Disputatio Vicipaediae:Gravitas

Latest comment: 12 years ago by IacobusAmor in topic Aequales temporum nostrorum

Differences to other WikipediasRecensere

  • Are there differences to other Wikipedias?

I should say so. FOr instance, it makes a lot of sense to have articles here on Neo-Latin Dictionaries, currently living authors of Latin, ancient Roman recipes, and so on, which would in most cases get immediately shot down on en: . --Iustinus 17:13, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely, I would agree.--Ioscius (disp) 17:30, 12 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • What is relevance?
  • What is relevance for the Latin Wikipaedia?
Hard to answer without answering the first question. But I definitely think we can afford to be a little more lenient with what is relevant, due to the paucity of our contributors, ad the pauciority of our long, well written articles...--Ioscius (disp) 16:11, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Are there differences to other Wikipedias?
Yes, some; I think partly because Latin is no one's mother tongue. It's a language of culture and communication. There may be topics about which no one has ever communicated in Latin: it is less likely that people will want to read an encyclopedia article in Latin about such topics.
At first I kind of agreed with you. But I have been wondering if that is really the case... I've read PLENTY about history and culture, and a bit about mythology and religion in Latin. It gets boring... For me, it is much more fun to read/write articles like Pong cervisiale or Aeroplanum chartaceum.--Ioscius (disp) 16:07, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vicipaedia (like so many of the other-language Wikipedias) can be, and is, ahead of the trend: we can deal with topics that have never yet had any printed material in Latin, and why not? But we probably waste our time if we take on too many topics that are very far distant from what people expect to read about in Latin.
I don't if it's really 'wasting time. Providing lucid, legible, well informed content on modern topics is a great way to show that latin isn't dead...it just smells funny...--Ioscius (disp) 16:07, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition, it's difficult to write about technical topics for which Latin has no vocabulary, and it's difficult to read and understand the result. The effort may sometimes be unproductive. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good lord is this ever the case. The first thing I ever wrote here was E=mc² and it was hard as hell to find vocabulary for the laws of general relativity...--Ioscius (disp) 16:07, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sounding much more negative than I intended. E=mc² was a great contribution, and, what's more, it's so central to life, the universe and everything that Vicipaedia would look ridiculous without it! That was worth the effort; all major science belongs in Latin, of course it does. I was thinking of technical topics far lower down among the scale of what matters. There are some, among en:Wikipedia's 1,500,000, of which (I think) we are unlikely ever to have Latin equivalents. I'll give a couple of examples, then, from the "Latest changes" on Wikipedia: en:Sheet metal gauges; en:Nexus air card.
I'm really just pondering on the issues posed here ... and meanwhile thinking of doing a couple of articles on comics (or bandes dessinées, as my neighbours call them) ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:50, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: "There are some, among en:Wikipedia's 1,500,000, of which (I think) we are unlikely ever to have Latin equivalents. I'll give a couple of examples, then, from the "Latest changes" on Wikipedia: en:Sheet metal gauges."—Well, 'gold leaf' in my 18th-century dictionary is aurum bracteatum, foliaceum, vel in folia extensum. So pick one and you've got, say metallum bracteatum, and the "gauges" are actually measures of thickness, so just copy the "Tabula Crassitudinum Metalli Bracteati" and you've got an article almost as complete as en:'s. Ha! IacobusAmor 03:48, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is sheet metal really the same as gold leaf? Bractea is certainly traditional for leaf, though I am told that in antiquity it refered to a small thin sheet of precious metal. At the conventiculum it is frequently used for "foil." --Iustinus 07:48, 21 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, gold leaf (aurum bracteatum, aurum foliaceum, aurum in folia extensum) would seem to be a superthin kind of sheet metal. IacobusAmor 14:18, 6 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Core articlesRecensere

Any respectable big & general encyclopedia will have, say, 10,000 core articles. Probably more than 5,000 of Vicipaedia's current articles are outside an ideal core, but Vicipaedia is making progress, though many core articles remain mere stubs. In music, it has an article on J. S. Bach, but not one on Arnold Schoenberg; in painting, it has Michelangelo, but not Caravaggio, and it has Monet, but not Manet. For music, the list of composers is a start, but even that list is inflated with the names of composers who wouldn't appear on any knowledgeable specialist's "core list" of the 100 most influential composers. Such spottiness is almost a given for a wiki. For example, in Islamic affairs, we have an article on Abdul Rahman, a symbolic nonentity, but nothing on Sayyid Qutb, a highly influential scholar, and nothing on hundreds of Islamic personalities historically more influential than Rahman. Right now, we have many articles on German & Italian towns & cities, but few on East Asian & South Asian towns & cities. And so on. ¶ In addition, a Latin encyclopedia could excel in having articles about Latinists, deeds done by native Latin-speakers, and works & concepts originally produced in Latin or relating to Latin. In that regard, it lags behind the wikis in several other languages, but I think it will catch up as time goes on. IacobusAmor 16:25, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some interesting points there. I think other Wikipedias get a lot of place-name articles in using an automated method. Is that true? Should we do it? Would it be useful here? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:08, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Small nitpick: we DO have an article on Caravaggio. As usual, I have a note on Latin names in the talk page that has gone unanswered ;) Not that any of this affects your point, but I just thought it should be mentioned. --Iustinus 18:33, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then something may be wrong with the search facility. When I type "caravaggio" into the box and click on "Quaerere," no article specifically about him turns up; likewise when I click on "Ire," and the message is "Nulla pagina cum titulo "Caravaggio" exacto existit. Potes eam creare." IacobusAmor 19:32, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, I'll fix the ire thing, but I don't know what we can do about the quaerere thing: wikipedia searches are always a bit faulty. Sometimes you just ahve to resort to Google. --Iustinus 19:47, 17 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page rankRecensere

rank = what rank the page will get if we made a list of all pages we want to have ever. See Vicipaedia:gravitas.

Think of a list with 5 million entries, not 20 thousand entries. So it will be ok, when a page get's rank 300.000. This is a page you should find in an encyclopaedia with 1 million entries. A page with rank 2.000.000 someone might call "irrelevant". Now. ;-)

It is ok, when several pages get the same rank. It is not that bad, when 2000 pages get a rank below 1000. This is mathematically not correct and someone might adapt the rank later.

Please take it as a game and change the rank as you want ;-)

P.S.: I think we should have many pages with rank > 1.500.000.

Rank Title Comments
1 Pagina prima
2 Lingua Latina
50 Caesar
5000 Communismus
5000 Liberalismus
15000 Gmail
137000 Pong cervisiale ;-)
Ludovicus II

Aequales temporum nostrorumRecensere

Sane eos homines, qui etiam in aliis Vicipediis sunt, in Vicipaedia Latina describi licet! Quid autem de iis, qui parum "graves" sunt generaliter, Latinistis autem satis graves esse possunt? Quomodo eam rem definiamus? An hoc modo: (?)

  1. Professores rerum Classicarum alicuis universitatis satis gravis sunt, ut describantur, etiamsi aliae Vicipaediae eos non exhibeant
  2. De magistris autem disputandum est, nam nullo modo omnis magister linguae Latinae dignus est commentatione. Vid. Disputatio:Arnobius Cuparius, Disputatio:Christopherus Farraginius. --Iovis Fulmen 10:50, 12 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Secundum Iacobum Wales, conditorem nostrum, unusquisque homo bene de commentario meretur! Circa 7,000,000,000 biographias requirimus! Inclutissimum dictum vicipaedianum est "Vicipaedia non est papyrus!" IacobusAmor 11:06, 12 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are more experienced than I am. Are you being serious? If so, I'll believe you. However, en:Wikipedia:Notability_(people) contradicts your attitude.--Iovis Fulmen 13:05, 12 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wall Street Journal (I think it was) had an article on this topic a few days ago. The article en:Wikipedia:Notability_(people) is a temporary compromise in the perpetual war between exclusionists & inclusionists. Jimmy Wales, our founder, is an inclusionist. His point is that "Wikipedia is not paper," and there's hence no reason to exclude anything from it on the basis of the limitations of the old media; everything can be included. Exclusionists try to extend to wikipedia the standards of the old media. So it seems that exclusionists are conservatives, and inclusionists are liberals. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor 13:13, 12 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is of course a compelling argument. What still keeps me from taking the inclusionists' stance is that personally I wouldn't even want myself to be written about. It would make things easier, of course: No need for discussions about gravitas. --Iovis Fulmen 06:58, 13 Augusti 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I wouldn't even want myself to be written about."—But you will be written about. If you're a U.S. citizen, you'll be enrolled in the Social Security program—and when you expire, pertinent facts of your life (your date of birth, the place where you became enrolled, your Social Security number, and your date of death and residential address at the time) will be put online in the Social Security Death Index, as they already have been for many millions of Americans, making a tidy little article for each of them. IacobusAmor 14:18, 6 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return to the project page "Gravitas".