Quo modo reddatur, exempli gratia, phrasis "Le gallois pratique le vouvoiement de la même façon que le français"? Mattie 20:02, 18 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cambri eadem urbanitate alias dignitates salutant, ut Galli. --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 16:25, 24 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bonum et perspicuum est enuntiatum. Nescio autem qualis debeat esse titula paginae, si paginam volumus. "Pronomina urbanitatis," fortasse? A. Mahoney 17:50, 24 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Distinctio T-V (nomen ad T-V-distinction, locutionem a Brown & Gilman factam, proximum)? IacobusAmor 19:22, 24 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Lingua Cambrica item atque lingua Francogallica distinctione T-V utitur"? Aut, cum in Vicipaedia Latina neque Francogallica scribamus, "Propter distinctionem T-V, homo unus, gradui congruenter urbanitatis, pronominibus et ti "tu" et chi "vos" appellari potest"? Mattie 23:53, 24 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... et sine intervallo Latine scribere

Categoria: "Homines ex quibus taxa appellantur"? recensere

Since we have categories for each of several taxonomic levels named for people (with more to come!), maybe we should also have categories constructed in the opposite direction: categories for people whose names have become taxonomic? For instance, Henricus Suter (1841–1918) is honored in the specific epithets of Asteracmea suteri, Athoracophorus suteri, Dentalium suteri, Limatula suteri, Munditia suteri, Oligosoma suteri, Omphalotropis suteri, Peripatoides suteri, Rhyssoplax suteri, and Tugali suteri. (Most are gastropods; one is a skink.) For readers who might want to find the taxonomic names derived from people's names, such a category perhaps ought to be developed. What would be the best phrasing? "Homines ex quibus taxa appellantur" (~ "appellata sunt")? IacobusAmor 12:24, 24 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's logical, certainly, and the category name looks OK to me.
You (I say "you" because you are currently the Vicipaedian with the enthusiasm to do do this!) would be giving yourself a fair bit of extra work, I think, because the identity of the person commemorated is not always immediately evident from the article about the taxon (though one would think it ought to be!) Additionally, in the example you give, you can't add Henricus Suter to the proposed category until we have a page for Henricus Suter. So initially you would be dependent on whether we have a bio about the person commemorated; if we haven't, there won't be any page to add to this category (unless/until you write the page yourself) ... Have I understood you correctly? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:44, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Babel categories recensere

The Babel system, which is widely used on la.wikipedia, allows users to indicate the languages that they speak or understand on their userpage.

(A few days ago, the Babel extension has been deployed on all wikimedia wikis. This extension might at last make the dozens of Babel templates unnecessary - more about the extension in a few days' time!)

The arrival of the Babel extension marks a good opportunity to re-think our current Babel category naming scheme. Currently, we have the following categories (and when the Babel template is used on a userpage, then the userpage is automatically placed in the corresponding category):

I propose the following two changes (which I would perform in the course of the possible implementation of the Babel extension – more about that later):

  1. I propose to rename Categoria:Usor qqq-# to Categoria:Usores qqq-# (UsorUsores, in order to comply with our Nomina categoriarum sunt pluralia rule, see VP:CAT).
  2. I propose to rename the Babel root category from Categoria:Linguae usorum to Categoria:Usores secundum linguas (or Categoria:Usores secundum linguas digesti or … what would be the best name)?

Objections? Comments? --UV 23:37, 25 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good idea. As to the name of the new root category, the style including "secundum" is not preferred, I think; my understanding is that among our stylists Iacobus goes for the ablative "Usores lingua digesti" while Neander prefers per+acc. "Usores per linguas digesti". Maybe they, or others, would like to comment further. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:36, 27 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I am in the process of moving the categories, and I have chosen Categoria:Usores lingua digesti for now but the latter category name can easily be changed. --UV 23:25, 28 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switching from Babel templates to the Babel extension recensere

Since a few days ago, the Babel extension is active on all wikimedia wikis. This extension may make the Babel templates that we currently have obsolete. For a few examples of the Babel extension in action, see Vicipaedia:Babel (please help improve this page!) and User:Jafeluv.

In usage and in appearance, the Babel extension is very similar to the Babel templates. The difference in usage is that while the Babel templates are used using {{babel|fr-2|la-1|grc-1}}, the Babel extension is used using {{#babel:fr-2|la-1|grc-1}} (note the hash sign # near the beginning and note that the first language code is not preceded by a pipe symbol | but is instead preceded by a colon : ).


The Babel extension has one big advantage: It does not need any templates (currently, when a new user comes around who speaks a new language, we have to fetch the appropriate Babel templates from, say, en.wikipedia – with the Babel extension, all Babel boxes for all languages should in theory be available).

The Babel extension has a number of small disadvantages, all of which I consider relatively minor:

  • The text in the language boxes links just to the language category, not to the language-skill category (the language-skill category can be found near the bottom of the page).
  • The language code in the language boxes does not directly link to the article about the language (but I added the link to the article about the language to most of the Babel category pages).
  • Using other boxes (e. g. the {{Usor globalis}} template) within the Babel box is somewhat tricky and in some cases not possible. However, such other boxes can be placed e. g. just below the Babel box.
  • Language boxes cannot be used outside of the Babel box. Thus, language boxes cannot e. g. be arranged horizontally next to each other instead of vertically one below the other, as they are in the Babel box.

Despite these small disadvantages, I propose (and I volunteer, partly with the help of UVbot) to switch all userpages where Babel templates are currently in use to the Babel extension and thereafter to delete all Babel templates, in order to get a homogeneous look (no mixing between Babel templates and the Babel extension) and in order never to have to worry about maintaining Babel templates any more.

Questions/Objections/Comments? --UV 23:25, 28 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be grateful to you (and UVbot!) for offering to sort this out. It'll be much better when done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:51, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like this: anything that makes this kind of maintenance easier is a Good Thing. And I'll be delighted to be able to identify myself as a Sanskritist, too! If you need another pair of hands, let me know (and I do have Python installed here so if more bot-work is required I can pitch in there too). A. Mahoney 12:07, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done! A. Mahoney, thank you for offering your help! Luckily, we are a bit smaller than en.wikipedia, so UVbot and I could manage ;-) --UV 21:54, 8 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, who are the wiseguys who marked themselves la-N? --Robert.Baruch 19:35, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina mensis recensere

We need to agree on pages for the rest of the year. Please comment at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis.

Oportet paginas laureare pro mensibus Octobri, Novembri, Decembri. S.v.p. commenta addere apud Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:36, 27 Septembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historia Graeca recensere

Shouldn't Historia Graeca and Graecia antiqua be merged?--Utilo 21:59, 8 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the long run, not necessarily ... Many other wikis have both; "Ancient Greece" and "History of Greece". But I agree that our current article Graecia antiqua doesn't do what it should; it is just a short section from a "History of Greece" article. If you have the enthusiasm, I'd say, you could certainly merge them into a single history -- which certainly needs to be written! -- and afterwards decide if a more specialised article Graecia antiqua is also needed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:06, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An unexpected vicissitude recensere

During the creation of articles, is there a reason the "Custodire hanc paginam" box has moved from a position above the "Monstrare praevisum" box to a position above the "Servare hanc rem" box? An unwanted result, since one always wants to preview a new contribution before saving it, is additional effort, since checking the box and then clicking on "Monstrare praevisum" requires more motion of the cursor. (Another result is the danger that after clicking the box, one will nudge the "Servare hanc rem" box prematurely.) In the tradeoff of design & function, that's the loss. What's the gain? IacobusAmor 12:29, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that took me by surprise as well. I agree it's bad, and for another reason: it is exactly where you expect the "Haec est recensio minor" box to be, and so I have been unchecking it, and now realise I need not have done so. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:51, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that's another point of confusion. Could that box be put back where it was? or could an explanation be offered? ¶ Also, the past few days, we've seen a change in how the categories are displayed (at the bottom of articles): more space occurs on either side of the divider ("|"), at least on my screen, where it looks like unnecessary airiness. IacobusAmor 13:52, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to the position of the "Custodire hanc paginam" checkbox: The current version of MediaWiki does not allow an edit to be marked as minor when this edit creates a new page or when the "Partem novam addere" feature is used. Consequently, the "Haec est recensio minor" checkbox is not present in these cases, which causes the "Custodire hanc paginam" checkbox to move to the far left in these cases. I agree that this inconsistent position of the "Custodire hanc paginam" checkbox is bad. I have filed a bug report here: bugzilla:31567.
By the way, Iacobe: If you (nearly) always watch those pages that you create, you can use a preference for that: Specialis:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist, check "Paginas quas creo in paginarum custoditarum indicem addere".
As to the changed display of the categories list: Yes, that too is a change that was introduced by the current version of MediaWiki. The "airiness" can be observed e. g. on de.wikipedia or fr.wikipedia as well. Greetings, --UV 20:56, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a Very Good Thing that it is no longer possible to mark new pages as minor edits. I know I sometimes do this by mistake. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:19, 10 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, our longest article, the longest on its subject in all of Vicilandia (Cultura), was so marked at its inception. :/ IacobusAmor 00:00, 24 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ubi quaestio pro automato? recensere

Ubi quaeso pro automato? Est pagina en:Wikipedia:Bot requests in Vicipaedia Latina? --Achillus 20:25, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a request page for category move requests: Vicipaedia:Automata/Category move requests. For other bot requests, the Taberna is a good place (or my talk page for uncontroversial requests, since I operate a bot on la.wikipedia). Greetings, --UV 20:36, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - gratias tibi ago. --Achillus 21:01, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automaton pro Formula:Commune Italianum recensere

Formula:Commune Italianum started from it:Template:Comune but now this template has been deleted from Italian Wikipedia. Right now I think that there is no reason to keep the old parameter names in Italian from that template. I think that a bot can (easily?) replace the old parameter names with the corresponding latin name.

nomeComune -> NomenItalicum
nomeUfficiale -> NomenOfficiale
linkStemma -> Insigne
nomeAbitanti -> IncolarumNomen
nomeComuneLOC -> NomenLocale
siglaRegione -> RegionisSigla
siglaProvincia -> ProvinciaeSigla
latitudineGradi -> LatitudinisGradi
latitudineMinuti -> LatitudinisMinuta
latitudineSecondi -> LatitudinisSecunda
longitudineGradi -> LongitudinisGradi
longitudineMinuti -> LongitudinisMinuta
longitudineSecondi -> LongitudinisSecunda
altitudine -> Altitudo
superficie -> Area
abitanti -> NumerusIncolarum
anno -> Annus
densita -> SpissitudoIncolarum
frazioni -> Fractiones
comuniLimitrofi -> CommuniaProxima
cap -> NumerusCursualis
prefisso -> PraefixumTelephonicum
fiscale -> NumerusTributarius
istat -> ISTAT
patrono -> Patronus
festivo -> DiesSollemnis
sito -> PaginaInterretialis
provincia -> Provincia
regione -> Regio

Can someone please help?

This template has other issues, but I will analyze the results of this first bot before asking for other help. --Achillus 21:14, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UVbot can do this rather easily. Beforehand, can someone please comment whether the new parameter names are good Latin? --UV 21:18, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For "official," Cassell's says to use "publicus (= of the state)"; so, for Nomen officiale, better Nomen publicum.Incolarum nomen is backward, and might better be Nomen incolarum.Locale isn't a (classical) word; for "local," Cassell's says to "render by a genitive, such as loci, regionis." So: Nomen loci. ¶ The eight phrases starting with RegionisSigla are backward. ¶ Gradi isn't a Latin word. ¶ The mysterious Fractiones has been discussed elsewhere. IacobusAmor 21:46, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these are some of the OTHER issues of this template :) The template is already working with the Latin or pseudoLatin names on the right side. I thought that we could fix one issue per time, anyway if we want to fix ALL the issues together then the discussion will be much longer. What is the preference in these cases? --Achillus 07:25, 10 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, what is listed above will never appear on our pages: it will be hidden in the workings of the template. Yes, we want it to be good Latin and not Italian, but there is no need for it to be perfectly idiomatic.
Cassell's is handy for Iacobus because (I suspect) he has it on his desk, but it's not the ideal authority for Vicipaedia because (so far as I know) it isn't on line.
"Officialis" is in Lewis & Short. I would say it's OK, it serves our purpose -- in fact I think we can hardly manage without this word. However, I don't know what the difference is between nomeComune and nomeUfficiale: Can you explain, Achille?
I take it that what is meant by nomeComuneLOC is "name in local language/dialect". If I am correct, better than "NomenLoci" would be "NomenVernaculum", I think.
For Frazioni I continue to prefer "Vici". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:02, 10 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Officialis is indeed in L&S, where it's shown to be postclassical, and its meaning, especially its basic meaning (which might be summarized as 'relating to duty'), isn't the most usually heard modern one (which might be summarized as 'prescribed for public use'). An official language is a language prescribed for public use, not a language relating to duty. Perhaps, though, one could sneak officialis in, like the proverbial camel's nose, under the notion of 'relating to use in (government) offices', where one might indeed expect to encounter the use of an official language. IacobusAmor 14:35, 10 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Iacobe amice! Yes, I admit its postclassicality, but it is such a handy word in the bureaucratic (= "ruled by people in offices") world that we live in ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 10 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"NomenOfficialis" is the name to be used in offices. For most Italian municipalities it is the same name than "NomenItalicus", but for some municipalities it is the compound of the Italian name and the local name, for instance "Bolzano / Bozen" is the official name of Bauzanum. "NomenLocale" is the name in the "second" language, for instance "Bozen" for Bauzanum. Well, just note that the "second" language may be the "first spoken" language for some municipalities.
I add "NomenItalicus" to the issues, because it should be "NomenItalianum".
In order to simplify the fixes I need the help of the botter(s): a first run of the bot should perform the changes exactly as above, even if the issues about the names are not solved yet. Then I can fix the template by removing the Italian parameter names and adding support for the new better Latin names that we are discussing right now. After this, I will need a second run of the bot in order to replace the worse Latin names with the better Latin names. Sorry to ask this but this procedure will simplify the fixes to the template and have a less risk of mulfunction of the pages that include the template. --Achillus 14:55, 10 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, first rune is done. Greetings, --UV 00:16, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. --Achillus 11:54, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's recap and see.
  • LatitudinisGradi -> GradusLatitudinis
  • LongitudinisGradi -> GradusLongitudinis
  • NomenItalicum -> NomenItalianum ?
  • NomenLocale -> NomenVernaculum ? NomenLinguaLocali ? (fixed)
  • NomenLocaleAliud -> NomenVernaculumAliud ? NomenLinguaLocaliAlia ? (fixed)
  • NomenOfficiale -> NomenPublicum ?
  • Fractiones -> ViciMunicipii ? ViciInMunicipio ? PartesMunicipii ?
  • PerCentumItalice -> PerCentumItaliane ? (added)
  • PerCentumLocale -> ? (added)
  • PerCentumLocaleAlio -> ? (added)
Just to revert genetivus with noun (I will add other parameters I found in the template):
  • IncolarumNomen -> NomenIncolarum
  • RegionisSigla -> SiglaRegionis
  • ProvinciaeSigla -> SiglaProvinciae
  • LatitudinisMinuta -> MinutaLatitudinis
  • LatitudinisSecunda -> SecundaLatitudinis
  • LongitudinisMinuta -> MinutaLongitudinis
  • LongitudinisSecunda -> SecundaLongitudinis
  • NominisGenetivus -> GenetivusNominis ?
  • ImaginisInscriptio -> InscriptioImaginis ?
  • NominisLocalisLingua -> LinguaNominisLocalis ? (see NomenLocale for alternate forms)
  • NominisLocalisAliisLingua -> LinguaNominisLocalisAliis ? (see NomenLocaleAliud for alternate forms)
  • RegionisNexus -> NexusRegionis ?
  • ProvinciaeNexus -> NexusProvinciae ?
  • LinguarumAnnus -> AnnusLinguarum ?
  • LinguarumIncolae -> IncolaeLinguarum ?
  • MagistriCiviumAnnus -> AnnusMagistriCivium ?
And last but not least... Formula:Commune Italianum seu Formula:Municipium Italiae? --Achillus 13:12, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer "NomenLinguaLoc..." to "NomenVernaculum", OK, but it needs to be "NomenLinguaLocali". All place-names are local names: the point of this one is that it's in a local language, so the word "localis" has to be in the same case as "lingua" -- ablative here.
"NominisLocalisLingua", "NominisLocalisAliisLingua", "LinguarumAnnus" and "LinguarumIncolae" make no sense to me. I can't offer a better version for those because I don't understand them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:32, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out above, localis, -e isn't a (classical) word; for English local, Cassell's says to "render by a genitive, such as loci, regionis." So: LinguaNominisLoci &c. IacobusAmor 13:50, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the explanation required: some municipalities have statistics about the languages spoken by the inhabitants, as declared by themselves in some census of some year. So the first language in the statistics is always Lingua Italiana, the second language is "NominisLocalisLingua" and (if present) the third language is "NominisLocalisAliisLingua". The year of the census is "LinguarumAnnus" and the inhabitant count for that census are "LinguarumIncolae"; this can be different than "Annus" which is the year for the census of "NumerusIncolarum". The percentages are respectively "PerCentumItalice" (should be changed to "PerCentumItaliane") "PerCentumLocale" and "PerCentumLocaleAlio". I added these three parameters in the list above.
Regardless of whether the statistics about the spoken languages are present, the language in which "NomenLocale" is written is "NominisLocalisLingua" and (if present) the language in which "NomenLocaleAliud" is written is "NominisLocalisAliisLingua". Note that only few municipalities have a compound "NomenOfficiale"; if this applies, the official name is a compound of "NomenItalicum" and "NomenLocale". On the other side a municipality can have a "NomenLocale" in some "NominisLocalisLingua" language but in fact its official name is simply "NomenItalicum".
Thank you for the note about ablative, I fixed it though the adjective is still disputed. --Achillus 14:10, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Localis" is a word (see L&S), though, again, postclassical. But if it's likely to be disputed, I suggest "NomenVernaculum" even more strongly.
I see what those names mean now. Then I would say:
  1. NominisLocalisLingua > LinguaNominisVernaculi
  2. NominisLocalisAliisLingua > LinguaNominisVernaculi2
  3. LinguarumAnnus > AnnusDescriptionisLinguarum
  4. LinguarumIncolae > Locutores
  5. PerCentumItalice > ItalianePerCentum
  6. PerCentumLocale > VernaculePerCentum
  7. PerCentumLocaleAlio > Vernacule2PerCentum
For the word "descriptio" meaning "census" (in more or less the modern sense), see the page I created Descriptio in Bethleem (Bruegel). But that's a word from the Versio Vulgata: someone may have a more classical word for it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:34, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If our grammars are to be believed, Classical Latin sometimes uses a genitive where modern languages use an adjective: so 'local name' is nomen loci 'name of a place', not nomen locale (which might have struck Cicero, one imagines, as something intelligible but goofy, like 'placey name'), and visual art is ars oculorum 'art of the eyes', not ars visualis (which similarly might have had the quality of 'sighty art') and 'headache' is capitis dolor 'pain of the head', not dolor capitalis (which similarly might have had the quality of 'heady pain'). Of course if one wishes to abandon a classical standard, then anything can be said to go. IacobusAmor 14:42, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "nomen loci" is that it doesn't have the required meaning. We aren't trying to say "name of a place" but "name in local/vernacular language/dialect". So how do you feel about "nomen vernaculum"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:45, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's problematic in a different way: vernacular things are basically those having to do with house-slaves (vernae), and if Cassell's is to be believed, a classical extension of the sense covered domestic things in general, but not necessarily the modern sense of a vernacular language, which Cassell's says is sermo patrius, sermo noster, lingua nostra, verba nostratia. Ergo vos locutionem fortasse petitis nomen (in?) sermone patrio ? IacobusAmor 15:04, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that there is a problem with "vernaculum", yes. How would you feel about "NomenSermonePatrio", Achille? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:12, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Iacobe, do you have a better word for "census" (i.e. count of heads, and in this case a linguistic count of heads) than "descriptio"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:49, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, census (-ūs) was fine with Cicero & Livy, so what's the worry? Taking the census is what (apud Ciceronem, Horatium, Ovidium) the censor did. IacobusAmor 15:04, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "census" (4th decl.) is a handy choice! So then "AnnusCensusLinguarum". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:12, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well... patrius means both "of father" and "of nation" and may lead to some misunderstanding for those who do not know Cicero's Latin. Maybe can we simply use Sermo, Sermo2, NomenSermone, NomenSermone2? Or maybe sermo paternus has the same meaning? (Little note: in Italian we say "mother language" instead). --Achillus 09:50, 12 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quo brevius, eo melius. I agree with the simple word "Sermo". You are right, "patrius" causes problems. (By medieval times, phrases like "langue maternelle" were commonly used in this sense -- as also in modern English, "mother tongue".) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 12 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A little change in my mind. We use "Lingua" almost everywhere in Vicipaedia, so what about "LinguaLoci", "Lingua2Loci", "NomenLinguaLoci" et "NomenLingua2Loci"? Then I found two others:
  • CommuniaProxima -> MunicipiaProxima ?
  • Formula:Commune Italianum -> Formula:Municipium Italiae ?
The latter is about the name of the template itself. What do you think? --Achillus 09:33, 13 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: About CommuniaConiuncta... this is a list and it is not necessary that the towns listed are in Italy; in fact they use to be outside of Italy. What aboud OppidaConiuncta? --Achillus 09:41, 13 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recap again, I see no one adds so I suppose "silence means agreement".
  • LatitudinisGradi -> GradusLatitudinis
  • LongitudinisGradi -> GradusLongitudinis
  • NomenItalicum -> NomenItalianum
  • NomenLocale -> NomenLinguaLoci
  • NomenLocaleAliud -> NomenLingua2Loci
  • NomenOfficiale -> NomenPublicum
  • Fractiones -> Vici
  • PerCentumItalice -> ItalianePerCentum
  • PerCentumLocale -> LinguaLociPerCentum
  • PerCentumLocaleAlio -> Lingua2LociPerCentum
  • IncolarumNomen -> NomenIncolarum
  • RegionisSigla -> SiglaRegionis
  • ProvinciaeSigla -> SiglaProvinciae
  • LatitudinisMinuta -> MinutaLatitudinis
  • LatitudinisSecunda -> SecundaLatitudinis
  • LongitudinisMinuta -> MinutaLongitudinis
  • LongitudinisSecunda -> SecundaLongitudinis
  • NominisGenetivus -> GenetivusNominis
  • ImaginisInscriptio -> InscriptioImaginis
  • NominisLocalisLingua -> LinguaLoci
  • NominisLocalisAliisLingua -> Lingua2Loci
  • RegionisNexus -> NexusRegionis
  • ProvinciaeNexus -> NexusProvinciae
  • LinguarumAnnus -> AnnusCensusLinguarum
  • LinguarumIncolae -> Locutores
  • MagistriCiviumAnnus -> AnnusMagistriCivium
  • CommuniaProxima -> MunicipiaProxima
  • CommuniaConiuncta -> no change
  • Formula:Commune Italianum -> Formula:Municipium Italiae
Vici et CommuniaConiuncta are my personal preference; the first because "Municipii" or "InMunicipio" is understood for all parameters, the other because these "twin municipalities" are not in Italy with few exceptions. If no one comments I will add support for new parameters to the template, will move it to the new name and finally will ask for the second span of the bot. Thank you all for all comments. --Achillus 09:57, 22 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all is ready. I had a little problem, I missed something when I asked for the first span, so unfortunately I will need a third span of the bot. The second span of the bot should be this:
Formula:Commune Italianum -> Formula:Municipium Italiae (i.e. name of the template)
CommuniaProxima -> MunicipiaProxima
Fractiones -> Vici
IncolarumNomen -> NomenIncolarum
Inscriptio_imaginis -> ImaginisInscriptio
LatitudinisGradi -> GradusLatitudinis
LatitudinisMinuta -> MinutaLatitudinis
LatitudinisSecunda -> SecundaLatitudinis
LinguarumAnnus -> AnnusCensusLinguarum
LinguarumIncolae -> Locutores
LongitudinisGradi -> GradusLongitudinis
LongitudinisMinuta -> MinutaLongitudinis
LongitudinisSecunda -> SecundaLongitudinis
MagistriCiviumAnnus -> AnnusMagistriCivium
Nomen_latinum -> NomenLatinum
Nomen_latinum_gen -> NominisGenetivus
NomenItalicum -> NomenItalianum
NomenLocale -> NomenLinguaLoci
NomenLocaleAliud -> NomenLingua2Loci
NomenOfficiale -> NomenPublicum
NominisLocalisAliisLingua -> Lingua2Loci
NominisLocalisLingua -> LinguaLoci
PerCentumItalice -> ItalianePerCentum
PerCentumLocale -> LinguaLociPerCentum
PerCentumLocaleAlio -> Lingua2LociPerCentum
ProvinciaeNexus -> NexusProvinciae
ProvinciaeSigla -> SiglaProvinciae
RegionisNexus -> NexusRegionis
RegionisSigla -> SiglaRegionis
Thank you. --Achillus 11:31, 30 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will do the secund run probably tomorrow. Greetings, --UV 00:30, 2 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second run done. --UV 00:49, 3 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I am analyzing the results. --Achillus 12:28, 3 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De musica recensere

Just for fun, I've been experimenting with Formula:Audire, a variant of en:Template:Listen, slightly simplified. I've put an example into Iohannes Sebastianus Bach. Discussion, refinements, and so on are welcome. A. Mahoney 18:10, 12 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa vs. Southern Africa recensere

Vicipaedia needs separate articles for the country (en:South Africa) and the region (en:Southern Africa)—concepts that cover vastly different geographical areas. The former in Vicipaedia is Africa Australis. What's the latter? IacobusAmor 13:28, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it may not be very easy to find an existing Latin source for that. Well, we have at least two other words for "south" (austrinus, meridianus). I guess you could arbitrarily adopt one of those, or you could say "Africa Australis (regio)" ... In favour of a proposed "Africa Austrina" would be the fact that Pliny uses "austrina (n.pl.)" to mean the southern regions of somewhere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So Africa Austrina it is! Curiously, the use of south in South Africa violates the norm of the usual English contrast, where the plain forms (north, east, south, west) seem to denote larger regions, and the modified forms (northern, eastern, southern, western) seem to denote smaller regions, subregions, or pieces of regions. In this sense, North Africa, East Africa, and West Africa illustrate the norm, and South Africa is an exception. (Similarly with East Asia, but then en:Eastern Europe is another exception.) Maybe South Africa for the smaller entity reflects usage in some other language or languages. IacobusAmor 13:56, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aut Africae Australis Res publica et Africa Australis (regio), nulla nominum fictione adhibita? --Ceylon 18:54, 21 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De nominibus provinciarum Italiae recensere

Subdivisiones Italiae nunc sunt regiones, provinciae, municipia et vici. Regiones, municipia et vici nomina propria habent, provinciae nomina propria non habent. Exempla: nomen regionis est Langobardia, nomen municipii est Hyspica, nomen vici est Mestria. Nomina provinciae Italiane scripta sunt provincia di et sequitur maxime nomen capitis (provincia di Milano) aut minime nomina capitum (provincia di Forlì-Cesena), vel nomen terrae (provincia dell'Ogliastra), vel nomina terrarum (una: provincia del Verbano-Cusio-Ossola), vel nomina capitis et terrae (una: provincia di Monza e Brianza); una provincia nomen proprium habet cur Vallis Augustana regio etiam est provincia.

Quomodo Latine provinciae Italiae nuncupandae sunt? Nunc in Vicipaedia paginae provinciarum Italiae sunt maxime "Caput (provincia)" aut minime nomina capitum (Forum Livii-Curva Caesena) vel nomen terrae et "(provincia)", vel nomina terrarum (Verbanus-Cusius-Oscela), vel nomina capitis et terrae (Modicia et Brigantia). Mihi titula haec videntur ut non apta sint cur titula haec non sunt nomina propria provinciarum. Exemplum: si volo de municipiis provinciae alicuius dicere, "municipia Medioliani" dicere possum? Mihi non videtur. Fortasse "municipia Mediolani provinciae" sicut etiam "influentia Padi fluminis", sed "Mediolanum" mihi videtur ut nomen proprium provinciae non sit at contra Padus nomen proprium fluminis. Fortasse mihi modo, at mihi videtur ut Mediolanum sit urbs et municipium, nec sit provincia. In paginis provinciarum Italiae sunt crebro nomina alia duo: "provincia" et genetivus (Provincia Mediolani) vel "provincia" et adiectivum (Provincia Mediolanensis). Quomodo Latine melius? "Mediolanum provincia", "Provincia Mediolani", vel "Provincia Mediolanensis", vel alia? Et postea "municipia Mediolani provinciae", "municipia provinciae Mediolani", vel "municipia provinciae Mediolanensis", vel alia? Seu formae aliae ("municipia in provincia...")? --Achillus 12:00, 15 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utraque forma "provincia Mediolani" et "provincia Mediolanensis" aeque adhiberi videtur in paginis; exempla etiam provincia Aquilae vel provincia Aquilana, provincia Patavii vel provincia Patavina et cetera. Credo utramque formam bonam, minime autem formam "Mediolanum provincia", cum non "Mediolanum (provincia)" simplicitatis gratia scripta sit. Si Latina lingua unam formarum praeferat, nescio. Ubi de municipiis tractetur, forma "municipia in provincia Aquilana" frequens in provinciarum paginis adhibetur; formam "municipia Aquilanae provinciae" sane bonam puto, et fortasse paulo meliorem quam formam "municipia provinciae Aquilanae". --Poecus 22:20, 15 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consentio ego. Licet formam simpliciorem e.g. "Mediolanum (provincia)" in titulis praeferere sed formis variis et Latinitati classicae congruentibus in textu uti. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:01, 16 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simplicitatem in formula [[Brixia (provincia)|provincia Brixiana]] non video, at contra formula [[provincia Brixiana]] simplicior est. Hoc praetermisso, Italiane solimus adiectivum praeferire magis quam "genetivum" quando de terra provinciae alicuius loquimur; Latine idem? --Achillus 20:09, 19 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laete accipio aut "Brixia (provincia)" aut "provincia Brixiana". Lingua Latina, sicut Italiana, adiectiva saepe praefert. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:41, 20 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Norma ut videtur est Brixia (provincia). Vide Augustus (imperator), Hell (pellicula), Miletus (genus), Mnaseas (papilio), Novum Eboracum (urbs), Ohium (flumen), Sicilia (provincia Romana), et plurima provinciarum nomina in commentario Provincia Italiae perscripta. IacobusAmor 16:55, 20 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vicipaedia non est fons Vicipaediae. ;) Auctor idem est paginae de provincia Italiae et paginarum de provinciis Italiae; norma eius est, errata possit sicut aut non. Italiane Brescia (Brixia) est urbs et municipium at non est provincia; Italiane nomen publicum subdivisionis huius est Provincia di Brescia et nomen terrae est bresciano vel provincia di Brescia, at quando Brescia dicitur certo urbem vel municipium capio tamquam certo provinciam non capio. Nescio si Latine idem sit et ex disputatione nondum intellego. --Achillus 09:16, 22 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De rebus politicis Canadensibus recensere

... scribo. Mores Francogallicum Anglicumque sequens, res "Canadae" neque "Canadenses" appello, ut puta Camera Communium Canadae, Senatus Canadae, Factio Liberalis Canadae, et cetera. Fortasse autem melius sit adiectivo uti, contra morem Canadensem. Vestra sententia, commentationes suntne transnominadae? Mattie 03:14, 18 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De his adiectivis nihil habemus quod dicamus, sed modo classico secundum Cassell's, adiectivum politicus (ex verbo Graeco) Anglice = 'relating to political science', cum adiectivum pro 'political' Latinitate vera = civilis et publicus, et "often rendered by reipublicae (genit. sing.)." Simile, Anglicum 'politics' = civilis ratio et respublica ; exempli gratia, 'to be engaged in politics' = in republica versari. Ergo in animo fortasse habebas scribere de civili ratione Canadensi vel tantum de republica Canadensi. IacobusAmor 13:22, 18 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias tibi ago ob consilium :) Profecto movenda est commentatio de factionibus "politicis," unde nomen adiectivum "politicum" accepi ... fortasse ad Factionem publicam? Mattie 17:02, 18 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Censeo verbum "politicus" nobis utile esse, etsi apud Cassell's incognitum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:37, 20 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point Cassell's is apparently making is that politicus, though relevant to modern concepts of "politics," is in classical style unidiomatic, or perhaps at least not the most frequent or unmarked way of expressing the idea. IacobusAmor 16:48, 20 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terms of Use update recensere

I apologize that you are receiving this message in English. Please help translate it.


The Wikimedia Foundation is discussing changes to its Terms of Use. The discussion can be found at Talk:Terms of use. Everyone is invited to join in. Because the new version of Terms of use is not in final form, we are not able to present official translations of it. Volunteers are welcome to translate it, as German volunteers have done at m:Terms of use/de, but we ask that you note at the top that the translation is unofficial and may become outdated as the English version is changed. The translation request can be found at m:Translation requests/WMF/Terms of Use 2 -- Maggie Dennis, Community Liaison 01:02, 27 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verba vocesque quibus in Vicipaedia proprie utimini recensere

Ut novicius, qui modo hanc paginam interretialem legere coepi, imprimis sciscito, ubi verborum eorum, quibus vos in Vicipaedia proprie ad res administrandas utimini, velut conventum, symbola, tessera, recensere, magistratus, abrogare ceteraque, explanationem reperiam, quae ad vestrum usum spectet. Nam multa verba prout locus quo apparent postulat varia et diversa significare possunt. Proin indicate, amabo vos, ubi, si omnino, quae quaero, exponuntur. Sin minus, quin quisquam talem paginam scribit, ut initium noviciis facilius fiat?

Nobis explanationem de his verbis non credo esse. Pro tempore, i simpliciter ad "praeferentias meas"; sub "minutiis rationis" inveni "internationalizationem" ubi linguam tuam mutare potes. Non nulla verba, quibus utimur, Latinitate sunt horrida (e.g. "ratio" pro Anglico "account," quamquam "account" vim habet Francogallici verbi non "raisonnement" sed "compte"), sed egomet quo modo ea mutarentur, nescio. Salvus sis apud nos, mi amice! Mattie 18:09, 30 Octobris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1000 Paginae recensere

It's been a while since I ran my 1000 paginae script, as A. Mahoney pointed out to me, so I just finished updating it. Enjoy! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 02:25, 5 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those who enjoy such things, I've put together a slightly different presentation of basically the same information. A. Mahoney 15:29, 17 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nice! It inspired me to take ten minutes and boost Oceanus Antarcticus a little. Several hundred of those articles would happily receive similar augmentation, and the table unmistakably tells us which ones they are. IacobusAmor 16:25, 17 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Emijrp/List of Wikipedians by number of edits recensere

The errors noticed last week seem not to have been corrected, so the figures added to last week's figures seem to be wrong (though the amounts of the additions look to be about right). A notice was posted in the bot's own discussion page, to no avail. Could a magistrate perhaps block the bot so as to attract its attention? IacobusAmor 13:13, 7 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do this because it didn't appear to me than any harm resulted: these are just unofficial statistics, after all. To tell the truth, I had never seen them before. But if any other magistratus thinks it advisable to use a block, fine :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 7 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but everybody knows that if an alleged fact appears in Wikipedia, it must be true! :) IacobusAmor 22:49, 7 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish, you could talk to the bot's operator here: en:User talk:emijrp#error in List of Wikipedians by number of edits?. --UV 21:07, 7 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already tried. If you read up that talkpage, you'll see that somebody else noticed the same thing in another wiki. IacobusAmor 22:49, 7 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Si robotum habes, lege, s.t.p., hanc disputationem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 9 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

datum vs dies recensere

Salve. In parametra formulae meae prelatae ;) parametrum vidi ex origine "datum" nuncupatur, neque nomen illius mutavi, ut "dies" (Anglice: date) significet. At timeo ut "datum" modo "aliquid donatum" significet (ex "do")... Quomodo "date of census" translari potest ex lingua Anglica? "Datum census incolarum" sive "dies census incolarum"? --Achillus 11:10, 12 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fortasse re vera de anno loquimur, minime de die. In quadam alia formula (ubi? nescio!) verbis "annus census" iam usus sum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:24, 12 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Verba "annus census" in formula Provinciarum Canadae insunt; consentio hanc esse bonam versionem verborum anglicorum date of census. A. Mahoney 23:55, 12 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opinamur ut "annus" non sit... "datum" est vel "dies"? (Ex ISTAT numerus incolarum quot mense aestimatur, sic numerus 10000 die 31 Martii potest et 10010 die 30 Aprilis potest). --Achillus 21:15, 13 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Est igitur "dies"; "datum" enim Latine, ut scis, alias res varias significat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:24, 13 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias tibi ago. --Achillus 13:56, 16 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capsae successionum recensere

Mutationes minores feci in formulas {{Arca initii}} et {{Arca finis}} (quae capsas creant de successionibus regum, consulum etc.). Si id detrimenta efficit in paginis mihi ignotis, s.v.p. revertite mutationes meas. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 19 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De ordine alphabetico recensere

Ave. Solemus, more contemporaneo, distinguere intra "u" et "v" cum scribentes sumus. At, more Romano, distinctio haec non fuit. Vicipaediam quaesii de ordine alphabetico at nihil inveni. Dubius meus oritur ex ordine alphabetico uribium Italiae: "Tarvisium", "Urbinum", "Utinum", "Venetiae", "Verona", "Vicetia" seu "Taruisium", "Venetiae", "Verona", "Vicetia", "Vrbinum", "Vtinum"? --Achillus 09:02, 22 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sententia mea (necnon more nostro) haec sic sunt scribenda: Tarvisium, Urbinum, Utinum, Venetiae, Verona, Vicetia: u est vocalis, v consonans. In his ordine alphabetico scribendis, antepone igitur haec, quae littera u incipiuntur, eis, quae littera v... velut Italiane. :-) Mattie 05:28, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paginas scribendi causa accipiuntur etiam tradutiones? --Traianus 12:54, 23 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translationes ex alias Wikipedias accipimus, sed translationes humanas tantum! Machinae (e.g. Google, Babel) Latine scribere nesciunt. Si tu traductionem ex alia Wikipedia facis, indica fontem s.t.p. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 23 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non traducere in toto ab aliarum wikiarum paginis cogitabam, sed solum exordium accipere. Etiam sic cogitata scriptura est fons indicanda? --Traianus 13:14, 23 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utile, fortasse: potes simpliciter in "summario" indicare e.g. "initium ex it:wiki versum" ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:06, 23 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Degree day recensere

Does anyone know how to translate "degree day" into Latin? See en:Degree day. --Achillus 14:57, 25 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubito quin sit translatio Latina (facilis repertu) rei isti plus minus obscurae ... quid de "dies gradus (gen.)"? Mattie 05:46, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More physicae, solitur nomina duorum unitatum mensurae simpliciter componere cum "dimensio physica" unitatis compositae est "multiplicatio dimensionum physicarum" unitatum simplicium. Exempla (Anglice): Ampere-meter vel kilogram-metre (IV elementum). Ita est "degree day". Gnosces si "Ampere-meter" possit "Amperium metrum" seu "kilogram-metre" possit "chiliogrammum metrum" translari? Si possit, "degree day" sit "gradus dies"...
Contra: solitur "per" praepositionem uti cum "dimensio physica" unitatis compositae est "divisio dimensionum physicarum" unitatum simplicium; exemplum: kilometres per hour. --Achillus 09:40, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I'd simply interpreted it as "day of degree" (not having paid much attention to the article), which I now see to have been completely off-mark. "Kilometres per hour" is chiliometra horalia, so in the same spirit, I'd go for something along the lines of "gradus diarii." But wait to see what others think. Mattie 15:14, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well... Maybe my Latin-2 is not as good as my English-3 ;) We are _not_ in the case similar to "kilometers per hour" (with contra I meant "on the other side") but we _are_ in the case similar to "ampere-meter" and "kilogramme-meter". --Achillus 08:29, 29 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ecce gradus dies... spero intellecturum esse. --Achillus 11:19, 12 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
E' buona la tua voce! :) Mattie 23:02, 13 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merci! :) --Achillus 15:53, 14 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascicula recensere

Quem paginam specialem necesse me adire fasciculum novi adiungendi fasciculi causa? --Traianus 21:30, 26 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fasciculi in Vicipaediam ipsam non recipiuntur; oportet in Communia addere e.g. hac pagina. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:52, 26 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Etiam potes clicere (imprimere) Fasciculum imponere in sinistra supra columna intra Arcam ferramentorum et missilem intorquere.:)--Jondel 10:28, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias ago, Jondel, de eo oblitus sum! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Libenter!--Jondel 09:16, 29 Novembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translata est (rogatio pro formulam novam) recensere

Ave. Usor:Achillus/Translata est est mihi idea formulae ut includenda sit in disputationes paginarum translatarum. Ecce harenarius effectus monstrans. Plane stipula est. Prima perfectio est "Vicipaedia Italiana" vel "Vicipaedia Francogallica" et cetera legi: gnoscitis si verbum magicum sit nomen latinum linguae daturum ex codice? (Unfortunately {{#language:}} does not work this way, it gives the language name in the language itself). Forma verborum etiam perficienda. Dite mihi. --Achillus 16:25, 12 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomen linguae addidi. --UV 22:15, 12 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our current custom is to write "ex en:Name of translated page" in the summarium when editing the page; see Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_17#Acknowledging_a_whole-article_translation. I'd rather we stay consistent and keep to what we're already doing, personally. Mattie 23:17, 12 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laborem Achilli et UV laudo, sed cum Mattie consentio; simplicius est (sicut in Taberna statuimus) originem inserere in summario. Praefero in paginis disputationum disputationes reperire; si sit nulla disputatio, esto nulla pagina. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 13 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias, nescibam... Vicipaedia Latina ex Vicipaedia Italiana differt. At nunc in summarium paginarum a me translatarum nexus ad paginas originales non est... quomodo summaria corrigentur? --Achillus 15:10, 13 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summaria corrigi non possunt. Potes novam recensionem (fortasse recensionem minorem) facere et ibi fontem tuam in summarium inscribere. --UV 16:07, 13 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Facta sunt. --Achillus 13:54, 14 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ling and references formatting recensere

Does anyone understand why template {{Ling}} makes weird results with vector skin when used in references, when the <references /> tag is surrounded with <span class="references-small"></span>? See for instance Desertum (Italia) (no template, all ok) and Paludes Tartari fluminis (the rows after the one containing the template do not display as "references-small"). I am sure that it's template {{Ling}} that makes the difference (I tested it alone in previews). --Achillus 15:53, 14 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at home so can't experiment right now, but it looks to me like the style attribute in the Ling template may be part of the problem. The template declares a <span> with attribute "style=font-size:0.95em; color:gray;" and it seems that the style isn't getting dropped at the end of this span. Perhaps it would be enough to drop the font-size part (which would mean the language name would be the same size as surrounding text rather than a smidgeon smaller). A. Mahoney 17:07, 14 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The {{ling}} template is fine, the problem was in the the syntax of the Paludes Tartari fluminis page. Explanation: In markup, "span" is an "inline" element and can only form part of a paragraph or list item, it can (despite its name) never span across the boundary of a paragraph or of a list item (such as a reference item). On the contrary, "div" is a "block" element and can encompass several other block elements (such as paragraphs or lists, or, in our case, the entire references list with several items). --UV 19:23, 14 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eia! Gratias tibi ago pro explicationem. Ego paginam aliam corrigam. --Achillus 13:57, 15 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha: should have looked more closely! Thanks for researching this. A. Mahoney 13:22, 16 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structura paginae recensere

Does this page still holds or should it be updated? I notice, for instance, that nowadays {{CommuniaCat}} is usually put in the "Nexus externi" part instead of in the bottom of the page. I also notice that the order of final "standard" sections differs from English Wikipedia order, while most editors seem to stick to the EW structure. --Achillus 14:32, 17 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mihi logicius videtur nexus ad Communia inter nexus externos ponere. Quod ad alia spectat, haec structura paginae simillima est huic, qua ipse utor... licet sine dubio semel bisve peccaverim in notis, parte "vide etiam," nexibusque externis bono ordine conlocandis :) Mattie 17:33, 17 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In those articles that I have written (or begun), there tends to be a rather intimate relation between "Notae" and "Bibliography". Therefore, I feel averse to putting "Nexus externi" between them. Furthermore, methinks, "Vide etiam" and "Nexus externi" are external additions that don't belong to the internal structure of the article. These are my reasons for rejecting the "Forma typica" (which, btw, ought to be written in Latin). Neander 18:54, 17 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notae → bibliographia → vide etiam → nexus externi certainly looks good to me. The page is written in Latin... Mattie 19:39, 17 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paginam mutavi ut et usus Vicipaediae linguae nostrae et maxime manualis Anglicum reddatur. Spero intellecturam esse. --Achillus 11:00, 18 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Emendationes laudo, sed nescio an utile sit et "Bibliographia" et "Lege etiam" accipere. Ego si "Lege etiam" in paginis nostris repperi, ad "Bibliographia"m semper mutavi! Suadeo simplicius esse indicem librorum commentationumque singulum usoribus praebere.
Si novum ordinem supplementorum (i.e. Notae, Bibliographia, Vide etiam, Nexus externi) omnes accipimus, quaero an fortasse bot quoddam paginas iam factas rursus ordinare posset. Ego enim multas centenas paginarum alio ordine creavi!
Anglice, If everyone is happy with this revised order of supplement sections, would it be possible for a bot to rearrange already-existing pages in this order? Because I know I have written many hundreds of pages in the other order (Vide etiam, Notae, Nexus externi, Bibliographia)! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bot rearrangement: Probably not, the risk would be too high that the bot moves things around in undesired ways. --UV 22:06, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for considering this: I see the difficulty. If everyone agrees on a new fixed order, we can gradually move to it as we edit existing pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the order received from (not long after) the Founding was: Vide etiam, Notae, Fontes, Nexus externi. I've contributed many hundreds of pages following that order. (I used to use the heading "Fontes," but it was Andrew's use of "Bibliographia," despite his present protestation, that abhinc annos tres ~ quattuor led me to favor that heading most of the time.) Since prints are often readable online, a distinction between physical objects and electronic versions of them may no longer be useful, though perhaps a distinction between electronic versions of prints and electronic versions of texts that have never gone through the press may still be worth keeping. IacobusAmor 14:45, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I make no protestation -- I have always favoured "Bibliographia" and still do. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:14, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% (or more) with your last point. My fixed rule, wherever I compile a Vicipaedia bibliographia, is to include in it only items that have been published or have undergone an equivalent peer-review process (thus I have, for example, sometimes included Encyclopaedia Iranica articles even though these no longer appear in print). All other on-line items I relegate to "Nexus externi". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:22, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Until a couple of days ago, I didn't even know (or possibly remember) the existence of the "structura paginae" page. I edited the page bona fide without any notion that I might thereby create some bureucratic trouble. My edits can be reverted, of course. I may occasionally, though, fail to show obedience to rules whose raison d'être escapes my wit. Neander 16:24, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be diffident: I (for one) see no bureaucratic trouble. I have been hoping that eventually a logical reason to prefer one or other order would show up: yours, Neander, is the only one that I have seen expressed, and it suits me ... but perhaps others take different views? Several different arrangements are to be found when glancing through random pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:13, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is "Vide etiam" for? This is the main thing we have to understand. My assumption is that "Vide etiam" is *not* a list that replicates somehow the wikilinks already present in the article (exactly as it is written in the explanation below the consilium page: Sub rubrico "Vide etiam" adde paucos nexus lectoribus utiles quae in textu non potes inserere.). In the English Wikipedia there is written that As a general rule the See Also section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes and this is also what is written in our Latin page; but then it adds a very interesting thing: Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a See Also section.. I agree.
Assuming this (as this is the main point in my opinion) the "Vide etiam" section should not precede the "Notae" and "Bibliographia" sections, because "Notae" are part of the article itself and the "Bibliographia" section (well... here is another assumption in my opinion) is the list of printed books used to build the Wikipedia article; on the other side, the "Vide etiam" section collects links to related articles and (by definition) this list is not a part of the article.
Having this assumption in mind, my preferred order is "Notae", "Bibliographia", "Vide etiam", "Lege etiam" (a list of related books, but not used to build the article - same rationale used to build the "Vide etiam" section), "Nexus externi". "Lege etiam" is my personal translation of "Further reading" and can be changed with a better expression if needed. --Achillus 09:25, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to discuss these matters, and I am really glad that you and Neander have raised them.
As regards "Vide etiam", I agree with you completely. An ideally good article will not have a "Vide etiam" section, because all related topics will already have a link in the text. An incomplete article will often have a "Vide etiam" section. Part of my aim, if I improve articles, is either to incorporate "Vide etiam" links into new text, or to delete them if they are not really relevant.
I agree with you and Neander completely over the order of elements, and, if we all agree, I will be happy if my existing pages can be changed by a bot so that the order is standard.
I am uncertain whether it is useful to readers to have a separate list of books that were used for building the article, and books that are also relevant. I am trying to look at it from the eventual reader's point of view, and I do not see why the reader will be helped by having two book lists. I am thinking aloud here. Wikipedia articles are "works in progress": therefore, as we improve the article, we should use all available sources, and we might well consult books from both lists. If we have done so, what do we do? Transfer the book from "Lege etiam" to "Bibliographia". So eventually there will be no "Lege etiam": either we will have consulted those books, or else we will have decided they are not useful, and deleted them. Therefore an ideally good article will not have a "Lege etiam", because the books will either have been consulted (so they go into the bibliographia) or found to be useless (so the mention can be deleted).
OK, so, in my opinion this morning (!), both the "Vide etiam" and "Lege etiam" sections should be regarded as temporary: an ideally complete article probably will not have either of them. What do others think of this? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:29, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in every respect! I've never understood why there should be two bibliographies. Neander 12:04, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I draw the line at twelve indentation markers. I'm going back to the left margin!)

Summarizing, then: we want our reference sections in the order Notae, Bibliographia, Nexus Externi. Notae is the <div class="references-small"> etc. Bibliographia contains the books, articles, and other sources cited in footnotes or otherwise relevant to writing the page, or useful for readers (for an example of how this might work, see Mathematica). Nexus Externi begins with a link to Communia if appropriate, and presumably also to Vicifons if appropriate, then any other useful web links not already included. Vide Etiam, containing internal links, should be removed in favor of incorporating those links into the text. Lege Etiam, containing bibliographic items not directly cited in footnotes, should be merged into Bibliographia. Have I got it right? If so, this seems sensible to me. I'm not sure we need a concerted effort to make all existing articles conform to this shape (though at least some easy cases should be bottable), but we might want to re-order articles we find ourselves working on. A. Mahoney 15:06, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nexus Externi begins with a link to Communia if appropriate, and presumably also to Vicifons if appropriate, then any other useful web links not already included." That arrangement is visually awkward: it's bad graphic design. Links to Communia & Wikimedia, unless they're redesigned, should follow the other nexus externi; as something-more-than-just-plain-text, they'd lead more smoothly there to the sign of a stipula. Alternatively, if the links to Communia & Wikimedia could be made into a box that would fit on the right-hand side, as in the Find-more-about-Martinique-on-Wikipedia's-sister-projects box in en:Martinique, that would look good. Incidentally, en:Martinique shows an exemplary series in: Miscellaneous topics + See also + References + External links. The last two sections naturally go at the bottom because that's the area to which presses always shunt material that nobody reads. In contrast, a Vide etiam function can still be part of a text (the part that people might read). Just yesterday I read a text in which were embedded vide etiams like this: "Blablabla (Smith 1992; on the contrary, see Jones 1993; for more on the by-election, see Turtelheim 1993). Blablabla." And yes, it makes no sense to have both a Lege etiam section and a Bibliographia section. IacobusAmor 16:03, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you that vide etiams can be included in the text and notes.
A "miscellaneous topics" section seems a bad example to me (possibly an excuse for not deleting the "trivia" section that was wisely outlawed on en:wiki a few years ago).
What's your view about the proposed order "Notae", "Bibliographia", "Nexus externi", Iacobe? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:13, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about a "miscellaneous topics" section. IIRC, the notae, bibliographia, and nexus externi sections have been in that order since time immemorial. ¶ But a new question arises! Is there any support here for putting photogalleries at the very bottom, below everything that's been discussed in this thread? That's where we occasionally find them in Wikipedia (for example, at en:Polygonia c-album.) Ex contrario, they seem to belong more with the text than with the supporting matter, so one should prefer to continue Vicipaedia's tradition of putting them just before the vide etiam section (itself just before the notae section); however, if we had unanimous consent to put them at the very bottom, one might not object. ¶ A propos galleries: contributors may have a tendency to overdo the pinacotheca section, especially when numerous images are available, but multiple images can sometimes be useful. For example, with butterflies, it can be helpful to show (1) the egg, (2) the larva, (3) the pupa, (4) the adult from above, (5) the adult from below, (6) any major or diagnostic dimorphic differences between males & females, and (7) other relevant things, such as the damage that the larvae can inflict (one of these, usually #4, will already be in the taxobox), but of course at this stage of development, the wikipedias don't have a complete array of such images for most species. IacobusAmor 13:53, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must look up "IIRC" some time, but it seems that all who have so far spoken agree :)
I agree with you also about the pinacotheca! If I use one at all, it is (as you say) because there is a special need to display a series of images; e.g. near the foot of Triumphi Caesaris (Mantegna), where I wanted small images of the woodcut versions of the pictures. In general, Vicipaedia is not a picture gallery, and another aspect of improving an incomplete page is aligning useful images alongside the text, deleting useless ones, and thus eliminating the great majority of our pinacothecae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:15, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the summary by A. Mahoney a lot. We can make it clear that sections like "Vide etiam", "Pinacotheca" and possibly "Lege etiam", "Miscellaneous", "Trivia" and the like are strongly discouraged. One can add "Vide etiam" and/or "Pinacotheca" sections at the bottom of the article as a suggestion to other editors to "inline" the items; by the way, other editors are free to inline the items as well as to remove the sections if the items are found to be unrelated. --Achillus 13:03, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the benefit of functionally organised galleries of the type of which Iacobus gave a good example, but in general, there are way too much pages in which galleries have been piled up obviously in order to compensate for the dearth and jejuneness of the text. I agree that galleries might be put before the vide etiam or even before the notae section, provided that they're carrying a sensible function. Neander 15:08, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De pagina "Cuba" in Vicipaedia recensere

Avete! Ecce Cubanus sum, et in Habana, caput insulae Cubae, habito. Intellegere non possum cur nomen civitatis nostrae in pagina Vicipaediae ad Cubam dedicata, "Avana" et non "Habana" scriptum est. Cubani nunquam ita civitatem nostram nominamus, sed omnes semper, a temporibus Hispanicae coloniae, consensum habemus quod nomen "Habana" litteram B utentes, et praeterea in principio verbi litteram H adiungentes, recte scribundum est. Insuper nihil dicit Vicipaedia de Latinitate in Cuba, ubi semper hanc pulcherrimam Linguam multi docti viri coluerunt. Primi libri nostri Latine scripti sunt. Lingua Latina et non dialecto Hispanico magistri docebant in prima nostra Universitate Sancti Hieronimi Habanae. Et etiam in publicis inscriptionibus, Lingua Latii semper praestitit; verbi gratia, videte Epigrammam in memoriam defuncti Episcopi Iohannis Iosephi Diaz Espadae et Landae, quam scripsit egregius presbyterus Iosephus Augustinus Caballerus: "Animus si ipsius, moresque despingi potuissem, pulchrior in terra nulla tabella fovet". Puto hanc paginam Vicipaediae rem valde inchoatam esse. Et vellem magis de Cubana Latinitate et coloniale Historia nostra hic scribere. Valete.

Commentationem pristinam non subscriptam Habanensis scripsit (disputationes conlationes) 19:48, 18 Decembris 2011‎.

Salve Habanensis et gratus apud nos. Nomina aut Havana aut Avana sola invenitur Latine, quamquam Habana nomen verum Hispanicum est nullo dubio. Inspice exempli gratia fontes complures Latines qui dantur apud pagina Havana.Rafael
Commentationem pristinam non subscriptam scripsit (disputationes conlationes) 12:35, 19 Decembris 2011‎‎.

Automaton pro formulam:Municipium Italiae (tertia pars) recensere

Hi. Now I am ready for the third span of the bot. Sorry for long delay, but I had to build some pages: Seismologia, Classis seismica et Gradus dies. These seems to me good terms in Latin, see this discussion about the third one; I then found a bilingual (Italian-Latin) journal (year 1906) where "seismologia" was the equivalent for "sismologia" (i.e. seismology) and "seismicus" was the adjective in use in the Latin part. I hope that these are agreed translations. If so, these are the new equivalences:

NominisGenetivus -> GenetivusNominis
ImaginisInscriptio -> InscriptioImaginis
Datum -> DiesCensusIncolarum
zonaSismica -> ClassisSeismica
gradiGiorno -> GradusDies

Then some parameters are not used and can be deleted:

mappaX -> (delendum)
mappaY -> (delendum)

The last parameters are tricky: they need some computation by the bot, if possible:

Annus=2005 (exemplum) -> DiesCensusIncolarum=anno&nbsp;2005
AnnusMagistriCivium=2010 (exemplum) -> DiesElectionis=anno&nbsp;2010
AnnusCensusLinguarum=2009 (exemplum) -> DiesCensusLinguarum=anno&nbsp;2009

Is this feasible? --Achillus 13:54, 19 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an easy thing to do, but it would not be a good idea at all, because the parameter "Annus" currently contains data in a variety of date formats, for example:
So, there are several possibilities, including:
  • To leave the parameter value of "Annus" unchanged (the parameter name can be changed if desired) (UVbot can do this)
  • To delete the day and month and to keep only the year (UVbot can do this)
  • To edit the pages manually to whatever form is desired (UVbot can probably not do this)
Greetings, --UV 21:45, 19 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... those boxes (except Panormus) have been compiled in the wrong way, they should have used "Datum" parameter instead of "Annus" parameter.
Well... by the way the second bullet make me feel that the bot can understand if there is a day and month or if there is year only. In this case, I wonder if it is possible to split execution, i.e.:
  • if only year, add "anno&∓nbsp;", else leave it as it is
Or maybe the best solution should be to leave the data unchanged. The result would not be so bad, say something like this:
  • Numerus Incolarum: 11 358 (2010)
instead of:
  • Numerus Incolarum: 11 358 (anno 2010)
The last thing I can think of is the following: if both Datum and Annus have values, then the priority goes to Datum (as they both "collapse" into DiesCensusIncolarum).
Oops... I forgor another thing: the bot should also remove all formatting from these parameters:
Locutores=11&thinsp;358 (exemplum) -> Locutores=11358
NumerusIncolarum=11.358 (exemplum) -> NumerusIncolarum=11358
I do not think I ever found anything after the number in "NumerusIncolarum" (something like a comment or a note), by the way if I am wrong this comment or note should go in NotaCensusIncolarum; this parameter creates a "ref" tag so in this case the "Notae" section should also be checked and created if necessary... Too many things? --Achillus 08:49, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removing dots and &thinsp;s from "Locutores" and "NumerusIncolarum" seems doable. What shall we do about "Datum" now, leave it as it is (no changes to parameter values, and no changes to the parameter name either)? --UV 22:03, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I stroke the preceding and I summarize the new request:
NominisGenetivus -> GenetivusNominis
ImaginisInscriptio -> InscriptioImaginis
Datum -> DiesCensusIncolarum
Annus -> DiesCensusIncolarum
zonaSismica -> ClassisSeismica
gradiGiorno -> GradusDies
AnnusMagistriCivium -> DiesElectionis
AnnusCensusLinguarum -> DiesCensusLinguarum
mappaX -> (delendum)
mappaY -> (delendum)
Locutores=11&thinsp;358 (exemplum) -> Locutores=11358
NumerusIncolarum=11.358 (exemplum) -> NumerusIncolarum=11358
As you see, both Datum and Annus collapse into DiesCensusIncolarum. The request is: if at most one parameter is valued, then keep that value. If both parameters are valued, keep the value that was in "Datum". Examples.
  • Datum=31-12-2009
  • Annus=
  • DiesCensusIncolarum=31-12-2000
  • Datum=
  • Annus=2008
  • DiesCensusIncolarum=2008
  • Datum=31-10-2011
  • Annus=2010
  • DiesCensusIncolarum=31-10-2011
I hope that it is clearer now. --Achillus 10:20, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will look into this within the next few days. Greetings, --UV 23:22, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Greetings, --UV 21:35, 27 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias :) Nunc optimae sunt. Vale. --Achillus 09:32, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slipping magnifier, and: Adiutatum? recensere

  • I’ve noticed that the magnifier of the vide-etiam-formula slips over the pages (at least on Graecia and Cos – and maybe somewhere else? Could someone fix it to the right place?
  • Where ist the data content of Adiutatum? Where are the formulae etc.?--Utilo 20:18, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. The magnifier was defined as a "floating element" instead of an "inline element" so its position was unpredictable
  • Right now the "Auxilium:" namespace (if this is what you mean) is empty. You can find most help in Categoria:Consilia Vicipaediana. You can also refer to Specialis:Praefixa and specify "Vicipaedia" as "spatium nominale". Formulae are in Categoria:Formulae. I hope that I answered your question.
--Achillus 08:37, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks about the magnifier, Achille: I never understood that problem.
I'm not sure, but maybe the second question was about this: There was a sudden change in the position and function of items in the left margin yesterday: one of the changes was that "Adiutatum" moved upwards and pointed to nothing. It has now moved back to its usual position and leads to Vicipaedia:Praefatio as it normally does. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:58, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Thank you. --Achillus 12:50, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both!--Utilo 13:48, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any Thurber enthusiasts? recensere

I've just started Surgere mane and interwiki linked it to en:Waking up early. The English page seems to consist largely of errors, but I think it possible that the reference to James Thurber is correct. (His book Fables for our time appeared in 1940: the relevant fable is presumably "The Shrike and the Chipmunks", which had previously appeared in the New Yorker, Feb 18, 1939, and the quotation I need to confirm is "Early to rise and early to bed, makes a Shrike healthy, and wealthy, and dead".) Can anyone confirm or emend this from a printed text? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:45, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done it now. Like every other sentence in that en:wiki article, it is partly wrong. My problem in trying to verify the quotation via google was that the error is in the key word. The correct text is surely "Early to rise and early to bed makes a male healthy and wealthy and dead" (see page 339 apud Google Books). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:23, 25 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't help with the printed text, but what have you done with Dr. Millmoss?! IacobusAmor 13:12, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is unknown to me. Please enlighten me! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google is our friend! (The quotation is from one of Thurber's best-known cartoons; it turns up in conversation from time to time.) IacobusAmor 15:53, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man stupid and blind in the eyes." --Robert.Baruch 15:03, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. Seems to be a wise insight first spoken by Mazer Rackham, a character devised by en:Orson Scott Card in en:Ender's Game. Have I got that right? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:32, 24 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquote agrees, although it claims there's no and: "Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man stupid and blind in the eyes." Of course, if someone actually has the book, that's always a better source. Mattie 17:55, 24 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Web sources, especially wikis, tend to get these things subtly wrong. Of the sources I can find, the one I am inclined to trust is this because there's a chance it was copy-pasted from the book text. What I don't know (maybe Robert does) is whether this quote first appeared in the 1977 Analog novelette, or only in the 1985 book version.Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:54, 25 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've only read the 1985 version, not the novelette. --Robert.Baruch 00:04, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying!
You were right, Robert, and Wikquote is wrong, about the exact wording of the quotation. I've checked the book myself meanwhile. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) We really are a bunch of nerds, aren't we. --Robert.Baruch 14:53, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "pedants" :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly relevant, mais ceci me déçoit : Se coucher tôt, se lever tôt, rend l'homme stupide et aveugle. Pourquoi pas "rend l'homme aveugle et sot"?! (ou même cela rend... pour le bon montant de syllabes!) Mattie 18:02, 24 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Quand les traducteurs se font mieux payer, nous aurons meilleures traductions ... peut-être" -- Andrew Dalby
Ouais, ça m'a pris presque cinq secondes pour aveugle et sot (-; Joyeux Noël, Andrew! Mattie 19:40, 25 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pareillement! ... et à tous nos amis Vicipædiens ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:32, 25 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open Call for 2012 Wikimedia Fellowship Applicants recensere


I apologize that you are receiving this message in English. Please help translate it.

  • Do you want to help attract new contributors to Wikimedia projects?
  • Do you want to improve retention of our existing editors?
  • Do you want to strengthen our community by diversifying its base and increasing the overall number of excellent participants around the world?

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking Community Fellows and project ideas for the Community Fellowship Program. A Fellowship is a temporary position at the Wikimedia Foundation in order to work on a specific project or set of projects. Submissions for 2012 are encouraged to focus on the theme of improving editor retention and increasing participation in Wikimedia projects. If interested, please submit a project idea or apply to be a fellow by January 15, 2012. Please visit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships for more information.

Thanks! --Siko Bouterse, Head of Community Fellowships, Wikimedia Foundation 02:53, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Fix here.)

Placement of code for a stipula recensere

One notices that in Provincia Ravennas noster Achillus has moved the sign of the stipula from just before the categories to just after them. Since the stipula box always prints at the bottom, the placement of this code doesn't matter, but the tradition in Vicipaedia has always been to type the code just before the code for the categories. The practice in other wikis may differ. IacobusAmor 14:03, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputationem vide de Structura paginae :) It makes no difference to me either, I was just using the structure that was "in charge" at the moment of my edit (a copy-and-paste from English WP - yes, according to the rules there the stub templates should go between categories and interwikies). Now the structure of our VP has changed again, my next edit will reflect the new structure. --Achillus 15:41, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, Achille. I think in practice we have always followed the order that Iacobus states: it's just that the "Structura paginae" page never said so (until today) :( Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:06, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, VP is a work-in-progress. We all are (should be) aware of this. My preference goes to {{stipula}} placed before categories, by the way the visual result is the same so I have no special reason to prefer this in spite of that. --Achillus 13:07, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

De "Categoria:Locus patrimonium UNESCO continente digesta" recensere

Amice Nuada, matutinum huius diei felicis coffeum imbibere iam coepimus, sed grammaticam tuae locutionis non intellegimus. Eheu! Forsitan Anglice sit 'a place, a UNESCO patrimony, arranged by continent'? Sed quid significant haec verba occulta? Nostris huius generis categoriis plerumque sunt formulae plurales, quia digerere singulam rem nullo modo fieri potest. Praeterea, adiectivum digesta perperam nomen locus (vel nomen patrimonium) petit, atque verbum Anglicum 'patrimonial' (in locutione congruente 'a patrimonial place') Latine est patritus, -a, -um. Haud scimus ergo an melius sint verba "Loci patriti UNESCO continente digesti." (Acronymum UNESCO hic erit adiectivum quod verbum loci petit, ut sit UNESCOenses, non?) Belle, alium nobis faciamus calicem coffei nunc. :/ IacobusAmor 12:44, 25 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Jakarta est nomen in lingua maternali Indonesia constitutum et ab Ephemeris Latina praelatum;

*Habemus paucas citationes pro "Iacarta" (sed possum accipere!) et "Iacartum" (cur neutrum?) Andrew Dalby 10:00, 6 Novembris 2010 (UTC)

Andrea carissime, auctoritatem appellandi, quemadmodum patrii terram ipsam nominauerint, non intellego necque percipio: nunquam enim ea genera rituum secuti sumus quae consuetidunum natura Latine scribendi quam uehementissime contrauertuntur. Maxima cum audacia Janum Pannonium, qui nomen sibi cum J dederat, cum I moris Vicipaediani respectu inscribimus; ut etiam apud eos, qui se Iohannem neque Ioannem appellabant. Quae cum ita sint nequeo usum J accipere. Quod ad k spectat, a me accipitur; sed nescio cur oporteat ut in hac littera iamdudum prorsus exstincta permaneamus, quippe qua uti in iis uerbis consueuerint, si litteram uocales ae, oe, e, i, y sequantur sed antiquo modo item ac post a, o, u, consonantes et uerbo finito pronuntiantur. --Martinus Poeta Juvenis 10:24, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fontes Latinos pro "Jakarta" et pro "Iacarta" repperi; ego igitur olim formam quae cum nomine vulgari congruit selegi, sed licet aliis aliter statuere! (Victrix causa deis placuit, sed victa Catoni :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stipula coleopterorum recensere

Is there a chance that some kind programmer will find an icon of a beetle and insert it into the stipula


Haec stipula ad Coleoptera spectat. Amplifica, si potes!

so we don't have to keep looking at that #$%#$% flower where a beetle should be? A tiny beetle could well be sitting on the flower, but we can't see it. :/ IacobusAmor 18:45, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this beetle good enough? ;)
coleopteron pro Iacobo
--Aylin 19:32, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, that's a lovely one, a stag beetle, Lucanus cervus ! We'll have to make a page for it someday. Gratias !IacobusAmor 19:57, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

#REDIRECT categoriarum? recensere

How do we redirect categories? Redirection would help people who, for example, might search for Categoria:Taxa Bily, rather than Categoria:Taxa Bílý‎ (note the accents). Or is redirecting categories possible? IacobusAmor 13:53, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting is possible, but if you add pages to [[:Categoria:Taxa Bily]] they will not display in Categoria:Taxa Bílý. So I think it is preferable not to create redirects for categories. For queries: you can always search VP without accents; pages and the rest with accents will display even if there is no redirect. --Achillus 14:56, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Achillus is right: redirection, although technically possible, is deprecated for categories. The result of setting up a redirect would be that if you then added a category under the variant name to a page, it would look blue, but no one would be able to navigate to it. It would be effectively lost. This is a weakness of the wiki environment which we by ourselves can't overcome.
Luckily, as Achillus says, a search without accents should normally result in finding the titles that have accents.
A more complete solution, if you want to go this far, is to create a biography page for the biologist Bílý. Such a page can have all the necessary redirects and can have a link to the category. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:47, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my mistake. Then could some kind soul delete the redirect we made for "Bily." Sorry! IacobusAmor 20:52, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. No problem. It is frustrating.
Incidentally, I edited the page for Categoria:Taxa Bílý. You might like to glance at it to see what I did. The name still looks right, but it will now file in the expected place between Bik and Bim!Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:39, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatum "{{reflist}}" recensere

UV ut videtur mandatum "{{reflist}}" mandato "<div class="references-small"><references /></div>" mutat. Quia mandatum "{{reflist}}" in monitorio recte in Vicipaedia imprimitur et multo brevius est, cur id vitare debemus? IacobusAmor 20:52, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vitare non necesse est. {{reflist}} est mandatum brevius, "<div class="references-small"><references /></div>" immo est mandatum directius.
Non feci solum hanc mutationem, sed dum res aliae mutavi, mutavi etiam hanc rem. Vale! --UV 23:48, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any programmers handy? recensere

If possible, {{Infobox military conflict}}, {{Campaignbox Indochina Wars}}, and {{Campaignbox Vietnam War}} need to be made to work in Bellum Indosinense II. IacobusAmor 21:06, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working on this. --Robert.Baruch 15:51, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Need an administrator to go to en:MediaWiki:Common.css, copy out the two blocks relating to the .hlist style, and insert into MediaWiki:Common.css. Then do the same for en:MediaWiki:Common.js to MediaWiki:Common.js. After that, I can continue to work on this. --Robert.Baruch 16:21, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Macte! For the article in question, fixing the boxes will improve our standing in regard to the 1000 paginae. IacobusAmor 16:35, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UV has solved the issue without having to change Common.*, and as an added benefit, I feel like an idiot :) --Robert.Baruch 21:24, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need at all and no justification at all for this "added benefit"! I am just a bit reluctant to add several lines of code to our Common.* that would affect only a few of our pages but that would nevertheless have to be served and processed/executed on every page view. Glad you like the solution! Greetings, --UV 21:28, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iacobus, or anyone, can you provide better Latin terms for the terms "military engagement", "Indochina Wars", "Belligerents", "Commanders and leaders", "strength" (i.e. number and type of forces), "Casualties and losses", "Territorial changes", "Units involved"? Then I can change all the headings and the names of the formulae for great Latinitas. --Robert.Baruch 21:30, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The formulae can now be used: {{Capsa belli}}, {{Campaignbox Indochina Wars}} (pending Latinitas for "Indochina Wars"), and {{Expeditio Belli Indosinense II}}. The above terms still need translation. --Robert.Baruch 01:09, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pro "military engagement", "Indochina Wars", "Belligerents", "Commanders and leaders", "strength" (i.e. number and type of forces), "Casualties and losses", "Territorial changes", "Units involved" : fortasse: pugna ~ proelium, Bella Indosinensia, belligerentes, imperatores et duces, vires, casus, mutationes terrae ~ territorii, copiae ? IacobusAmor 16:19, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we now have {{Capsa belli}}, {{Expeditio Bellorum Indosinensiorum}}, and {{Expeditio Belli Indosinense II}}. Have fun! --Robert.Baruch 02:41, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've allowed it to print just now, and a few bits of coding still need work. "Part of" needs to be "Pars." The flags and flagicons aren't converting at all. And we need to import & Latinize the {{Campaignbox Indochina Wars}}. You may notice a few other matters that still need attention. IacobusAmor 16:23, 22 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC) ¶ Also not printing: {{Age in years and days|1955|11|1|1975|04|30}} and "causes" (see "Doctrina Ludi Domini" &c. in the text. IacobusAmor 17:07, 22 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best just to delete the flagicons. They add nothing. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:08, 22 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

crater impactionis? recensere

Lucubrans verbum ineptum pro „Einschlagskrater / Impact crater“ excogitavi (vel melius ex-somniavi): crater impactationis. Antequam paginam (denuo) movebo, sententiam vestram de optima notione quaerere mihi videtur: crater impactionis, crater ictus, crater meteoritae impactione / ictu ortus .... ?--Utilo 14:01, 2 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crater impactus ? Crater incussu factus ? IacobusAmor 13:17, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Constat impactationem a verbo frequentativo impactare 'saepe pluriesve impingere' deductam esse. Itaque potius cratera impactionis suaserim. Quod Leo Latinus quidem de cratere illisionis loquitur, fontem extravicipaedianum habemus: ∓crater illisionis (Ephemeris 2007). Neander 17:38, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cassell's doesn't have inlisio (or illisio, or even lisio). What's it's root? Laedo ? IacobusAmor 22:20, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ita vero. Neander 22:33, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
illido iam apud scriptores "Latinitatis aureae" in usu est, illisio apud Hieronymum et Caelium Aurelianum; contra impactio ne tarda quidem antiquitate apparere videtur. Quare (et propter fontem extravicipaedianum) verbo crater illisionis utar. Gratias vobis ago pro sententiis vestris!--Utilo 22:51, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sphaerae recensere

Spheres are sphaerae (f. pl., well attested), except when they arent: hemispheres are hemisphaeria (n. pl., well attested). So what are the rarer spheres: biosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, pedosphere? One assumes that hemisphaerium is an exception because of its halfness; hence its derivation from a Greek diminutive, hemisphaerion. The other spheres being whole, one assumes they're not diminutives and therefore follow the pattern of atmosphaera (f. sing., well attested). Right? IacobusAmor 13:17, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly makes sense. Another difference is that hemisphere uses sphere in the sense of geometrical figure, and the other *-spheres use sphere in the sense of region. --Robert.Baruch 15:49, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the drinking establishment or the ones on the window, but the two-dimensional geometrical shape whose one side is much larger than the other side (as in search bar and bar code). My Traupman doesn't have this sense. It has vectis as the unqualified translation, but that seems to specifically mean a thing used to impart leverage, as in a crowbar, a lever, a bar on a door or gate, and so on. Ideas? --Robert.Baruch 16:38, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For bar in the sense of 'crossbeam', Stearn's Botanical Latin gives transtrum. It doesn't have a word for 'stripe', but for 'striped' it gives fasciatus and grammatus ('with raised lines') and vittatus ('longitudinally striped'). It doesn't have a word for 'band', but for 'banded' it adds that fasciatus = 'with transverse stripes of one colour crossing another'. These are technical terms in botany, and of course their analogs in zoology could differ. IacobusAmor 17:04, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on pictures of bobcats, probably fasciatus will have to do since the lines are neither raised nor longitudinal. --Robert.Baruch 17:33, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fascia, -ae would be the nominal form of fasciatus, I believe. Its definition, as provided by Felix Gaffiot, is "bande, ruban" (inter alia). Mattie 18:45, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, one of the subspecies of L. rufus is L. rufus fasciatus, the striped bobcat, so it's a good choice. --Robert.Baruch 01:00, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

automata recensere

Ave! Ego cum automata laboro. Meum auxilium libenter offero ad la.wikim. Quomŏdo possum adiuvare vos? "welcomer bots" vultisne? Spero non multa errora ego feci ut scrivere vos. Can I speak English? i am italian, i studied latin at school but it is faster for me to write English than Latin.--Nickanc 22:13, 7 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Nickanc. Yes you can write English (or Italian) on the Taberna and there are people who will understand! I expect those who know more about bots will answer your question, but certainly your offer is welcome. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:17, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Andrew. I would like to make my bot welcome automatically new users using welcome.py, therefore adding in every new user talk {{salve|Taberna}} %s where %s will be a random signature of the ones of you who want to welcome new users. My bot's name is User:Cellistbot.--Nickanc 21:34, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we should discuss beforehand whether we actually want to have new users welcomed automatically by a bot. If yes, then your help is greatly appreciated, but I am not yet convinced that this is desirable, for the following reasons:
  • The vast majority of "new" users are visitors to la.wikipedia who are editors on a different Wikimedia project (mostly: on a wikipedia in a different language) and most probably have followed an interwiki link. I suspect that hardly any one of them is able to write Latin. I believe that in most cases a welcome message is not helpful for these users, as they do not intend to edit or visit la.wikipedia regularly, and they know wikipedia (albeit in a different language) quite well. You can look at Specialis:Log/newusers and watch out for "Ratio automatice creata" (an account created beforehand on a different Wikimedia project, before visiting la.wikipedia) and for the redlink to "conlationes" (not a single edit). I would prefer not to have users without edits welcomed (minimum: 1 edit).
    Apart from this vast majority, there are two tiny fractions:
  • Users who do perform edits, but whose edits are not too helpful. This is mostly due to the fact that these users try to create content, but have insufficient Latin language skills. Nearly always (of course there is a small number of exceptions), such users over time do not make significant progress in learning Latin, even if they stay here. As these user's attempts to create content are not too helpful, I see no advantage in welcoming these users.
  • Users who perform useful edits (perhaps by improving the content, perhaps by useful administrative edits like maintaining interwiki links). Here, I consider a welcome by a human user more appropriate than a welcome by a bot, and the rate of arrival of new such users is small enough that, in my view, it is managable to welcome them all by a regular contributor.
Thoughts? --UV 23:37, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, actually I work on welcoming it.wiki and on some small wikis of italian regional languages (as venetian): we use to welcome both sul users and local registered users, but only if they make at least a edit. This solves the first of your points. Anyway, if you feel that this issue could be better done by a human, no problem. :) I am open to work with my bot on every kind of task you need, ok? :)--Nickanc 15:37, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about some other issues i could help with:
  • i may set my bot to make some of the corrections about the ortography (changing ligaturas, for example). Could I do some tests of this issue?
  • i could help if we need mass-creation of pages (if yes, we have to talk about good methods to work with this issue)
I really want to contribute to latin wikipedia. Unfortunately, i am very slow in writing in a good latin and i have not so much time, but with bots, I think to be able to help. :)--Nickanc 19:55, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can your bot find the genera of plants & animals that were created by a bot within Wikipedia? Their code usually contains a notice like "bot-generated article," with or without the (obligatory) hyphen. If so, translating their (one-sentence, formulaic) definitions and adapting their taxoboxes might be something a bot could do. The main problem would be in their categories, which don't always match ours, but if you could do the articles in small batches—say, 25 to 50 every few days—and place them in a temporary category (designed for the purpose), a human could come in after you and categorize them. I've been reluctant to import many of these by hand, partly in hopes that a bot could do it and partly because the process doesn't improve Vicipaedia much in relation to the (human) time spent on it. IacobusAmor 13:40, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am less familiar with the detail but I definitely agree with Iacobus that automatic creation of articles about species and genera could be a very good idea. If doing this, it will be wise to plan carefully, get good information, and write readable text to fit around the specific information (for a different example, see the new asteroid articles like 3001 Michelangelo). That way, we could increase the number of pages without reducing the overall quality of Vicipaedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:15, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea, but in my view, we should derive our information from a reputable source different from the English wikipedia. Greetings, --UV 19:52, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nickanc, I like your idea about tidying up some of the ligatures and so on; that's going to be very easy for a bot, very tedious for a human, and a visible (if small) contribution to uniformity. But it's not particularly substantial! As for the biological pages, is there a suitable source on line outside English Wikipedia that could be mined? If so, then pages could perhaps be generated from there. Iacobe, as the local bio-guru, do you know of any such source? Meanwhile, Nickanc, welcome to Vicipaedia, and don't hesitate to work on an article if you want; you can put the {{tiro}} formula at the head of a page to indicate you're out of practice with Latin. A. Mahoney 21:36, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about articles whose entire text will have this pattern: X est genus Y(gen.pl.) familiae Z(gen.pl.). The text will have been constructed from information already present in Wikipedia, in a human-authored article about family Z, where the genus will originally have been listed with a redlink. From the family-Z article, in addition to the lemma and the definition, a taxobox can be taken and extended to the genus-level. But all that will already have been done by an English-speaking bot, which will have inserted that fact into the code. The trick is to find such articles and adapt them to Vicipaedia's format. We wouldn't be asking the bot to write a new text, or even to compile anything. IacobusAmor 22:43, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have certainly encountered errors among the redlink lists of genera and species in en:wiki higher-level articles. When I say errors, I mean e.g. palimpsests of names some of which are (by currently accepted norms) synonyms of one another; and also misspellings and deprecated names. We know that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source", the founder says so! For building large numbers of articles it really would be better to use a source that everyone can consider reliable. I suspect we can find such sources.
For plants I have found Tropicos particularly useful, with info about the botanists as well as the species. Could it help? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:36, 15 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(redeo) Plantae: that is a topic i am working on it.wiki (about mass-creation i have written a short guide line in italian on it.wiki it:Aiuto:Creazione_sistematica_di_voci). The principal problem is reliability. On it.wiki we are working on a specific order of plants (see it:Progetto:Forme di vita/Festival della Qualità:Operazione Cycadales) using iucnredlist database, that it.wiki life forms project found reliable (for details you may ask them at it:Discussioni_progetto:Forme_di_vita, if you write in English, you will be answered, I think latin too). Once we have the reliable source, we need to define the structure the articles would have. Then, bot!--Nickanc 21:53, 16 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree about following this path to mass add pages about plantae?--Nickanc 20:18, 27 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favour, yes, I think it's a very good idea, as long as
  1. We have a reliable source (I agree that IUCN Redlist is suitable if it supplies the information we need)
  2. We agree on a format, including a good quantity of text (as we have done with the asteroid pages).
If others do not object, Nickanc, perhaps you would like to produce a sample page, showing the information that you can get from your source(s), and we can work on making it a useful page in good Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:55, 29 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A draft test at Bowenia serrulata. basically, the bot compiles with iucn database datas and substitues in pages the template User:Nickanc/Taxa. I am sure it is possible to improve it.--Nickanc 19:27, 4 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, Nickanc. I will have a good look at it this afternoon. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:29, 6 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a small note: that template is related to Cycadales ordo (the last i have been working with on it.wiki), but in fact, just changing ordo, divisio or classis in the template, it will work for every kind of plant.--Nickanc 15:11, 6 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anglice 'weak' =? recensere

For the weak force (or weak interaction) in physica particularum, wikitradition has given us Vis imbecillis, but that lemma can't be right, not least because the adjective is in the wrong declension; also, this kind of weakness is meant to be the opposite of fortis, and one wonders if imbecillus (sic) serves that function better than, say, invalidus or levis. Furthermore in several related articles, is vis the best gloss for 'force' = 'interaction'? According to Cassell's, its genitive singular is wanting, and at least one text that wikitradition has given us needs a genitive singular and uses vis for it. IacobusAmor 14:42, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

vis seems to be "terminus technicus" in sciences for "force" (e.g. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica), but in my opinion we should avoid mixing it up with other concepts (energia, mutuum commercium etc.).--Utilo 15:29, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sunt quattuor vires fundamentales physicae: 1. gravitas (physica), 2. vis electrica, 3. vis imbecillis (?? weak interaction = weak (nuclear) force / schwache Wechselwirkung), 4. vis fortis (strong interaction = strong (nuclear) force = color force / starke Wechselwirkung = starke Kraft = starke Kernkraft = Gluonenkraft = Farbkraft).--Utilo 15:57, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what about exilis, tenuis, gracilis? In my opinion they are more similiar to the meaning of weak in "weak force". Imbecillis makes me think of wikt:en:imbecile. In italian we use "forza nucleare debole" being debole = weak. Debole comes from latin "debilis". Maybe all my suggestions are quite original research, but i don't know books about modern physics in latin and i doubt there are so many books of this type.--Nickanc 17:06, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I omitted gracilis and tenuis because they're technical terms in botany, both meaning, not 'weak', but 'slender, thin'; similarly in botany (according to Stearn), exilis = 'small, meagre, weak, thin, slender', in which weakness, again, doesn't seem to be the basic idea. IacobusAmor 15:57, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grateful that IacobusAmor has competently taken these poor pages under his wing (being myself no physicist); I found the lemmata in physica particularum and took them up more or less assuming they were OK. I think vis probably is appropriate, and I'm not sure what would replace fortis, but I agree that debilis is better than imbecilla (and I feel silly for not noticing that imbecillis isn't the f. nom. sg.!). A. Mahoney 21:11, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, debilis looks tempting; but as to "these poor pages," I don't know much about the subjects and am just converting the words: just wait until I tackle noiselets and wavelets and singing candles! IacobusAmor 22:36, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"vis debilis" inquisii googlando: hic sunt effectus. Primus effectus dixit: "Quattuor sunt hae vires, nempe 'gravitationalis', 'electromagnetica', 'fortis', 'debilis'; quae in hoc differunt, quod diversa est ipsarum potentia." <<Debilis>> usare possumus? quid creditis?--Nickanc 13:33, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
mihi debilis melius imbecilli esse hoc sensu ( Words dat adiectivos et imbecillus et imbecillis Eodem sensu) ; proposita autem mutatio est bona.-- 08:49, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alicui erant dicenda ... recensere

Haec Tabernae nostrae imago photographica est horribilis!


Hae fortasse meliores essent:

Quid de hac re dicitis? Mattie 19:26, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tibi consentio Mattie, dum non aliae propositiones sunt iam suffragator A. quia mihi videor optime congregationem ad commercium loquendi audiendique apta effingere. --Leonellus Pons 03:05, 9 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non est horribilis. Amo! Quia est imago de amicis loquentibus et bibentibus. Ut nos. --Robert.Baruch 02:31, 9 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amici lepide inter urceos cerevisiae colloquentes mihi valde placent. Itaque picturam praesentem aliis propositis, licet per se iucundae sint, picturis praefero. Neander 03:40, 9 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
B-b-but the framing. The lighting. The awkward can of Pepsi in the corner. The overly busy background. The colouring. They're not talking, they're posing ... this belongs on Facebook! Mattie 03:56, 9 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ne mihi quidem mercium (sicut Pepsi) collocatio placet. Sed hilaris loci genius me delectat. Neander 14:25, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cum Matti consentio imaginem nunc in pagina impulchram esse. Et aliud addo: omnes in imagine, necnon in aliis quas Mattie nos proponit, sunt viri. Ubi sunt feminae? Fortasse una ex his:

-- quae imagines feminas una cum viris monstrant, ut hic apud Vicipaediam nos cum vobis aliis laboramus! A. Mahoney 13:25, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Profecto bene mones! Hae omnes quas proposuisti imagines mihi satis placent. Neander 13:46, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
F! F! F! Pulcherrima est et laeta :D ¶ Imagines quas posui eventum erant investigationis celerrimae... potius ad imaginis praesentis turpitudinem spectabat nuntius initialis meus, quam ad propositiones. Quomodo has imagines invenisti tu? Ego verbis sicut "pub," "restaurant," "coffee(house)," "(dinner) party" inter Communium imagines quaesivi, neque, ut videre potes, nihil optimi inveni. Mattie 16:47, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ego quoque verbis "pub" et "cafe" usa sum, etiam "conversation"; verbum "women" addi; tunc, categorias sicut "cafes in art" et "wine in art" inveniens, ibi quaesivi. Tam multae imagines apud Communia sunt, ut paene impossible sit id invenire, quod quaeras, nisi Fortuna faveat! A. Mahoney 17:06, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iterum apud Communia scrutatus sum, modo ut viderem utrum plura invenire possem, sed incommode nunc, nihil reperto, ad scholam mihi redeundum est! Mattie 17:22, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picturas quae sequuntur --

-- e categoriis nostris Categoria:Convivia figurata extraxi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:07, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ut quam vicipaediae Latinae proprias imagines habeamus has propono:

--Alex1011 20:02, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, Alex! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:59, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addo explicationem verbalem: ego sum qui imaginem ab Alex selectam ad caput Tabernae hodiernae imposui, sed pro tempore et ad experimentum faciendum neque ad disputationem praecipiendam! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puto, ut monuit AMahoney, tales imagines eligi debere, quae et feminas et viros monstrent. Tales sunt: F, G, H, I, K, N, O, Q. Quodsi Tabernam nostram etiam in posterum tabernam appellare velimus, mihi quidem videtur inter G et H eligendum esse. (Num F taberna appellari potest?) Ergo, si imaginem feminas virosque in taberna conviventes monstrantem eligere velimus, G mihi maxime placeat. Neander 08:04, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... F maxime mihi placet, sed non est taberna, ut dixis. Quod ad G pertinet, maestior est haec. Egomet autem alias inveni picturas! Ecce:

Mattie 18:15, 15 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nunc multum proficimus! Inter has, V et X mihi praecipue placent, et H supra, vel etiam K (imago notissima). Quid censetis? A. Mahoney 20:46, 15 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Robert.Baruch 01:59, 19 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alia quaestio recensere

Quid tibi placet? Imago abstracta ut E? Imago picta ut F? Aut imago photographica recentior ut Z? (Aut fortasse imago ridicula ut Δ!) --Robert.Baruch 02:04, 19 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imagines photographicae mihi saltem videntur efficere, ut homines depictos putes aliquos e nobis Vicipaedianis Latinis esse, etenim cum primum Vicipaediam duos abhinc annos inveni, hanc imaginem, quam adhuc ostendimus, hoc quidem repraesentare putabam! Quinam alioquin sint ei, quos in taberna habemus nostra? Qua ratione picturam photographicae (homines neque feles monstranti) imagini praefero ego. Quod ad alias quaestiones attinet tuas, picturae (F, &c.) imaginesque ridiculae (Δ) valde mihi placent! F quod pulchra felixque est, Δ autem faceta et iucunda, ex parte quod non eius generis imaginem in Vicipaedia Latina invenire expectaveris! Satis autem sententiarum mearum: quid tune putas, Roberte? Mattie 03:04, 19 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Imago Δ mihi quoque placet, sed quomodo scimus hi feles Latine miaulent? A. Mahoney 14:21, 20 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possumus orationis orbes addere quinque, ut feles "Maumo! Maumas! Maumare! Maumavi! Maumatum!" dicant! Mattie 22:12, 20 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Credo linguam Latinam odiosam esse feli secundae a sinistro. O mala felis! --Robert.Baruch 02:55, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ex Z ad Γ mihi placent, α praefero. --Achillus 14:29, 20 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Praefero α et β. --Alex1011 23:37, 23 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Imago quam non habemus, sed mea certe praedilecta, est illa non facta fuit apud conventiculum vicipaedianorum Romae! Sed ex imaginibus praepositis, egomet malo M--Xaverius 00:19, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mihi placet imagines photographica Γ et picta A (etsi haec absque feminis sit). --Leonellus Pons 00:24, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Imagines photographicae mihi placent. Et α et Γ mihi placent, quamquam feles non adsunt. --Robert.Baruch 02:50, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvete! recensere

Revera! Omnino assentior tibi. Omnium imaginum expositarum a te pictura prima mihi placet centuplicato quam haec. At haec imago risum commovet :)) Commentationem pristinam non subscriptam scripsit ( conlationes) 01:51, 9 Ianuarii 2012‎.

I am expanding Liber and need to talk about what books are made of, notably paper. OK, when I say "paper" in English it covers wood paper and rag paper but not papyrus. In modern Latin I have an attested term for rag paper charta cottonea, I can easily specify charta lignea and charta papyracea, but I don't think I know any term that corresponds precisely to English "paper", because charta includes papyrus while "paper" does not. Am I right? If so, it's no problem, I can work with it, I just need to be sure I'm not making a silly mistake. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:48, 10 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For paper in the sense 'material for writing on', Cassell's offers only charta. For 'paper made of papyrus', it offers papyrus (citing Martial & Juvenal). For paper in the sense 'material for writing on', White's offers charta (citing Cicero & Horace) and papyrus (citing Juvenal and Catullus), and in the sense 'a written document', instrumentum (citing Suetonius) and codicilli (pl., citing Quintilian); also, it has charteus 'made of paper' and chartarius 'dealing in paper'. For a piece, or scrap, of paper, Ainsworth has chartula ; for a sheet of paper, it has chartae scheda and [chartae] plagula (note the seeming backwardness of the word-order, which will excite our Neander no end); for made of paper, it has chartaceus ; and it confirms White's chartarius. Further, Ainsworth tells us that charta is 'paper', "first made of the flags from the river Nile. . . . It is taken for any material to write upon, or for a thin plate of any thing; as, ¶ Charta plumbea, a sheet of lead" (citing Suetonius, italics original). So English paper does cover papyrus, and charta does appear to be your most general word. IacobusAmor 13:30, 10 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, in some article or other (one forgets where one saw it), a link to "liber" now goes to the book-article instead of a proposed bark-article (and Vicipaedia should have an article for Liber, the deity). That's because you changed the name of the page from "Liber (litterae)" to just plain "liber." It's perhaps better to treat bark under Cortex, as suggested by Stearn's Botanical Latin, with the specific sense of 'inner bark' presumably then being cortex interior or some technical term (other than liber). IacobusAmor 13:42, 10 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think the move was a reasonable idea, because (as you say) liber = bark can equally be "cortex", the deity is usually "Liber Pater" or vice versa, and many, many, many links point to "liber" expecting it to mean 'book'. If you do come across that stray link again, I suggest you revise it to "cortex" (or to "liber (cortex)" if you think the specific sense of inner bark requires an article): sorry. And thanks for your useful comments above. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
charta may include papyrus, and paper may not include papyrus, but charta does include paper. charta is like a big circle containing two non-overlapping smaller circles, paper and papyrus. Perhaps the first time you mention paper in a book, you can specify what types (rag, cotton, and so on), and then just use charta more generally. --Robert.Baruch 02:30, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to be the thing to do. Thanks! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formula:Documentation recensere

{{Documentation}} is a powerful tool I am going to translate. The code is complicated so I am not going to give backward compatibility but I am simply going to give a new formula with all names translated, first of all parameter names but also including all depending template names and so on. So here are my suggested translations for all names I need to translate:

  • documentation -> documentatio
  • sandbox -> harenarium (see Vicipaedia:Harenarium)
  • testcases -> testificanda
  • doc (abbreviation of documentation) -> doc (please note that some formulae use "manualis" instead; nevertheless, I still prefer "doc")
  • namespace -> spatium nominale (I see this here for instance)
  • pagename -> nomen paginae
  • start box -> capsam incipe (is 2nd person imperative correct?)
  • end box -> capsam desine
  • edit -> recense
  • create -> crea

Then I need some suggestions for these English words I cannot figure out how to translate:

  • notice (I need to translate the expression "Template sandbox notice", see {{Template sandbox notice}} to see what this notice is)
  • content (I also call this the "body" of the documentation, the "main part" i.e. everything but the headers, footers, notes and the like)
Corpus. IacobusAmor 14:09, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • heading (maybe it's "header" mispelled... I use the word "header" for the meaning that this parameter has)
Caput. IacobusAmor 14:09, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • style (for HTML programmers: this is the meaning of attribute "style" in a "span" element)
Pro 'style of language', Cassell's praebet: "dicendi or scribendi genus, orationis or sermonis genus, oratio, sermo, elocutio. IacobusAmor 14:09, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but this is about typographical appearance; perhaps forma? A. Mahoney 18:30, 16 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • preload
  • purge (see {{Purge}} for instance)

I think this is all I need now... I hope I remembered everything. Can you please help? --Achillus 09:32, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for suggestions. I will use forma for "style". I add:
  • preload -> exemplar (the meaning of this "preload" parameter is "template, model")
  • purge -> purga (etymological...)
Any suggestion for notice? "nota" seu "notitia" (etymological...)? --Achillus 10:44, 20 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it's really a "header" or "rubric" rather than a notice. So maybe "rubrica". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 21 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustique recensere

Quid est Latinum huius verbum nomen? Nobis iam est commentarium de Acustica, sed est illud lemma rectum? IacobusAmor 13:08, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

acusticus est adiectivus (humanisticus?). scientia acustica fortasse melius est. --Achillus 13:25, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acustica lemma iustum est. Ab origine quidem adiectivum, sicut etiam mathematica, physica &c., sed omnes nominis substantivi locum optime implent. Neander 14:11, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acoustica quoque, cum littera O? Et utra forma est melior? (Lege primam commentarii sententiam). IacobusAmor 14:30, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC) ¶ Ah, OK, nunc videmus Neandrem lemma iam emendavisse. IacobusAmor 14:33, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

linguistica? recensere

Id nomen censeo esse nomen ex sermone quotidiano conuersum in linguam Latinam. Humaniorum litterarum studiosi, qui humanistae dicuntur, hoc uerbum cum << grammatica >> substituerunt, quod proin non potest accipi, quippe quae postea in huius scientiae progressu pars scientiae ipsae facta sit. Ideo uerbum recentius usurpatum <<glottologiam>> inuicem huius uocabuli proicerem. Quid sentitis?--Martinus Poeta Juvenis 12:56, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistica, licet sit verbum plus minusve novatum, tamen in litteris varie invenitur, ut puta hic apud Academiam Scientiarum Estoniae. Glottologia mea sententia pars est linguisticae (linguistica historica sive diachronica).--Utilo 15:18, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Caturday! recensere

Lolcat. Those cats get everywhere! --Robert.Baruch 14:36, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At last we are a serious scholarly resource! (i can haz artiklez?) :-) A. Mahoney 21:25, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing Wikipedia 1.19 beta recensere

Wikimedia Foundation is getting ready to push out 1.19 to all the WMF-hosted wikis. As we finish wrapping up our code review, you can test the new version right now on beta.wmflabs.org. For more information, please read the release notes or the start of the final announcement.

The following are the areas that you will probably be most interested in:

  • Faster loading of javascript files makes dependency tracking more important.
  • New common*.css files usable by skins instead of having to copy piles of generic styles from MonoBook or Vector's css.
  • The default user signature now contains a talk link in addition to the user link.
  • Searching blocked usernames in block log is now clearer.
  • Better timezone recognition in user preferences.
  • Improved diff readability for colorblind people.
  • The interwiki links table can now be accessed also when the interwiki cache is used (used in the API and the Interwiki extension).
  • More gender support (for instance in logs and user lists).
  • Language converter improved, e.g. it now works depending on the page content language.
  • Time and number-formatting magic words also now depend on the page content language.
  • Bidirectional support further improved after 1.18.

Report any problems on the labs beta wiki and we'll work to address them before they software is released to the production wikis.

Note that this cluster does have SUL but it is not integrated with SUL in production, so you'll need to create another account. You should avoid using the same password as you use here. — Global message delivery 16:21, 15 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

Non ortus sed virtus recensere

Hello, I'm trying to say in latin "not birth but virtue" or "not by birth but by virtue". After a bit of searching, I found this translation : "non ortus sed virtus". Do you think it is a good latin locution, or are there better ways to say this ? Thanks. -- 10:31, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virtute, non ortu ? IacobusAmor 11:29, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking about birth as in lineage, and not birth as in physical biological childbearing, maybe virtute, nec generi ? (I rather like nec to emphasize the difference) --Robert.Baruch 18:24, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for ortus. But it all depends on co(n)text. Given a sentence such as "The Book of the Three Virtues depicts a city of noble women who claim their nobility not by birth but by virtue", I'd translate Liber Trium Virtutum urbem depingit nobilium feminarum, quae nobilitatem non ortu sed virtute sibi vindicant. Neander 22:01, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in Interrete recensere

Sunt in multis paginis verba "in Interrete" scripta. Sitne "in Interreti" quia Interrete est verbum neutrum? Etiam sit automaton corrigere hanc error? --Robert.Baruch 18:17, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alius, qui plura quam ego sciat, amplius meliusque explicare possit, sed ut breviter dicam, non nullorum tertiae declinationis verborum, ut puta "mare" et "rete" (ergo "interrete" quoque) ablativus casu -e formatur. Mattie 18:31, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allen & Greenough nos monent (#68, a): "Neuters in -e, al, ar, have in the ablative singular, -ium in the genitive plural, and -ia in the nominative and acccusative plural, as animăl, animālī, -ia, -ium." Etiam (#76): "The ablative in is found exclusively . . . [in] neuters in -e, al, ar, except baccar, rēte, and sometimes mare." Gildersleeve autem idioma nos offert (#385, n.1) "terrā marīque 'on land and sea'." IacobusAmor 19:51, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quod ad rete attinet, constat ablativum reti multo rariorem esse quam rete (Plaut. Rud. 913 in rete; Varro, Rust. 3.5 obiecto rete, 3.9 intento supra rete; Plin. Nat.11.81.4 a scutulato rete). Neander 21:36, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness, I just realised I what wrote up there. I meant "non nullorum tertiae declinationis verborum, quorum nominativi casu -e terminentur..." D'oh! Mattie 22:22, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quo in Interreti inveniamus? Voce Alta et Melissa (vide paginam nostram Melissa) (in Interreti et in Interrete)! Epistula Leonina et Latinum Podcast et Vox Latina vol 46. Quo autem in Interrete inveniamus? Certe non in fontibus aequivalentibus. --Robert.Baruch 01:44, 19 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dixi antiquos ablativo rete potius quam reti usos esse. Certam normam non habuisse videntur. Ego constructionem in interreti non repudio, sed si in interrete scriptum esse videam, corrigere non audeam. Neander 06:19, 19 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, nunc intellego quod dicis. --Robert.Baruch 13:19, 19 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language support group for Latin recensere

The Wikimedia Foundation has brought together a new team of developers who are dedicated to language support. This team is to support all the languages and consequently it is not realistic to expect that the team members can provide proper support for your language. It is for this reason that we are looking for volunteers who will make up a language support team.

This language support team will be asked to provide us with information about their language. Such information may need to be provided either to us or on a website that we will indicate to you. Another activity will be to test software that will likely have an effect on the running of the MediaWiki software. We are looking for people who clearly identify their ability. Formal knowledge is definitely appreciated.

As much of the activity will be concentrated on translatewiki.net, it will be a plus when team members know how to localise at translatewiki.net.
Thanks, Gmeijssen 07:39, 20 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anglice: domino (ludus) recensere

Quid est verbum Latinum? Et quid est forma pluralis? Webster's Collegiate Dictionary nobis dicit fontem verbi Anglici esse formulam ritualem Latinam benedicamus Domino. IacobusAmor 16:23, 22 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secundum Morgan:
.game dominoes / ludus domini [Pal. Lat.]; ludus ocellatorum [Soc. Lat.; Suet.] (HELF.)
Mattie 16:42, 22 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias tibi agimus, amice! IacobusAmor 17:10, 22 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global account recensere

Good morning everybody. I discovered to hav a global account in Wikipedia Latin, tha connect me as my nick in other Wikipedia. Sorry, I don't know how I made, but I don't want to have global account, can I take off? Is it possible? Thank you for the help Rex Momo 06:56, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the documentation and I don't think it's possible to change from a global account to a non-global one. But you don't have to do anything here in Latin if you don't want to. It doesn't hurt to have a global account -- if you ever do want to use one of the other versions (including Meta, Commons, Wikisource, and so on too), you don't need another username and password for them. A. Mahoney 15:27, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: the connection happens whenever you come into a new Wikipedia even to read an article, even if you don't edit anything. I'm connected to several dozen versions because I've gone in to look at particular things; I may never go back to those Wikipedias, but if I ever did, I could be recognized under my actual name. A. Mahoney 19:24, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another request for a kind programmer recensere

Commentarius Turris Khalifa needs a functioning {{Infobox building}}—which would greatly enhance an article that (according to the leading lights of Mediawiki) is one of the 1000 most important topics for any self-respecting encyclopedia to have. IacobusAmor 12:05, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the {{Capsa coloniae}} isn't printing entirely correctly; see the example in Damascus. IacobusAmor 11:52, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Capsa coloniae}} should work in Damascus now. The problem was that {{Location map Syria}} wasn't defined. Andrew Dalby, however, had created {{Charta locatrix Syriae}} back in 2008, so I just redirected to that. As for infobox building... didn't we have a vocal contingent of infobox disparagers? I'm hesitant to introduce another. --Robert.Baruch 03:09, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that means partly me :) Well, speaking for myself (a) it's fine, I can see the value of infoboxes for technical details of buildings etc. (b) if I were you I'd ask Iacobus how many Vicipaedia articles he plans to use this box in ... but that's just me, and (c) your time is yours, Robert! Go for it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:35, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems remain in the {{Capsa coloniae}} as seen in Damascus: the urban landmarks (Lapides Urbis Damasci) are printing twice, and "nickname" needs to be Latinized (Cassell's suggests nomen per ludibrium datum, though that's rather cumbersome). IacobusAmor 13:39, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now in Mamma (1000 paginae!) and other anatomical articles to come, we need localization of {{Infobox Anatomy}}. IacobusAmor 14:02, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox Anatomy}} is now redirected to {{Capsa anatomiae}}. --Robert.Baruch 00:21, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the {{Capsa hominis}} doesn't seem to be working quite right in Ferdinandus Cortesius (1000 paginae!). IacobusAmor 15:09, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what isn't working? I don't see anything obvious, other than the names needing translating. --Robert.Baruch 00:06, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Suggestions: Nationality, (???); Other names, Alia nomina; Occupation: Negotium; Known for: Fons famae? Fons gloriae? ; Signature: Nomen subscriptum. IacobusAmor 01:50, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done!--Robert.Baruch 02:44, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to be the ghost at the feast, but I think we agreed not to use Capsa hominis, and Robert's suggestion (which seemed a good idea) was to redirect it to "Data hominis". See Disputatio Formulae:Capsa hominis. In my opinion nationality and occupation would look babyish on Cortes (or anyone of his period), and fons famae is the sort of thing a proper enyclopedia will deal with in proper sentences with attention to point of view. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:21, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Damascus is now working: the problem was that the skyline image hadn't been moved to commons. Also, I used agnomina for nickname(s). I'll take a look at the other capsae. --Robert.Baruch 23:56, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agnomen seems exactly right. But obviously we won't give a Latin agnomen unless the city really has one (Noli fingere), and why we should give an agnomen in any other language on a Latin page I'm not sure. Rome, Constantinople and Jerusalem, to name three, have certainly had Latin nicknames in their time, so this will be used at least occasionally! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:21, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lusitania / Portugalia / Portugallia recensere

Est commentatio Portugallia, Categoria "Lusitania" et Categoria "Historia Portugaliae" (sic!) - Quaedam repurgatio, ut appellatio uniformis fiat, necesse esse videtur.--Utilo 15:53, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mea sententia, quamcumque appellationem eligimus, nomen commentationis de lingua Lusitana quoque mutandum est (aut non, Potugalliam si "Lusitaniam" appellamus), ut ambo congruant. Mattie 17:05, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Usores Portugalenses (sive Lusitani!) suaserunt nomen civitatis hodiernae "Portugallia" esse. Id nomen in nummis et in documentis officialibus reperitur; "Lusitania" est regio antiqua limitibus valde differentibus, et provincia Romana. Credo eos recte suasisse; sed hi usores nunc absunt! Pagina igitur mota est sed usque adhuc nemo categorias movit. Si omnes consentimus, movi possunt, fortasse adiuvante UVbot.
De nomine linguae abnuo ... Nomina linguarum et civitatum congruere haud necesse est; haec lingua (quam philologi saepe "Lusitana" nuncupantur) etiam in Brasilia, Angola, etc. etc. adhibetur. Suadeo nomina linguarum et civitatum separatim, secundum fontes, a nobis statuenda. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:03, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quin igitur in commentatione de hac lingua nomini "Lusitana" hos addas fontes ... hoc tempore – haec est res quae superam annotatiunculam meam concivit – declaratum est fontem desiderari. Constat profecto linguas secundum fontes, neque solum originis civitatem, nominandas! Mattie 21:03, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Optime: de nomine linguae fontes peto.
Oops, intellexeram te scire quales erant hi fontes, quibus usores Portugallenses usi erant. Aliter ipse quaesivissem! Novissime quasi proprius servulus es meus, paginas movens, de mentoribus scribens, fontes inveniens ... :) Mattie 23:30, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At ego sum qui dixi "philologi saepe "Lusitana" nuncupantur": mihi igitur pro certo oportebat demonstrare! Nunc in ea pagina fontes citavi (sed quo nomine saepius philologi utuntur, haud scio). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:09, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
De nomine civitatis (et categoriarum) an quis apud nos a "Portugallia" dissentit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:17, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
De nomine civitatis ac categoriarum assentio. Adiectivi „Portugallensis“ usus autem ambiguus est: sive ad civitatem (cf. „rex portugallensis“ et „regnum Portugallense“) sive ad urbem Portum Cale spectat (dioecesis Portugallensis = Diocese de Porto). Etiam „Lusitanus“ et „Lusitanicus“ adhuc in usu sunt: „Universitas Catholica Lusitana“; species Portugalliae a Linnaeo descriptae (vide: [1]) „Lusitanicae“ nominantur.--Utilo 16:58, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recte dicis, et ob hanc rationem usque adhuc verbum "Lusitanus" etc. apud nos usitatur; sed in contextu officiali verbum "Portugallensis" etc. latius reperitur. Igitur categorias de rebus Portugallensibus nunc tandem movere propono. Si paginam et categoriam "dioecesis Portugallensis" creabimus, sensum specialem habebunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:50, 5 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formula Insulae Graeciae / auxilium peto recensere

Vox ad adiutores in formulis creandis peritos: Quid falsi feci, ubi in formula Insulae Graeciae lineam "spissitudo" rescripsi (ut scilicet spissitudo ex divisione areae per numerum incolarum efficeretur)?--Utilo 16:54, 30 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rectificavi. --UV 17:51, 30 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias tibi ago!--Utilo 17:55, 30 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For programmers: a curious error message recensere

In commentario de Luna, hunc nuntium videmus: "Cite error: <ref> tags exist for a group named "nb", but no corresponding <references group="nb"/> tag was found." IacobusAmor 14:14, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It seems weird to have both a "notae" and a "nota bene" section, though. Mattie 15:03, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Macte! Now we have a nonprinting box in Pediludio, commentario in alia ex 1000 paginis. IacobusAmor 18:27, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, yes, sure, because we don't have the dazzling variety of Infoboxes, Templates, and other ancillae that English WP has created. Do we actually desire an infobox for sports, and would we use it elsewhere? Or could the relevant information go gracefully into the text? This is actually an easy infobox, from the looks of it, so it's not like we couldn't create it, but do we want to? Are infoboxes generally a Good Thing? A. Mahoney 19:53, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes, for two reasons: graphic design and familiar summarization. There are, however, those who disagree. IacobusAmor 21:15, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We recently had a discussion (without reaching a conclusion, I'd say) here: Disputatio Formulae:Capsa hominis#About this template. --UV 22:38, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion you've linked brought up some useful issues. If a general comment is wanted, my comment is, I am for the best encyclopaedia with the least effort applied in the most productive way, because we are very few (though increasing!) Since it is far quicker for me to write text than to design or localize a box, I create boxes only when I know they will be useful on many pages: I mean, pages that I intend to write or that I know others are about to write.
Luckily, some people around here differ from me (a) because they prefer designing to writing and (b) because they are better at it than I am. If they want to create boxes, I am very happy (and so is Iacobus, I know)!
But I still come back to the point about "least effort applied in the most productive way". It is a waste of time to design boxes to go on one page (because the time can be better spent) and an utter waste of time to design boxes for the vague future (because we can't predict in detail what Vicipaedians will want or need, and because of "template-fatigue" -- i.e. boxes designed now will always unpredictably need redesigning in the future).
Now, take the three kinds of boxes that appear on a good-to-middling en:wiki page.
(a) Navboxes. Very easy to make (start with {{Nav}}) and useful as soon as there is a group of pages to link together. Like categories, navboxes help people navigate around the site and bring more people to each page. Better than categories, they can contain redlinks and therefore indicate what pages in a set still need to be written. Good use of little effort.
(b) Portalboxes. A subset of (a), differing in that they tend to focus on a portal page or pages. User:Utilo is currently making some boxes of this kind in the area of Greek history &c. A good use of effort if someone is actively working, has written the portal page, and intends to go on working in the area -- as Utilo quite evidently does!
(c) Infoboxes. Useful if there actually is, or is about to be, a group of pages on which similar very specific notable and uncontroversial information can be grouped -- e.g. places, villages, countries, satellites, asteroids, stars; elements, compounds; plants, animals; etc. That's not an exhaustive list. Potentially useful when applied to a group of suitable pages, but time-consuming. Since they offer snap information, they entail making sure the information remains good and is from a reliable source. They require someone to be watching the page, ensuring that random edits don't make the information in text and infobox drift apart. I'd say it's best not to put an infobox on a page one isn't watching. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:15, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the taxoboxes I've imported are set in concrete and aren't going to be changing anytime soon; I've tended not to import taxoboxes (or even articles!) for groupings of taxa that, by common agreement, are quite uncertain and have been announced to be under taxonomic review. In the process, I've occasionally found and corrected errors in English taxoboxes, including one that, by mixing up a couple of letters, had assigned a genus of plants to a family of fishes! IacobusAmor 19:38, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you ... Yes, I recall being unenthusiastic about the automatic taxoboxes (and I couldn't grasp how they worked) but I warmly agree that taxoboxes are among the most practical, useful and informative of all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:09, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might have known this was an on-going discussion! I am perfectly happy to port templates from :en; I am not good at graphic design, but can easily enough make boxes that look like they do in :en. The immediate question, then, is whether Ludi are similar enough to merit a table of basic facts. In English the "infobox sport" lists: the governing body (applicable to most major professional and/or Olympic sports), names of the game, when and where it was first played, whether it is a contact sport, whether both men and women play, the size of the team, whether it is an Olympic sport, and so on. There are about 200 pages in EnWP that use this template. If we're going to use it anywhere near that often, it may be worth having; this would mean going through our games-and-sports pages and putting it in and, as Andrew says, maintaining the pages. (There are at least 9 in the 1000 Pages that are sports, depending on what you count.) I'm not sure I have a considered judgement yet on the global question of the desirability of infoboxes and I defer to the wisdom of the elders (in Wikitime, that is). A. Mahoney 13:16, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding infoboxes, there is a proposal to host notable and uncontroversial data in a common repository (data.wikimedia.org) so that this data can then be presented (in a localized format) on infoboxes across all wikipedia language editions, if desired (this is somewhat similar to what commons does for images - commons.wikimedia.org is a repository for images that can, if desired, be presented on pages on any Wikimedia project). This is not going to happen within the next few weeks, but meta:Wikimedia Deutschland has already hired developers to implement this proposal. You can read more about this proposal here: meta:WikiData WMDE (second phase). If this project succeeds, we might be able to add infoboxes to more articles, with less effort on our shoulders for collecting and validating data. --UV 21:41, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's all new to me, and quite exciting. I suppose this is analogous to the way Robert has worked it with the asteroid boxes.
The possibility of including data automatically from a central and reliable source would definitely warm me to infoboxes, and I can imagine people on many other smaller wikis saying the same thing. We have at present no means for updating, e.g., the city infoboxes with new population figures, names of mayors, etc. When someone anonymous comes and updates these details for us, we have to wonder each time whether it's a dedicated local enthusiast or a vandal. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:15, 9 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Programmatores! Ecce "Cite encyclopedia" recensere

Formula {{Cite encyclopedia . . . .}} emendatione eget. Exempla in commentario de Religione Islamica (uno ex 1000 paginis) inveniuntur. IacobusAmor 13:40, 9 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a go at that one. I localised some "Cite" templates a while ago, so, with luck, I can remember what I did. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 9 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see, there's now no problem with {{Cite encyclopedia}}. If there is a problem with it on any other page, please let me know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:30, 2 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we categorize Spanish words along with Greek (etc.) words? IacobusAmor 17:24, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Categoria:Verba Hispanica. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:39, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But you just deleted [[Categoria:Verba Hispanica]] from the article about El Niño (una ex mille paginis gravissimis). IacobusAmor 17:44, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you look at the category? Please look at it now. The Spanish word concerned is "Niño", and you will see that it is categorised. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:50, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the redirect page, not from the article. Wikipedia categorizes it (as "Spanish loanwords") from the article, at en:El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation. IacobusAmor 18:26, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mention it, it's a pleasure. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:33, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason a redirect should be placed in a category is if the redirect is another word entirely. For instance, coming out redirects to vestiario exire, so coming out is placed in Categoria:Locutiones Anglicae. So I agree with Iacobus, there's no reason for the page itself not to be in the category. Mattie 20:36, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of the article Agitatio Australis El Niño / La Niña is not a Spanish word, but a meteorological phenomenon, and the article rightfully does not start like
Agitatio Australis El Niño / La Niña est verbum Hispanicum. …
Therefore, the article Agitatio Australis El Niño / La Niña should, in my view, not be placed in Categoria:Verba Hispanica, just as we do not place the articles Bos taurus and Confoederatio Helvetica in Categoria:Verba Latina. --UV 20:49, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict:] Sorry if I didn't explain properly. The reason seemed obvious to me, but perhaps that's just because I'm a pernickety cataloguer! The aim is to be helpful to the reader. The word in question occurs late in a long and complicated pagename (Agitatio Australis El Niño / La Niña), so someone looking through the list of "Verba Hispanica" and finding, under "N", the title "Agitatio Australis ..." might reasonably wonder (a) why under "N"? and (b) how is "agitatio" a Spanish word?
Looking at it root-and-branch, I think the pagename is more complicated than it needs to be. I have always heard this phenomenon called "El Niño", and I don't see why we don't call it simply that. If we change the pagename to "El Niño" then it would become perfectly reasonable to have this category on the page itself, and not on a redirect: filing under "N" would be OK and normal if the only preceding element is a definite article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:02, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I have read UV's comment above, I understand his point that we perhaps should not categorise foreign words in pagenames unless the page is about the word (have I summarised correctly, UV?) At present, yes, I aim to add this kind of category in cases where we use a foreign word as a pagename, on the grounds that (a) the lead paragraph will normally say something about our use of the word, and (b) it may be useful to us to know which foreign words, in which languages, we have used as pagenames. Whether this is really useful I'm honestly not certain, and I would be glad to have other opinions. For the existing cases see the subcategories of Categoria:Verba lingua digesta. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:20, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Categoria:Verba lingua digesta, I grasp the possible usefulness of categorizing articles according to the language of the lemma (except Categoria:Verba Latina, because the vast majority of our lemmata are in Latin). Still, I am not completely convinced. What is the reason for using non-Latin lemmata at all? If we just use non-Latin lemmata only in those cases where we do not have an attested Latin word, isn't Categoria:Verba lingua digesta in fact a maintenance category, distantly related to {{Fontes desiderati}}, for articles where we have not yet found an attested Latin name (and in some cases we are pretty sure we will never find one)? Are there any cases at all where we would prefer to use a non-Latin lemma even if we are able to identify an attested Latin lemma? --UV 21:39, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question. I think there are probably none (unless for some unusual reason the foreign word is of itself notable). And, yes, I agree, I have thought of this as largely a maintenance category, though it might offer some usefulness for readers with knowledge of a particular language. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:49, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this brings to mind Yr Hen Ogledd, a non-Latin lemma for which I'd argue against any Latin translation even if we found one. It's a Welsh expression meaning "the Old North," which is used to describe an area of the British isles at a certain time in history (if I understand it correctly), because that's the way Welsh bards would refer to it (without the "Hen," Old, of course, since they were talking about more or less current events which happened, from their perspective, in the north). So, IMO, the page is rightly filed in Categoria:Verba Cambrica, but not because a Latin attestation needs to or should be found. Mattie 03:23, 12 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for an example of why Categoria:Verba Latina is relevant, see e.g. Peccavi. Mattie 03:26, 12 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki 1.19 recensere

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) The Wikimedia Foundation is planning to upgrade MediaWiki (the software powering this wiki) to its latest version this month. You can help to test it before it is enabled, to avoid disruption and breakage. More information is available in the full announcement. Thank you for your understanding.

Guillaume Paumier, via the Global message delivery system (wrong page? You can fix it.). 15:08, 12 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hodie numerum paginarum 70,000 Vicipaedia nostra attingit. Illam paginam Usor:Schulz-Hameln incepit, titulo Amabilius Pélissier. Gaudeamus ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:25, 14 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Euge! Papax! Valde gaudeo. Non tam multas menses abhinc, modo 50,000 paginas habebamus. A. Mahoney 21:45, 14 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Names for cities recensere

Some cities have Latin names used by the Catholic Church to refer to the Dioceses. Should we these cities to that name if they have one?Aulus Sergius Sulla 15:12, 16 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Catholic usage is a good source for modern Latin. We would usually accept the name used in church sources, unless an older (maybe classical) name also exists. And we always want to cite a source for the name we are moving to.
With place-names it's easier to find an adjective (like "Roffensis") in Catholic sources than a noun: so, if that's where we start from, we have to be sure what the noun would be before we move the page.
You'll often find there has been discussion about various Latin names on talk pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:21, 16 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map pin problem recensere

Can anyone understand and correct this? I have made templates {{Monumenta mediae Romae}} and {{Monumenta Romae antiquae}}. They include a map with a location pin. I copied the original templates from another wiki (English I think) but I am using a different map from the one used on that other wiki. OK then, here's the problem. Even when I use the same coordinates to place the pin, the pin appears in a different place. As for example on Templum Apollinis in Palatio and Bibliotheca Apollinis Palatini -- these two things were in the same place, so I just copied the infobox, but the pin has moved. How does this happen?

I guess that any correction to this will mean I will have to change all the coordinates, but I can face it: better now than later. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 20 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pretend to understand it myself. If you look at the equivalent page on en, they set the default label to 0.5,0.5, which places the pin inexplicably to the left of and lower than the center. So there's something going on with x and y and scale, but it seems to be systemic. --Robert.Baruch 02:45, 21 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the x and y co-ordinates are the position of the label, not of the pin. You can see this if you experiment with longer and shorter labels: the first letter will always be in the same place, and the blue dot will always be lined up with the center of the label. Things get strange if the label is long enough to wrap onto a second line -- I don't immediately see what happens in that case. But in the case of your two examples, the label starts at 25% of the way toward the right (x = 0.25) and 86% of the way down from the top (y = 0.86), where you placed it, and since the two labels are different lengths, their centers and hence the associated map pins are in different places. A. Mahoney 17:14, 21 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get it. You're absolutely right, as shown by the fact that if the "text-align" within the map label parameters is changed to "left" and the line-break is removed, the coordinates will henceforth say where the pin comes (as you would rather expect), and the text will start immediately after it. OK. So I do need to correct each instance (there are not too many) to get the coordinates right and also to specify whether the text should be to left or to right of the pin. I have seen other location maps that do this, so it may just possibly be within my powers. Thank you very much!
Or, of course, since the object usually corresponds with the pagename and is always named at the top of the infobox, I could omit the text on the map, and just correct the x coordinates ... That's the lazy way out :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:01, 24 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is the way I'd do it, because the map is pretty small and the label covers up a lot of it. But aesthetic judgement is not my strong point! A. Mahoney 14:26, 24 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's what I've just done now. The map is faint and far from ideal but, being borrowed from Platner & Ashby, it's more accurate than the one they are using on en:wiki. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:57, 24 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone would like to work on this article, there is a Google "translation" from English currently at Latifundium. Any help in either improving it, or replacing it with something that makes sense, would be welcome! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 26 Februarii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me :) Gratias ago.--Jondel (disputatio) 03:44, 26 Septembris 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please help: replace this red text with a translation of the English message below. Thank you!
@MonmouthpediA announces the Charles Rolls Challenge

This is a multilingual collaboration to create a wiki-town. All Wikipedians can take part, in any Wikipedia language. The challenge was announced on 1 March (Prizegiving webstreamed on 21st April).
Sign up now!
"Can you imagine a Wiki Project that involves 1,000 QRpedia codes and free WiFi?"

About 15 articles so far in Welsh, could we have entrants using Latin? (The idea for this comes from Andrew Dalby) Victuallers (disputatio) 20:11, 2 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to translate compound nouns? recensere

I need a general method for translating compound nouns where there is a head noun plus a disambiguating noun form. Some examples:

  • Adding machine. I think this can be translated using the genitive of a gerund: machina addendi, machine of adding.
I'm afraid that there isn't any general method. In some cases, morphological derivation by means of -trum (calculatrum) or -torium (calculatorium), added to a verb stem (calcula-), will do the job. In fact, -torium involves a complex adjectival suffix, consisting of the agent suffix -tor to which the adjectival suffix -ius,-ia,-ium is added ('doable by the agent'); thus, machina calculatoria is a machine that does what a calculator is supposed to do. Machina calculatrix might be a more poetic option, in principle again. ¶ But is an adding machine a different machine? If so, all of the above devices might be utilised, in principle: additrum, additorium, machina additoria, machina additrix. Notice that I'm here speaking of the language system's virtual possibilities; their actualisation depends on future sociological conditions such as collective goût (imagining that Latin is going to have a future). Neander (disputatio) 20:02, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But adding machines can subtract, too! So looking to addere for the qualifying concept may not be general enough, despite the English. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:47, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is my understanding, too. The wiki article on "adding machine" links to German "Rechenmaschine" and Swedish "räknemaskin". Neander (disputatio) 19:14, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ball machine (a machine which provides balls). Here the disambiguating noun is a concrete noun. Could be a concrete noun of purpose.
Here, I think, we need a gerundive construction (dativus finalis): machina pilis praebendis or machina pilis suppeditandis. By the way, do you mean this kind of ball machine? :–) Neander (disputatio) 20:13, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! That is one easily amused dog! --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 22:42, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
. . . or maybe the title of the Vicipaedia article could be machina pilaria, defined as "est machina pilis in variis ludis suppeditandis ..." Neander (disputatio) 23:26, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distance running (running for the purpose of distance). The head noun is a gerund, while the disambiguating noun is an abstract noun giving the goal or purpose.
Maybe cursus spatiorum longorum. Or is distance running different from long-distance running? Neander (disputatio) 23:26, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think technically long-distance running is a subset of distance running -- long-distance being classified as over a mile. --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 15:44, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed walking (walking in a speedy manner, speedily). The noun is abstract giving the manner.
Speed walking and power walking, maybe ambulatio efficax. Neander (disputatio) 23:26, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pan frying (frying by means of a pan). The head noun is a gerund, and the disambiguating noun is a concrete noun giving the instrument or means.
Maybe frixura patinaria or frixura sartaginea. Neander (disputatio) 23:26, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cat box (a box for use by cats, not a box of cats!). Another concrete noun, but this time giving a benefitor. Other examples are cat flap, cat door, cat food, cat dish, cat toy, cat bed, cat collar, pretty much anything with cats in it.
I created "Felium aditus" (got it from the Latin Harry Potter translation) a while ago for "cat flap"... but I'm sure Neander could come up with something better. :) Mattie (disputatio) 21:50, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for Needham! :-) Neander (disputatio) 23:26, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use a dative for cat,  ut in locutione certamen temporis singulari 'individual time trial' ("competition of time for an individual") in birotatione videmus? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:45, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But do you find such a construction type in your grammar? To me at least, "certamen temporis singulari" looks like being defective. I'd say "certamen temporis singulari institutum" in which "singulari" is the dependent of institutum. Neander (disputatio) 19:08, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase was recommended by a veteran classics professor. Maybe something like institutum is understood? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:45, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe said professor needs to catch up with his reading, or maybe I do. I don't think I often encounter in Latin, poetry or prose, a phrase concluding with a hanging dative or ablative in that way. Incidentally, it is possibly an Anglo-Latin error to assume that, because the Latin grammar-books in English say that the dative and ablative equate to "to, for, by, with, from", one can use a pure dative/ablative in any of those senses, wherever in the text one fancies doing it, and a reader will somehow understand. Or am I being unfair? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:40, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 15:36, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the original question: if there were general methods in such cases, Google translator would generally succeed in translating between languages. As we know, it doesn't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 06:30, 13 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded duplication of links? recensere

Once a redlink has turned blue, should we delete the foreign-language name for it that had been given parenthetically as a guide? For example, in commentario Provincia Lupiensis indicem legimus inter quem

Lupiae (Italiane: Lecce)

but now, when we go to commentarium Lupiae, we see that the lemma is

Lupiae . . . (Italice Lecce).

Once an article has been created having a lemma with the name in the original language given in a parenthesis, any parentheses containing that name that were associated with a redlink have become redundant, since anyone wanting to know the original name can now click the bluelink. Should they stand? or should they be deleted? ¶ A related issue is whether links should be given to other wikis, as the link here is: [[:it:Lecce|Lecce]]. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:45, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no doubt that the foreign-language translations given in lists of names are only useful until we have articles about those places. Once we have, those translations in lists should be deleted. We agreed this with Nuada long ago, but I guess no one has told Sacreum. If you want to do some tidying there, and explain the rule on Sacreum's userpage, that would be great! (I'm away from my desk at the moment, just logged in momentarily). As to the links to the "home" wiki (e.g. immediately following the lemma and attached to the native name) I would say it is not necessary (because we have the interwiki links anyway) but not really a problem. What's your view? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:21, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also some biological articles (e.g. Erebia pluto) contain the English (and only English) name in a parenthesis, Neander (disputatio) 15:28, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more it doesn't! :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:14, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great! That was a really good beginning! :–) Neander (disputatio) 13:46, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
though the same info can be obtained by clicking on the interwiki link. Neander (disputatio) 15:28, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think those [English "common names" of species] should be deleted (unless it is a popular name currently used in the local language of the country where the animal is native -- and that language might sometimes be English). We should not privilege English. The official language of zoological and botanical names is Latin, and that's really good for us! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When necessary or useful, we privilege English because it's effectively the world's universal natural language, and it's likely to remain so for at least a few more decades. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:14, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who are "we" in your sentence! All I say is, not I: to me, Latin is the world's universal natural language :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:32, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also often the case that biographical articles link to the person's native-language wiki in the "vulgo ..." parenthesis. Seems odd to ever link to foreign-language wikis, really, unless there's a redlink. Mattie (disputatio) 17:01, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's not necessary. That's what the interwiki links are for. OK, then, for the sake of readability in Latin, I'd incline to conclude: remove all interwiki links in the text when editing a page.[1] If there is a special reason to retain such a link, it's better to have it in a footnote (which can explain the reason) than in the main text.
Also, when editing, I think we should aim to remove any unnecessary English (or other) translations. We are writing Latin here (once we conclude this discussion!) Of course there may sometimes be good reason to include a foreign word or a foreign quotation, and that's perfectly fine, especially if we are discussing a foreign literature or culture. [Foreign includes English, ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Sindarin ...] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Except that when we have a list of names within an article, and these names are redlinks, it is temporarily very useful to add to these redlink names a link to an article in another language. This helps a future editor to be certain which place or which person is meant.
  2. I agree. I'd like to add one point, though. I think that whenever there's a red link in an article, if the writer feels a reader might not know what's being talked about, saying "(Anglice [[:en:link|link]])" (or Francogallice, Graece ...) can be very useful. I'm only talking about terms that might not be clear to the reader otherwise. To give a quick example, Morgan's translation for "bead" is "globulus perforatus" — without context, it's not particularly clear we're talking about beads, so it seems a temporary interwiki link placed next to the red link could be justified. Mattie (disputatio) 15:37, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unanimitatem sententiae habere videmur! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:43, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ita! Euge! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:26, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Contribuenda recensere

    Oops. I just created the article Exoplaneta, not suspecting that we already had Extrasolaris planeta, instead of an article showing the more usual word order, Planeta extrasolaris, a term that had (and at this moment has) no redirect. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:14, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record: it has turned blue within the past half-hour! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:50, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's because I took your hint :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The previously existing article, though textually longer & bluer, is out of date. What to do? Would someone like to merge the two texts? In Exoplaneta, observe the long lists of redlinks! Where have the astronomically inclined Latinists gone? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:14, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I just noticed that. I sometimes do such things too, and then quietly curse (in Latin of course, and very politely). OK, I'll merge the two articles. I've just got back to Vicipaedia after a few days' absence ... I was looking for something to do. Happy to go into planetary orbit for a while.
    As to the long list of vide-etiams, it's worth remembering that we agreed (somewhere not far above, not long ago) that Vide-etiams are a temporary thing, which are likely to be deleted eventually. It's entirely up to you, but making up titles for unwritten articles may be less productive (and, I'd guess, more frustrating sometimes) than translating text. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The duplication (triplication?) of effort recorded here (partly) reflects the fact that the title of the first-written article displayed noncanonical word order: confirmation of the worth of noster Neander's adminition that titles of articles should follow canonical word order! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:50, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if anyone wants to do a serious check on that matter, and reconsider the word order of long-existing titles, that's an open task. I think, in truth, you just have to put this down to inadvertence (as I do when I make the same mistake). The article had been there a long time and it had correct interwiki links. Anyway, I'll work on the merge. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just checked, and it prolly isn't all that hard to do if we know what we're doing (which this keyboard doesn't): start with (more or less) the first paragraph from Exoplaneta, then keep the body of Extrasolaris planeta, and then add everything below the "Vide etiam" of Exoplaneta, retaining but hiding with "<!-- . . . -->" as many of the redlinks as you like. Good that you're back, since the next ten days will be hectic over here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:42, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Forma capsae "Data nationis" recensere

    Programmers, how can the width of the box "Data nationis" be adjusted? In Kiribati, for example, it wants to be narrower. Or is a newer version of the box available? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:17, 19 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The "nummus" field has a style that prevents it from wrapping. Because Kiribati uses two different currencies, this field is particularly long here, and that's what's governing the width. I'm not sure why this field has this style, so I'm hesitant to change it without understanding the reasoning behind it, but that would solve the problem here and presumably most places, letting the box arrange itself to fit its contents. The "titulus ducis" and "nomen ducis" fields have the same style; as those are usually fairly short anyway (a couple of words, right?), the style doesn't make as much difference there but could perhaps also be removed. If on the other hand it's important not to let currency names wrap, then a work-around for Kiribati specifically would be to put a <br/> between the two names, putting them onto two lines -- I previewed this and it does produce a narrower box. I'm happy to change the formula, if there's no objection from the geographers or the template wizards. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:17, 19 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just go ahead! (Still hoping for the success of the Wikidata project, see above #For programmers: a curious error message and meta:Wikidata#Status and timeline). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:03, 19 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done -- see how it looks. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:17, 20 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ostendans historiae ? recensere

    In comnmentario de triangulo, quid significat locutio Ostendans historiae ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:52, 27 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Videtur significare ostendans historiam vel etiam ut de historia scias vel aliquid talem. Modo hic inter paginas mathematicas talem locutionem video: possumus corrigere, aut supprimere. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:09, 27 Martii 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Verbum ostendendi (et ostentandi) habet connotationem superbiandi. Itaque non est verbum iustum. Neander (disputatio) 10:09, 6 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Verba nunc in pagina melius sonant -- bene est. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:09, 6 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I need the proper term for "Surveyor of the King's Works" (i.e. royal architect) in England. I have found "exactor operum regalium" for Charlemagne's architect, "solutor/magister operum regis" for later France, and -- just once -- "clericus operum regis" for England. But that would be "clerk of the King's Works", and maybe there's another term which I would have found more than once if I had thought of it. Can anyone help? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:02, 6 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably there is no proper Latin title. The office was founded 1578 but already beforehand "Surveyors of the King's Work" have been in place for parts of the royal estate. Elizabetha I for example awarded a related patent roll in Latin (calendar of patent rolls 5 Eliz I, March 23rd 1559) to a certain Lewis Stockett (Ludovicus Stocker) and appointed him as Mayster Masonne operum Nostrorum. Stemming probably from the French Maître I suggest that magister is a suitable selection. --El Suizo (disputatio) 14:06, 12 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that's very helpful. I'll take your advice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:09, 12 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox Cloud recensere

    Vide Cumulonimbus. Programmatores? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:29, 8 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Formula: {{Hemisphaeria}} recensere

    Vide Hemisphaerium Australe, Hemisphaerium Occidentale, Hemisphaerium Orientale. Programmatores? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:04, 8 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Formulam creavi: {{Hemisphaeria}}. --Aylin 18:40, 8 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Vuhu! Macte! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:55, 8 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixing the Sea of Japan recensere

    Oops. We seem to have created Mare Iaponiae not having noticed that Mare Iaponicum already existed. The better-attested title may indeed be Mare Iaponicum, but the newly created article has overwhelmingly more text, making the original article a mere shadow of it. Can Mare Iaponicum be deleted? The new article could then take its name, as per its revised lemma. Administrators will presumably know how to handle the merging and preserve any appropriate history? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:06, 9 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If Mare Iaponicum is deleted the history is lost. So it shouldn't be done that way. The proper way to do this is for you as author to copy all the new text that you wish to keep into the existing page Mare Iaponicum, saying in the summary that you are doing so ("replacing existing stub with text from Mare Iaponiae", or words to that effect). Then your new page Mare Iaponiae can be reduced to a redirect.
    If you have problems doing that, let me know, but it's better for you to do it really. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 9 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:31, 9 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great. It's fortunate you noticed so quickly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:36, 9 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rubros in commentario de Oceano Pacifico quam celerrime caeruleificare conamur nexus, ut commentarius loco commentarii de Oceano Arctico pagina mensis sit. Fortasse aliquis animadvertit? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:54, 9 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ita, vidi. Opus magistrale facis! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:32, 9 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Macte! Mattie (disputatio) 15:21, 13 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    De informatione recensere

    Salvete, amici usores! Nomen mihi est Rodericus, ac hodie hic scribo quod scripsi paginam de grege musico (potato), sed nescio si in hac pagina sit nonnullam "infobox" ut poteram complementare paginam informatione adhibita de grege, ut in Hispanica aut Anglica Vicipaedia. Estne ullam "infobox" de gregibus musicis in hac latina vicipaedia? Quomodo possim creare "infobox" ut alii usores poterent eam usare in eorum paginis?

    Iroquois Confederacy recensere

    I noticed that we don't have a page for them, but the only question is how to translate Aulus Sergius Sulla (disputatio) 13:01, 15 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Iroquois recensere

    Perhaps Iroquois, Iroquois, Iroquoi, ect.? Aulus Sergius Sulla (disputatio) 13:01, 15 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In Synopsi historiae Societatis Iesu inveniuntur: Iroquenses, Iroquaei, plerumque autem Iroquesi. Descriptio in hac imagine "pro Christo discerpti ab Iroquesiis" habet.--Utilo (disputatio) 15:14, 15 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Should it be sing or plural? Or an adjective? Aulus Sergius Sulla (disputatio) 01:17, 23 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It could easily be genitive pural ("Foedus Iroquaeorum") or singular in agreement with the noun ("Confoederatio Iroquensis") -- I am just taking examples here but you see the range of choice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:33, 23 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)[reply]