I know absolutely no German. And unfortunately both the english and latin in your questions are a bit difficult to figure out.
• I hope this helps aquaint you with our customs here and that you enjoy your time contributing to Vicipaedia.

salve,--Rafaelgarcia 01:48, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, instead of checking the grammar of my few sentences, we finally wrote a lot about fairly nothing... What I wanted to ask someone out there is just this, is it correct to say: = infigere contum vado ad navigium (ad eam) alligandum donec aqua/flumen iterum/rursum augeat/augescat/accrescat. ???
(to fix the pole in the ground to bind the boat on it, till the flood rises again) - wait in vain = frustra/nequiquam exspectare ???
- to align (justify?) the text = litteras ad marginem aequare ??? ... or not, and how can I say it correctly?
Teutonius 02:24, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Here goes:

• "Contum in vadi fundum destituere eo consilio, ut linter ad eum iungatur donec aquae iterum resurgunt."="to tie a pole in the bottom of the channel in order to tie the boat to it until the waters rise again."
• frustra expectare is correct
• don't know about the right term for justifying test; what you suggest doesn't sound wrong: at least, I can understand what it intends.

Best,--Rafaelgarcia 02:43, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

My intention ist quite simple: to improve my Latin, to learn words and things I didnt know yet...
Intentum meum satis simplex est: reficere Latinitatem meam, discere verba & res quae adhuc inscio ...
... in order know how to write postings for Vicipaedia.
... eo consilio, ;-)ut scribere possim allocationes pro Vicipaedia.
Thanks and greetings Teutonius 11:59, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC) By the way I think I can delete the "quid rogas" stuff?

It's against Wikipedia (and Vicipaedia) rules to delete text of discussions (diputatios) (aside from fixing typos). That includes not deleting text from the Taberna.--Rafaelgarcia 12:21, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Hm, thats a bit complicated: If I let my wrong sentense above, others will read it and eventually learn it (keep it in mind) before they read that it is not correct, or at least somewhat over-complicated... How do you handle those typos with depending discussions? Can they be left unchanged, or if i would correct the sentence above, then the reader perhaps will not understand the discussion? Also in the color page: there are some colors not correct (as I think) - do I have to leave them there and only add my new, different version, then there would be two versions the same page!?

When it is a discussion of an error the remainder of the discussion would not make sense if the orginal sentence were changed. THis is not a problem, because if people are that interested to read the discusison they will read through till the end. Its a discussion page, not an article. Most people don't read discussion pages unless there is a thing to be discussed. They ignore the rest of the page, that does not pertain to the thing discussed.--Rafaelgarcia 18:03, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Teutoni, don't be so ashamed of making mistakes. That's how we learn. I make grammatical mistakes all the time, and each time I try to learn from them. Latin isn't the first language for any of us. Thus everyone has a difficult time at first. However, I'm pretty confident that all other things being equal Vicipaedians are must better latinists than non-Vicipaedians. Because humans learn languages in large part by using them to express themselves.--Rafaelgarcia 18:37, 17 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Violation of Vicipaedia rules

Dear Tuetonius, You have been deleting discussions from your Disputatio. Please stop and discusss what you are trying to accomplish at the Taberna(Vicipaedia:Taberna#Please don't delete discussion pages). You are making a mess for everyone.--Rafaelgarcia 22:34, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Not at all! Ive only shifted some postings within my discussion page. Is that (to split/merge postings) forbidden too? At least I didnt mess up anything, but only cleared up some (self-made) double themata.
If its not allowed to re-edit existing pages, how can one improve them? Only by adding new content? This would be messing up indead... (as can be seen in some taxonomic pages I mentioned abobe)... Teutonius 22:47, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

...by the way, why shouldnt i discuss on my discussion (disputation) page? Is that also forbidden!? Ive got a clear propose, I told you so and asked for your advice BEFORE staring big changes, anyway Wickipedia encourages its members to be BOLD', what about you Rafael? (Post your answer where you prefer to.) Teutonius 23:06, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply Vicipaedia:Taberna#Please don't delete discussion pages; apparently I was wrong, because user talk pages are an exception to the rule that you cannot delete discussion comments.Sorry, indeed, to cause you a bother. Best,--Rafaelgarcia 00:08, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I believe the issue above was concerning DELETING comments not merely moving them around.--Rafaelgarcia 00:10, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki links are essential

Teutonius, at Disputatio:Opisthokonta you say "In the pages' ranking:[3] nothing is said about obligatory interwikies...?" That's because it isn't relevant there. There is no class of pages which do not require interwikis.

All pages must have interwikis, assuming that a relevant page on some other wiki exists. If as first editor you don't add the interwikis, another editor will: but the first editor is often the person best able to do it. It's one of the essentials. If you cannot find a relevant page on other wikis, then instead you must add the formula {{Nexus desiderati}}. If you are pretty sure your page is the first on that subject in any wiki, you must add the formula {{Nexus absunt}}.

See also Vicipaedia:Nexus desiderati and its discussion page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 3 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see... but I can not create Interwiki links for all possible Wiki-projects or all languages!? So I only create those links that Ive actually used to create the article and the rest should rather be the robots job? Will that do? Teutonius 13:28, 3 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that's fine, no problem. The way I usually do it is this. I go to the corresponding page e.g. on English or German wiki. I open the edit screen. I copy the interwiki links. After copying, I insert a link [[la:...]] for my new Latin page. Then I save the foreign page and return to the Latin page; I paste the links I copied, and add a link for the English or German page. That's all that's needed. If we do that much, the bots pick it up very quickly and they do all the rest. Then, if we afterwards rename the Latin page, it doesn't matter; the bots follow the redirect and put everything right. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:00, 3 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

I usually copy all the interwiki links from the English page, to which I later (after I've created the Latin page) go back and add the la: title. Sometimes I forget to go back! IacobusAmor 14:04, 3 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Salve, Teutoni. Non iam ego et te, ni fallor, fructi sumus colloquio inter nos. Modo volui gratias dare tibi ob labores tuos. Etiam si mores Vicipaedianos discis, nihilominus bene facis. Sed collegae nostrae optime recteque hac de sententia te monent: Nexus intervici sine dubio ab auctore primo inscribendi sunt. Theorice etiam categoriae, vide etiam, et nexus externi (si pertinent) inscribendi sunt. Praeter monenda, iterum gratias tibi dare velim.--Ioscius ^(disp) 18:38, 3 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

BBKurt

Ich sage einfach einmal "Danke". Gruß --BBKurt 20:24, 13 Septembris 2008 (UTC)

Plasmodium

Thank you for your work in Latin on Plasmodium. My Latin is a bit rusty but it is pleasure to read your work. 137.191.240.37 09:40, 3 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)