Usor:Ioscius/Tabularium disputationum 1


Although the system has changed more than once, the theory is currently that articles about years should be in Arabic numerals, and articles abotu numbers in Roman. Thus 42 shoudl be about the year AD 42, and your article should be under XLII. --Iustinus 06:43, 16 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)


Please, if you don't know how to say something in Latin, ask about it, rather than creating an article with an English title. In this case it was especially mystifying, because you use systema binaria in the body of the article, which is almost correct (the problem is that systema is actually a third declension neuter!)

I have gone and made corrections to the text, trying to stay as true as possible to your original phrasing. But I was unsure what you intended to say here:

ac rationes ullae sunt numerandi sic hexidecimalis, et octalis.

Could you please explain that phrase?

Thanks, Iustinus 16:51, 16 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

PS. If you'll be writing more articles on the history of mathematics, you might be interested in the list of mathematicians I put up at mathematicus. These are the "official" Latin names of these people, to the greatest extent possible. By which I mean names they used themselves in published sources, or failing that names that were used to refer to them in other published sources, preferably of the same period. That would have helped you with Leibniz for instance ;) There are similar lists at Astronomus, Chemicus, Pictor, and Index Philosophorum. --Iustinus 16:55, 16 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Powers of two," that is a good question. Ideally I would want to research this in the writings of Leibniz and other mathematicians to see how they said it, but I don't know that I have the time for such work. Notice the phrasing of the "Last Theorem", quoted at Petrus de Fermat: et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum potestatem = "And in general, into no power up to the infinite beyond the square." So apparently potestas is the correct word, but potestates duorum sonds like it means "the powers of two people"... an entirely different amphora of fishsauce. Potestates binionis/dyadis could conceivably be the phrasing... but again, it's hard to say without looking into it. Perhaps you could fo some research yourself? A good place to start might be the links listed at algebra. --Iustinus 19:42, 16 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
Well done. I still think you should get used to arabic numerals though :P I need to read what you;ve added now to the binary article, and make the correction to the sentence I hadn't understood. --Iustinus 03:04, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Res MultaeRecensere

I dunno, but it doesn't sound right to me. Can you give me a little more context? Probably the best thing to do will be to rephrase it. --Iustinus 07:42, 23 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)


Hi, one reason for putting Google on my list, is this link: - I think such activities should be honoured. ;-) I personally prefer to have an extra page for each aspect of a topic because otherwise it is not so easy to do categorization. However, I think it is not important to have these different pages from the start on. Google is a good example for these two aspects. It is 1) a company and 2) an important website. This is a good chance to ask for a Latin Categoria:Company and a Latin Categoria:Website. ;-) What about moving the discussion to Disputatio:Google? --Roland2 16:19, 23 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)


I'm thankful for your links, maybe they'll help me out a bit ;) The only thing is that the first one only appears to give the Vocative, and nomative for Arbor...maybe I'm just missinterpreting it. Thanks again, Alexanderr 20:29, 23 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad Illustratiorum ControversiaeRecensere

Is this written clearly? Alexanderr 23:27, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

  • head down* I always think I'm going to get it (or at least the majority of it) right someday and yet the articles never are written correctly. I don't even know why it is "nes" at the end or what 3rd declaration really means. Alexanderr 00:44, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh, about that.. I have no real background in the language or have ever studied it officially, but after "discovering" the language a few months ago I decided to try it and employ my Oxford Latin Dictionary (which has a little bit about declinations at the end), along with two websites. I have the "basic" declinations memorized - a,us,um - and have memorized a little about the nouns. Alexanderr 03:13, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
Last night I discoved why when you updated the article you changed the word to "illustrationes"...because you were using illustration(is) as the root word while I was using illustratio Alexanderr 16:59, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Unio rerum sovieticarumRecensere

It was in the archive of the taberna. And below there was a longer discussion about it (which I read later):


--Roland2 16:22, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

P. S.: The links are towards Taberna/Vetera, not Taberna. --Roland2 16:57, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Das Gesicht MohammedsRecensere

What about choosing a Latin translation of the German title? de:Das Gesicht Mohammeds = The face of Muhammad. --Roland2 18:30, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

I thought, you have omitted the simple languages in your list. ;-)

The German article says: The Danish title „Muhammeds ansigt“ of a series of 12 caricatures has been wrongly translated by the German newspapers into „Die Gesichter Mohammeds“ (The faces of M.), the correct translation is "Das Gesicht Mohammeds" (English "The face of M."). These series has been published ...

--Roland2 20:16, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

If you are not awaiting a Latin answer, yes, please write in Latin. --Roland2 19:11, 6 Februarii 2006 (UTC)


Hm ... now I have read the talk page of de:Äquivalenz von Masse und Energie and there is a discussion whether the lemma were physically correct. There are even some people who vote for speedy deletion ... ;-) I have not read this discussion before, sorry. Apart from the possibility that the lemma might be wrong at all, I do not know what translation were better. Although ... it's nice that you've asked me. :-)

Maybe "Iuncturam intra energiam [...] massamque" (from the Latin article) could be correct, if I have understood the dicussion correctly. The word "Äquivalenz" seems to be the problem. --Roland2 21:03, 14 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that it was me, who proposed to rename e=mc^2 ... 8-| The expression "Äquivalenz von Masse und Energie" sounded good to me and there are some references in Google, when you are searching for "Äquivalenz Masse Energie". The German talk page says, that "Äquivalenz von Masse und Energie" (or "Masse-Energie-Aequivalenz") might be ok for non-physicians but that it is incorrect in the strict sense. On the other hand: The discussion is more than 6 months old and they did NOT change the title of the article. Maybe I am like people, who say the sun "is rising" in the East, where everybody else knows, that just the earth is rotating. ;-) --Roland2 23:59, 14 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Latin messagesRecensere

Salve, I've created a draft for a new template. Could you translate it into Latin, please?

  This user enjoys Latin messages on his talk page.

Thanks! --Roland2 23:23, 19 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Can I say "Huic usuario maxime placent nuntii latine" as well? Is there a difference apart from the rhythm? --Roland2 18:14, 20 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
Looks good now :-) Whitaker told me, that "latine" is an adverb ... would "Latini" (nominative case plural) be 1) bad style 2) another solution ("Latin messages" instead of "messages in Latin" or 3) even wrong? --Roland2 21:39, 20 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. --Roland2 22:01, 20 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Gratias agoRecensere

Gratias tibi ago per adjuta in le articula de lingua philippinice (tagalog).Si tu sia divinante, io usante interlingua cuje es troppo plus facil. Essayava io studiar latine sed esseva troppo dificil. Io es studiante nunc. Que modo tu studiava latine? Es parte de curriculum in schola o per solo mesme? Io tene libro de Betts e Teach yourself latin. Io es de philippinas sed habite in Tokyo. Io cognosco tamben spaniol, anglese, tagalog, japonese e pauco de frances. Vale.--Jondel 00:05, 23 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Como se dice 65 million ? Es le numero de parlantes de tagalog. Gratias ago.--Jondel 00:12, 23 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

le lingua multo practica e simpleRecensere

Le interlingua e troppo utilisate. Iam on pote utilise pro parlar subinde cum parlantes de spaniol, italiano , portugesse, e crede io cum los de frances e rumania equalmente. Non existe novo parolas in interlingua. Omnes parolas es de linguas romanico include latin. On eligente parolas multo commun. Alora on pote tener confidentia que meliorante cognoscentia de lingua romanica. Non necessita multo tempo, crede io un dia solo pro apprender interlingua. Le grammatica es multissima simple. Sirve ben como lingua franca, lingua neutral e lingua pedagoga (pro adjuta apprender alteras linguas e pro le infantes). Io essayare apprender latina sed cum grammatica interlingua. (Va apprender tambe con grammatico correcto)Le interlingua (plus de latine) pote te adjuta apprender o disveloppar multo tu habilitate in spaniol . --Jondel 04:02, 23 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Living latinRecensere

Pardonne me si io te facerea molesteria. Io va studiar plus latin per certo. Lo que me volerea peter es que tu incontra alteras pro parlar in latina como meet up? Io tene interes si habe gruppos in veritate. Tu parla non solo scribir e leger latine? Vos utilise le v como u, per exemple , pronuncia veni, vedi, vici como weni, wedi, wiki? o pronuncia Juluis Ceasar como Yuluis Kesar? O utilise le pronunciation de Vaticano/Ecclesiaste? Per practicar espaniol, nos incontra un vice de mense in le meetup in Tokyo. Es multo divertite e interresante. On habe tamben per le parlantes de latine? Si non haberea, debe de leger.--Jondel 06:41, 23 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Veritamente le latine es multo poetical e bellissimo. Sed crede io que al principio, debe de simplificar pro poter conversar. Depost, pote melior ad grammatico correcto.

Sed es multo simple, le interlingua pote sirve ben per exemple in medicina, biologia, conferentias , scientias, etc. --Jondel 07:02, 23 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Latin messages (II)Recensere

I have created a Babel template: {{Nuntii latine placent}}. I hope I have chosen an appropriate name. --Roland2 21:59, 24 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Links and hints for new usersRecensere

I'd like to move Usor:Roland2/Links and hints for new users to the Vicipaedia namespace. I guess something like Vicipaedia:Nexus auxiliumque pro usoribus novis or Vicipaedia:Nexus et auxila pro usoribus novis ... or a correct/better title. It should be translated into pure Latin and then we could make subpages in different languages. This lists could be then referenced in the salve template. What do you think? --Roland2 17:54, 25 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask if you are making progress with the translation ... ;-) Or should we - as a start - simply put the content on a page with a Latin title? --Roland2 20:02, 6 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have created an English and a German subpage of Ops nexusque pro usoribus novis. Hm, ... when writing this I realize that the page should have been named Vicipaedia:... ... --Roland2 19:37, 7 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Call 911Recensere

Help! I 've had a brief encounter with declentions(nominative, ablative, etc) and now they're killing me. I hear they are a part of latin, a large family of desperate murderers responsible for the genocide of the whole roman race. If you don't hear from me, give my love to the wife and kids and tell everyone I was a good man.--Jondel 12:37, 26 Februarii 2006 (UTC)


Well I don't have either of those at hand, but I doubt that I'd be able to translate the article any way. I can only do very simple latin :). Alexanderr 04:54, 27 Februarii 2006 (UTC)


Thank you! I didn't understand it in my dictonary, so I chose one form. Well, it was a 50/50 chance... ;-) --Misericordia 18:42, 27 Februarii 2006 (UTC)


I didn't mean to create a redundant article or anything, but is it possible we can merge the content of my version into vinum. The section on history (despite any spelling errors) on my version might be a decent contribution. What do you think? Alexanderr 23:36, 27 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

drills while walking, riding in the bus and listening to long boring speechesRecensere

Io tene tempo pro studiar sed quando ambulante o es in le bus o train, crea dialogos, conversationes o face le memoriza le formas de verbo. Nunc face le declensiones de latin. Iste costumbre es multo effectivo e io lo recommende (pro espaniol o altera lingua esserea studiante).--Jondel 00:23, 28 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Vicipaedia et VictionariumRecensere

I disagree strongly with your removal of gender and declining notices from articles like Orcus. Particularly for any article whose subject matter is a word of irregular declension or gender, but ideally for almost all articles named words or names (rather than phrases), we should certainly provide this valuable and useful information. And, in fact, this is a supremely efficient way to link to Victionarium in countless Vicipaedia article without having to use a big, ugly grey box: by linking to the relevant Victionarium article using the parenthetical gender and declining note!

In this way, Vicipaedia could actually be much better than its predecessor, the English Wikipedia, and we could turn a potential weakness of the Latin Wikipedia (that it's very difficult for new users to understand the usage of some of the words because we're deliberately withholding highly relevant information) into a strength of the Latin Wikipedia (by utilizing the declension/gender notices to easily and consistently link to Victionarium at the beginning of articles). Think about this fact: just about all English-Wikipedia articles which have unusual English grammar or spelling take thetime to explain that difference to readers, rather than simply telling them "go to Wiktionary!". Also consider that we currently have Victionarium articles for very, very few of our Vicipaedia articles; withholding information on gender and declension until someone helps in the huge task of creating an article on a whole other Wiki for every single one is very unreasonable and will, in most cases, just mean that the information never gets to the user in question. On the other hand, by providing the basic formula for understanding the word in the simplest and briefest way possible (just its genitive ending and gender), and linking to Victionarium through that brief bit of information, we encourage more and more growth on Victionarium by prompting users who see that the link doesn't lead to an article yet to create one, but without withholding the most necessary and significant grammatical knowledge which may be required to even read an article on the topic.

While certainly Victionarium should be the only place where we provide detailed, in-depth charts explicitly listing every single possible noun, verb, adjective, etc. form of a word, that absolutely does not mean that we need to remove every reference to the word's grammatical nature from Vicipaedia!! Just look at en-Wikipedia, or, heck, look at almost any halfway-decent encyclopedia: it's very common for Wikipedia to list the plural of a noun near the beginning of the article (for example, their dogma article begins, "Dogma (the plural is either dogmata or dogmas)". And they'd surely have such notices far more often than they already do if English had a fraction of as many grammatical complexities and differing declension and conjugation systems as Latin does! Likewise, numerous Wikipedia articles have etymological paragraphs or sections explaining variant meanings or origins of words; they don't slyly hide all that info on Wiktionary just for the heck of it when they could easily just provide the most basic, essential knowledge of the word in the encyclopedia article and then provide more details on the word in the Wiktionary one!

The main reason I don't contribute to the Latin Wikipedia more than I already do is because I find it frustrating how inconsistent the article styles are and how lacking in the most basic, essential knowledge that would make them accessible to different schools of Latin-use they commonly are. Rather than worsening this problem by replacing meaningful, significant, useful basic grammatical knowledge from articles and replacing it with a meaningless (and strikingly hideous, as the Orcus article demonstrates) grey box in the lower-left corner (and moreover, one that's a broken link! you've replaced valuable information with a nonsensical broken url! how is that useful to anyone?!), why not help add gender and genitive notes to more articles, and either use that for the link to Victionarium or use both that and a box to link to Victionarium?! -Adamas 22:01, 28 Februarii 2006 (UTC)


(in latine macoroni meus)Iam commenciave studiar latine cum declesiones. Ille mihi videa(seems like) non existe parolas sicut utuntur et delineate ? Iam quaerivo in dictionarios sicut iste et alteras. I 'm trying to read news and other latin text samples.--Jondel 03:02, 2 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Ok .(about using English, Spanish not interlingua). Could you recommend a dictionary? I might buy one. But I would like to know also for a good online dictionary. I've already gone through a couple of online dictionaries. There doesn't seem to be any entry for utuntur and delineatibus (something like that). This seems to happen many times. I've started doing drills with declensions by the way. With the latin words, should I try to guess their different forms? For example , is utuntur a form of ut? Is delineatibus a form of delineate of English? Thanks. --Jondel 03:28, 2 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Uh , I think I solved my problem. Pardon me If I use your Disputatitio page to talk to myself. --Jondel 03:39, 2 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Jondel 10:20, 2 Martii 2006 (UTC)


Thanks (again!). I thought you were the anonymous ip editor. I 'll be making more edits/contributions in as correct grammar as I can. --Jondel 03:53, 7 Martii 2006 (UTC)


Thank you, I just wanted to ask for latinization. Maybe the template should get a category as well. Do you have a suggestion? --Roland2 18:20, 11 Martii 2006 (UTC)


Please have a look at [1]. --Roland2 10:34, 12 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Superbus est!Recensere

Sorry for the horrible latin header above. I couldn't help but recommend this excellent site for beginners if you have students or are recommending sites to anyone. I have a quota of beginnerlevel verbs and this site gives a good list.--Jondel 06:32, 15 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Micatio SinensisRecensere

Reddidi nomen Italicum morra cinese. Vide. Etiam, quia hunc ludum in fontibus Latinis non inveni, potui nec quem ordinem nec quae nomina signorum manualium dicere: lapis charta forfex, lapis forfex charta, saxum aut lapis, vel simm. —Myces Tiberinus 11:59, 15 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Usor de-0Recensere

Hi, I copied it from en:Template:User de-0 and substituted User with Usor. --Roland2 07:05, 16 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Theoria ChordarumRecensere

Bona autem latinitas mea non est, et articulum Theoria Chordarum erroribus plenis esse censeo :-( Deo iuvante, plura scribere atque emendare volo! Si me adiuvare possis, gratias tibi agam! Attamen, multa nuper scribere non possum, quia ad philosophiae doctoris titulum obtinendum studeo, vide articulos de theoria chordarum meos, exempli gratia:

Salve, amice! --Mafrius 16:25, 20 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's basically "original" work in latin, i.e., I did not translate it from any source. However, the content is not original. I wrote the basic history, which can be checked on popular books. But I mention an active area of research, namely the pure spinor formalism, which isn't described even in the english wikipedia. But I don't get into the details because I once read about not writing about original research in the wikipedias. Unfortunately, there are a lot of jargon in this field and some words had to be invented (I took most of them from the lexicon listed in nexus externi), which certainly does not please Myces... --Mafrius 20:56, 21 Martii 2006 (UTC)


It shouldn't need to be deleted. If you get redirected, you can click the link, just below the page title, that says "redirectum de Tempestas" and it'll take you to the page without redirecting you. Or just click this edit link. —Myces Tiberinus 02:28, 21 Martii 2006 (UTC)

verifying nationalisRecensere

I don't know if I'm wrong. I feel a bit confident in my latin though. I just need to verify. Shouldn't the nationalis in Hymno nationalis in the article of Polonia be 'nationali' ? (single?)This is currently plural isn't it? I also know this is Neo or new latin.(comunis is better, same meaning?) --Jondel 02:21, 22 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Nationalis declines like hostis? Singular nouns that have a plural appearance.--Jondel 02:48, 22 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Idiom -PhrasesRecensere

Gratias ago. Thank you very much again. Please don't feel obligated though to translate. Pls feel free to correct the completed ones. I plan to use these phrases for communication(nempe- of course)in some future messages. I ussually compile my questions then submit then later or do research in batches. It is more effective for me.--Jondel 02:27, 22 Martii 2006 (UTC)


gratiaVulpinus 16:21, 23 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Babel formulaRecensere

--Marc mage 11:04, 28 Martii 2006 (UTC) Me paenitet erroris mei. Non sic intellexeram.

== usor ==Recensere

He has left his email in the article. Maybe it would make sense to contact him. I do not know ... 8-| --Roland2 21:21, 5 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Pagina casuumRecensere

Tecum adsentio ut categoria paginae casuum mutetur. Scio enim casus in aliis linguis exstare--Marc mage 14:34, 14 Aprilis 2006 (UTC).


Salvete Recte fecistis. --Marc mage 21:18, 17 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Hac hebdomadeRecensere

Although you said you will be largely absent, you were mostly present. ;-) --Roland2 06:24, 22 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)


Seems that the number of users is growing faster than the number of articles. ;-) --Roland2 05:55, 28 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

How to get this yellow button png off?Recensere

... by removing {{Nexus carentes}}. I have done it on page Declinatio Quinta. BTW, my idea is, that a specific article should or could have an interwiki link when I use {{Nexus carentes}}. If it is unlikely that there will be corresponding pages in other languages, {{Nexus carentes}} should/could be removed or substituted with a marker/template saying something like "This article is a speciality of the Latin Wikipedia, it is not likely that you will find corresponding pages in other languages." Ok, maybe this is a bit of overkill ... --Roland2 07:24, 1 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Roman/arabic numbers for yearsRecensere

I think we should think over that convention to use Arabic numbers and not Roman numbers for years. Would it be bad to use both? What are the reasons for banning Roman numbers for years? I could imagine the following reasons:

  1. readability
  2. to get rid of the image that Latin is a dead language
  3. Roman numbers look too folkloristic

What about the following variants?

  1. ... 2001 ...
  2. ... 2001 (MMI) ...
  3. ... MMI (2001) ...

So the rules would be:

  1. Years shall be written using linked Arabic numbers.
  2. If someone wants to use Roman numbers additionally, these Roman number may not be linked.

Maybe we could also provide a template, maybe {{annus|2001|MMI}}.

It seems that using Roman numbers for years is the most frequent "mistake" of beginners. So maybe we should create a page Vicipaedia:Anni with the content from Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (latine). When correcting the writing of years, we could point the user to VP:Anni (as a shortcut for Vicipaedia:Anni). --Roland2 08:10, 1 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I understand and it seems that your reasons are covered by my arguments 1 to 3 ;-) I'd like to give this {{annus}} template to the people. So they can put the information into the content and we can decide later, how to display this information. Content and visualization would be perfectly split up. The second parameter (the Roman numbers) should be optional. It is likely that many people will not use this template, however, they have the chance and if we need a printed version later, we can decide then, what numbers we want. I do not care much about visualization as long as the underlying data is ok. It's just that I can see this number thing is on the top of the things which (some) beginners (and other users) do not understand or accept or where people disagree. I'd like to avoid a discussion/confrontation about what is better, as long as there is a possible technical solution. Although I am rather unsure, how to actually deal with Roman numbers in articles, I think I'd be a real brutal terminator when the authors have the choice between:

  1. Use just linked Arabic numbers
  2. Use the template for years

You have good reasons to be against Roman numbers and compromises are mostly not the best solution. I like to avoid compromises where a solution is possible, which can be supported by all users. This (i. e. the one which is supported by all) solution has a better chance to be "the best". --Roland2 12:58, 1 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Hm ... :-) An answer on each sentence: Most people would refuse to use this template, I think. The existing dates should not be edited, the template should be seen as an option for people who really want to have Roman numbers. Like a deal: Roman numbers just with the template. I did not mean to link the Roman numbers, only the Arabic ones shall be linked. Being hair-splitting: {{template|1999|MIM}} is not unencyclopedic, however, maybe the visualization of it is ;-) I think the question is similar to this Homo (-inis, m.) thing. I do not remember the positions and was near to suggest using something like {{lemma|Homo|inis|m}}. Or did I ...? In fact I am often wondering how well this wiki works. Most of the things are just based on conventions, the underlying technology is very primitive. Of course boosting is possible, see the source of --Roland2 20:55, 2 Maii 2006 (UTC)


Thanks. :-) --Roland2 20:59, 2 Maii 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the message. Sorry to be slow to respond - I have been away for a while. I do believe that you have to be an admin to delete pages, I was hoping that one of them would be available to clean up Categoria:Deletiones propositae. I didn't see who did it, but thanks to whomever! We are short on active admins - perhaps we might want to find someone else to do it. God bless. --Tbook 19:32, 3 Maii 2006 (UTC)

PS: I don't know how I got the line around the babel box - I just copied someone else's formula. You might find it by looking at the source, though. --Tbook 19:39, 3 Maii 2006 (UTC)

We have a page at: Vicipaedia:Petitio magistratus for requests for adminship, but it hasn't been used much, and there aren't real policies. Perhaps the best thing would be to bring it up at the Taberna, and ask people to propose names. --Tbook 16:31, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)


BTW, we are now at 4999 articles (or 4998 ... depending on what counter you trust). --Roland2 15:15, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Interesting ... I have:

--Roland2 15:33, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Hurry up! Mycēs is deleting some files. You get another chance. --Roland2 15:52, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Formula:Move ad victionariumRecensere

I moved the interwiki links to the <noinclude> section of {{Move ad victionarium}}. --Roland2 22:37, 8 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Guy FawkesRecensere

IosciusRocchio, I was wondering if you'd quickly read over my Guy Fawkes article, because I doubt it is right (though hopefully it will be). Alexanderr 01:23, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

The entire article is meant to read: "Guy Fawkes (13 April, 1570 - 31 January 1606) was an english soldier and one of many catholic conspirators who attempted to kill James I and the Protestants who persecuted catholics through blowing up (setting fire to) Parliament." Alexanderr 01:34, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Well it is nice of you to say that it wasn't off to much but in truth every other word had to be modified - and it seemed to take me forever to write. :( Thank you for your help though, Alexanderr 01:41, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I got Regulum from the Notre Dame English-Latin site.

I recently looked over your most recent edits to Guy Fawkes and I'm a bit confused by the word "interficere". I know it means to kill but there are so many words that mean the exact same thing (occido, neco, leto, and interimo) that I wonder what makes it more desirable for this article. Does it mean assassinate? Is it more violent or less than the others (i.e. compare kill to slay or murder)? Alexanderr 02:00, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

vulgo languagenameRecensere

I've answered on my talk page. --Roland2 23:12, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Usor:Roland2/temp is a list of articles which fit the en:Regular expression /\bvulgo\b/i. This means:

  • The "/" are delimiters of the expression.
  • The "i" at the end means (case) insensitive.
  • The "\b" means a word boundary.
  • "vulgo" is "vulgo".

Is it useful or should I try another rule? More examples of regular expressions you'll find on page en:Perl regular expression examples. I used the data from 20060503. You can edit this list, it's just a test. --Roland2 17:59, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it seems that there is mental barrier. ;-)

Treat Perl as an Indogermanic language, since it has been derived from the English language. Some nouns and verbs have been directly taken from the English language, see [2]:

  • accept
  • alarm
  • bless
  • close
  • crypt
  • delete
  • die
  • ...

There has also envolved a Latin branche of Perl [3]: ;-)

        #! /usr/local/bin/perl -w

        use Lingua::Romana::Perligata;

        adnota Illud Cribrum Eratothenis

        maximum tum val inquementum tum biguttam tum stadium egresso scribe.
        vestibulo perlegementum da meo maximo .
        maximum tum novumversum egresso scribe.
        da II tum maximum conscribementa meis listis.
        dum damentum nexto listis decapitamentum fac sic
               lista sic hoc tum nextum recidementum cis vannementa da listis.
               next tum biguttam tum stadium tum nextum tum novumversum
                        scribe egresso.


en:Larry Wall has linguistics qualifications, which came in useful in the - stop reading here ;-) - design of Perl.

See the Authoritative list of Larry Wall quotes.

Larry Wall - Present Continuous, Future Perfect:

Going from psychology to linguistics, I think that Perl succeeds primarily because it does behave like a natural language. Some of the things that underlying deep principles rather than cargo culting in phrases like Cobol did, we try to aim for deep principles of linguistics. With a natural language you learn as you go. You know, you learn it once and use it many times. So, you should optimize for expressiveness and not for ease of learnability. Learnability is OK, but expressiveness is more important.

There are some more curiosities about that "language" ... ;-)

Back to your reply:

  • "delimiter" is not a Perl specific term. In natural languages, a "." is a sentence delimiter, a "," delimits parts of sentences, a " " delimits words. And a - hm ... - """ itself is a delimiter, in this case delimiting itself. Since en:Regular expressions can contain spaces, a space would not be a good "word delimiter". So they have chosen a "/" to mark the start and and of such an expression. The expession itself is a description of a structure. Linguists are using delimiters as well: /dʒiferẽˈsjaw/ [4] ... you know what I meant with "mental barier"? ;-)
  • that it catalogues articles even in whose historia are uses of the word vulgo ... just what I said: I used the data from 20060503. Nothing special, it means 3 Maii MMVI. Again the barriere. :-)

The articles seem to be exported everey some weeks. See (BTW, there seems to be a new "dump" available: 2006-May-11 06:00:10)
  • "lemma" ... what shall I explain? I learnt this term in the Wikipedia.

Really: There is nothing special with Perl. Treat it as a Lingua artificiosa which is based on English. You can express your wishes with this language and it can be even understood by some computers. Humans can speak it, computers can only understand Perl. Although ... a human can write a text in Perl ("programm") which can produce Perl text.

You know much more about Perl than you ever wanted to.

(Please excuse me for possibly having been ironically, I hope I did not hurt you. Unfortunately I don't have full controll over what I am writing in English.)

Jump over the barriere! ;-) --Roland2 07:01, 12 Maii 2006 (UTC)


Yes, this collection of information is often cited (here) and the intention is, that soemone can say Perseus and everybody will find the link on that page maybe with some information about what Perseus is good for, if someone can trust the source etc. etc. --Roland2 23:20, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Policy about "formula:move ad victionarium"Recensere

How should we deal with Wiktionary entries? Now, in my opinion, it is better than before. A lemma is not simply deleted but the people are encouraged to move the information to the Wiktionary and discouraged to add more information. Shouldn't we cretae a new type of article (like "discretiva") and a template saying something like: "This lemma is a Wiktionary entry. Please add your information to the Wiktionary. For the reader's convenience we keep a short definition here. Please do not add more information here. If you think this entry should become a Wikipedia entry, please discuss it in the Taberna(?)." As a consequence, we would mirror some entries from the Wikitionary, however, I think this has (several) advantages for both the Wikipedia and the Wiktionary. What do you think? The important thing is: It would be - ideologically, not technically - a special type of entry. So we can avoid a discussion, what Wikipedia is not ;-) --Roland2 06:18, 11 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I think we are talking about different aspects.

I agree, that a visitor should understand the difference between an encyclopaedia and a dictionary. But I think a single entry is not always either an encyclopaedia/ic or a dictionary entry. There seem to be more classes:

Title Vicipaedia Vicifons Victionarium Vicicitatio Vicilibri
Commentarii de bello Gallico yes yes no no no
alius, absum no no yes no no
amicus maybe yes no yes no no
homo, mare yes no yes no no
Secundum Bellum Punicum yes no no no yes
The dog of Julius Caesar no no no no no
The First Cat maybe yes no maybe yes maybe yes no
Grammatica Latina yes no no no yes
a ? no yes no no

That "a" is a special thing. As "a (littera)" it gets an entry in the Vicipaedia, as "a, ab" it will not. However, in fact it will! Just because there are encyclopaedic meanings of "a", it might get an entry on page "a (discretiva)". But consequently, it should not be mentioned there. Maybe. Abbreviations sometimes get an entry, although the not abbreviated word wouldn't get an entry in an encyclopaedia.

It seems that discretiva and abbreviations are another special type of entries in the main namespace. And they are marked.

BTW, I think a discretiva page (logically) must not have a category but "discretiva". The categories we now find on some discretiva pages should be mentioned just on the pages for each specific meaning.

Even "abbreviation" should not be a category of a discretiva page which holds (some) abbreviations. On the discretiva page "abbreviation" should be just a property of each meaning which is an abbreviation. There should be a page "UN" which just says "Abbreviation for United Nations", which looks - in my opinion - very much like a Victionary entry.

What I am proposing, is to keep Victionary entries in the Vicipaedia, but clearly mark them as a Wiktionary entries (like the special type "discretiva" is marked as "discretiva"). It is similar to these entries which are kept to avoid making an entry: de:Zergeisterung. It is funny that there is a lemma which says: "I am not a lemma." (I am a locked lemma.) Did the spammer succeed or not? :-)

Redirects are another special thing. It can be for:

  1. synonyms
  2. wrong spelling
  3. titles in foreign languages
  4. alternate titles (I think Iuvavum should not be a redirect. It should be an article with the content: "Iuvavum is an alternate name for Salisburgium." ... This looks like a Victionary entry, in my opinion.)

I think we have to differentiate between title, definition and content. For me it seems that a Victionarium entry has just title and definition and much information about linguistic aspects. These aspects are the content of a Victionarium. The Vicipaedia has title, definition content, but nearly no information about linguistic aspects. You remember the discussion, if the Genetivus should be provided in the Vicipaedia?

I think we should have few restrictions what titles we provide in the Vicipaedia and make the classification later, in the content section by using templates:

  1. regular Vicipaedia entries have title, definition, content and a genetivus and a genus
  2. non-entries have a title, no content but are marked as non-content (Zergeisterung)
  3. discretiva are marked and keep no other categories
  4. "Abbreviation" should be used just when a complete article talks about a specific abbreviation; the content should be: "This is the abbreviation for xxx"
  5. Sources should have a title and a description of the content. The source itself should be in Vicifons. In the Vicipaedia there should be a reference to the sources in Vicifons.
  6. Victionarium entries in the Vicipaedia should have a title and just the definition. It should have not a "content" (it cannot have a Vicipaedia content and the Victionarium content should not be kept in the Vicipaedia). The article should be tagged as a Victionarium entry, the user should be pointed to this Victionarium entry. The Vicipaedia article should not keep linguistic information but Genetivus and genus.
  7. ...

If a user does not find a special title in the Vicipaedia now this can mean:

  1. it is a non existing Vicipaedia entry
  2. it is a deleted ("not encyclopaedic") entry
  3. it is a deleted victionary entry
  4. it is a misspelling
  5. etc.

I think it is not harmful, to keep titles in the Vicipaedia which are clearly marked as Victionarium entries and tell the user: Sorry, this is a Victionary entry, see there.

Or: Sorry this is an irrelevant topic, we do not like that you write something about it.

Or: Sorry, this title is locked, it seems to be a joke.

Or: Sorry, this is a cite, please see Vicicitatio.

And so on ...

I think a Vicipaedia entry which says "I am not a Vicipaedia entry but ..." is not a real Vicipaedia entry.

What I am suggesting, is a template which says "I am not a Vicipaedia entry but a Victionarium entry. Please click here." It should get a special category, maybe "victionary entry".

I hope, I could explain my general idea. Of course it could and should be improved in detail. The main question is: Should we silently delete "unwanted" content (Victionarium entries, ...) or should we mark them? I know that the English and especially the German Wikipedia simply delete unwanted content. We have the chance to do it smarter. Whenever we want to produce a printed encyclopaedia, we can automatically filter the unwanted content, but until that time it improves the usability of the online encyclopaedia. This is what I mean by saying: (Marked) Victionarium titles in the Vicipaedia (article namespace) do not hurt. --Roland2 21:10, 12 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I feel, I succeeded with transporting my general idea. Don't worry about the details, I am not such sure about the details as it sometimes might sound. The details and examples are to explain, what I mean. --Roland2 22:33, 12 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Trying to summarize ...

  • the database on consists of records
  • the application (en:MediaWiki) organizes these records in technical namespaces
  • the technical namespaces consist of the main namespace (or article namespace) and other namespaces
  • all outside the technical main/article namespace is surely not part of the encyclopaedia

So we are just talking about this namespace with no praefix, the main namespace.

The main namespace is again technically split up in:

  • content pages

I think this split is just based on usabiltiy issues and it should be clarified how this technical feature ("say A and get B") should be used or how it should not be used.

Usage ok:

  • Synonyms (in the B article we should read that B has the synonym A)
  • Handy shortcuts, e. g. Clinton --> Bill Clinton
  • Variants, e. g. Cechia -> Tzekia (in Tzekia we should read that Cechia is a variant)
  • Spelling errors, maybe Tzecia --> Tzekia (the article should NOT mention that)
  • Titles in foreign languages ... just for the comfort

Usage NOT ok:

  • Luna --> Astronomia
  • Abbreviations, e. g. UN --> United Nations (UN should be an article of it's own, saying "I am the abbr. for ...")
  • etc.

REDIRECTs are not counted as "article" so this implicitly means, REDIRECTs must not keep encyclopaedic information (at least because of one reason: they simply cannot). If a redirect hides encyclopaedic information, this information has to be included in the target page (e. g. synonyms), I think.

REDIRECTs must not hide information. :-)

And now the rest of the main namespace. If nobody deletes entries, after some time this namespace will contain:

  • encyclopaedic articles, we are proud of
  • encyclopaedic articles, which we want to have in a printed version
  • encyclopaedic articles, we are less proud of
  • encyclopaedic articles, which are stubs
  • silly jokes: "Ha ha!!!"
  • intelligent jokes: e. g. Zergeisterung (intelligent joke = encyclopaedic ... in my opinion ... sometimes)
  • abbreviations
  • synonyms
  • disvcretiva-pages
  • discretiva-pages mixed up with content (= bad)
  • information which should be only in a dictionary
  • sources, which should be in Wikisource
  • descriptions of sources
  • sententiae
  • indices
  • tables
  • information just relevant for less than 5 people in the world
  • advertising
  • picture galleries
  • etc.

The deletionists just know two categories:

  1. encyclopaedic
  2. to be deleted

They mix up

  1. what it is and
  2. what to do with it

I think we should be very strict and brutal ;-) in classifying the content but we should be very differentiated in our treatment. What options do we have?

We can split up in:

  • How to treat the record (= title, definition, content)?
  • How to treat the definition?
  • How to treat the content?

The deletionist's options:

  • delete the record (= title, definition, content)
  • delete the record and tell the author that he is an idiot
  • delete the record, tell the author what he is and block him

Ok ... I'll make it short ...

How should we treat e. g. records which are a valid dictionary entry but should not be part of an encyclopaedia?

We could say: "It is encyclopaedic to tell the people that this is a dictionary entry and that it does not fit in an encyclopaedia." So we had the option to keep this encyclopaedic information ("I am not encyclopaedic.") in the encyclopaedia. If the entry ia marked as {{i-am-a-dictionary-entry-and-do-not-fit-in-an-encyclopaedia}} someone could even write a software which uses the database but hides these information from users who do want to see this information at all. WikipMedia is not able to hide this sort of information at the moment.

I think dictionary entry in the Vicipaedia should ...

  • have a title (the same as in the Wiktionary)
  • have a definition (just for convenience)
  • have a template "I am not encyclopaedic. See the dictionary."
  • have a link to the dictionary entry
  • have NOT ANY additional information in the articles page

If people think, such an article should become a Viciapedia entry, they should discuss this on the article's talk page and provide the content in question there. Maybe there could be a template that tells the reader: "I am marked as being a dictionary entry and as being not encyclopaedic. However, some users do not think so and there is a heavy debate on my talk page. See there, if you are interested."

Sounds silly, but is not. Ok, maybe the words need some polishing ...

There is one political thing: Someone might say we want to push our article count, however, it's just a technical inability of the MediaWiki software that it cannot exclude "logical" redirects from counting. "Physical" redirects (#REDIRECT) are excluded from counting. Is it encyclopaedic to have 700000 articles about each day in the last 2000 years? See en:December 24, 2004. Why does nobody say "Wikipaedia is not a calendar"? ;-) What the people want, is information, if someone wants encyclopaedic information, he should know that he shall not click on links like "alius" or "absum". And if he does, he should not complain but be happy that someone tells him what he obviously did not know before: "I am not encyclopaedic."

I am proposing "logical redirects" in the article namespace. :-)

--Roland2 12:08, 13 Maii 2006 (UTC)

University of ManilaRecensere

Salut! Quo vadis? 2 questions. Are 1)*Universitas Manilae * and *Universitas Manilensis* correct? 2) Which do you feel would be better of the two?--Jondel 05:41, 12 Maii 2006 (UTC)