EU institutions recensere

Is "Institutis Unio Europaea" the best translation of "Institutions of the European Union"? Greetings. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 15:00, 18 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd prefer institutum for "institution"; then the plural would be instituta. And you need to put Unio Europaea into the genitive case for possession (that "of" in your English phrase), so Instituta Unionis Europaeae. Depending on exactly which institutions you have in mind, another noun might be more appropriate, but the Unionis Europaeae part will be the same. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:55, 18 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! So will for instance "portal of the European Union" accordingly be "Porta Unionis Europaeae"? - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 16:18, 18 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes "Porta Unionis Europaeae" sounds right to me. But if what you're thinking of is writing a Vicipaedia "Portal" page, it's already here: we already have Porta:Unio Europaea, following our "Portal" naming convention. There's a special namespace for those just like for the pages about Vicipaedia (like Vicipaedia:Taberna, which isn't called "Taberna Vicipaediae") or for user pages (like your own page Usor:Ssolbergj, which isn't called "Pagina usoris Ssolbergj"). In any case I'm delighted to see more work on the latest winner of the Praemium Nobelianum Pacis Componendae! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:50, 18 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, thanks. Sure, I did notice the colon. But someone who is able to do so should probably move Categoria:Porta Unio Europaea to Categoria:Porta Unionis Europaeae-
Done. --UV (disputatio) 20:50, 21 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But when it comes to treaties, I don't know what the best translations are in each case. Take the 1951 Treaty of Paris:
English name Latin variants? What to choose?
Treaty of Paris Foedus apud Lutetiam sancitum
Foedus apud Lutetiam
Pactum apud Lutetiam
Tractatus Lutetiensis
Pactio Lutetiensis
Pactum Lutetiense
Et cetera...

- Ssolbergj (disputatio) 19:28, 21 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont know the best term,but there are some grammar errors inn your suggestions. Apud requires the accusativw case so it should be apud lutetiam, not apud lutetia, likewise pacto lutetiensi is a phrase in the ablative case so it would have a number of meanings not : pactio lutetiensis or pactum lutetiense would be ok grammatically in the nominative case. -
Ok. I've updated the list. See Categoria:Foedera. There seems to be many alternatives. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 02:47, 28 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My suggestion is none of the above but "Foedus Lutetiae sancitum (1951)". "Lutetiae" in this phrase is the locative, meaning "at/in Paris". The locative is specially used with names of places: it coincides with the genitive in the singular of declensions 1 and 2 (Lutetiae, Londinii), with the ablative elsewhere (Athenis, Gabiis, Barcinone). (Have I said that right?)
I expect someone will come along with a better suggestion now :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 28 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you're going for 'treaty consecrated at Paris'? Cassell's implies that sancītum is found only or mainly in Lucretius, and the regular form is sanctum. To avoid the religious tinges, maybe use plain old factum ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:31, 28 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin wikipedia has the following foedera:

I don't know which of these names are based on the most authoritative sources. If the articles were named without such authoritative sources when they were named, then perhaps we should figure out what the most approperiate latin translation of "Treaty of [city]" is, and rename articles the accordingly. Religious tinges is of course something that should be avoided, but @Andrew, when you created e.g. Foedus Versaliis sancitum, did you know of some other secular treaties which have names that include "sancitum"? And perhaps it is necessary to have a precedence before introducing for instance "factum" in this seemingly basic issue of deciding what all treaties are to be called. It seems strange that no naming practice is established for this in modern latin, considering the fact that treaties were made throughout the middle ages. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 00:12, 13 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, good question, but it's a long time ago. I have a feeling the word sancitum was not devised by me but suggested to me by an authority I respect (e.g. Neander possibly): however, you can see above that another authority I respect (Iacobus) doesn't like it much. The reason for using a phrase ending with a past participle is that it's not really really good Latin to end a clause with a prepositional phrase (like "Foedus apud Versalias") or even a genitive (like "Foedus Nemetaci"), though it must be admitted that we do it quite often. Best is to have a neat phrase with an adjective (I guess I could have invented "Foedus Versaliense" and no one would have minded) or else to have a descriptive phrase rounded off with a participle (like the one I used). We were talking about this issue on the subject of battles recently -- much more pleasant to be talking about it on the subject of peace treaties!
We do have a nice adjective for Paris. It is not "Lutetiensis -e" (extremely rare) but "Parisiensis -e" (quite common, though post-classical, and perfectly OK). So you could certainly say "Foedus Parisiense" and add the year in parentheses. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:21, 13 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If "sancitum" is from my pen, it must have come (I hope) as an expedient for avoiding religious tinge. Sanctum is of course the normal PPP of sancire. Thus, Foedus Versaliis sanctum is ok in all possible worlds; and also Foedus Versaliis confirmatum might be considered. And remember that the Roman idiom was foedus icere; thus, Foedus Versaliis ictum might be a good buy, too. Neander (disputatio) 11:26, 13 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It might well have been someone else, Neander! Thanks, I'm glad to know of icere, a word that certainly was not in my active vocabulary till today. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:24, 13 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cassell's says Cicero's idioms are foedus facere, icere, ferire. The last two are transferred senses, from the striking dead of a sacrificial animal to make a compact. The last is unuseful for naming treaties because it lacks a past participle. That leaves us with two possibilities: foedus factum and foedus ictum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:19, 13 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, so if "ictum" is as good as it gets, would the following, central, EU treaties have correct names?:

English name Signed Latin name
Treaty of Brussels 1948 Foedus Bruxellensis ictum
Treaty of Paris 1951 Foedus Parisiensis ictum
Treaty of Rome / Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 1957 Foedus Romanis ictum / Foedus de operatione Unionis Europaeae
Schengen Agreement 1985 Foedus Schengensis ictum
Single European Act 1986 Unico actu Europaea
Treaty of Maastricht / Treaty on European Union 1992 Foedus Traiectis Mosaeae / Foedus de Unione Europaea
Treaty of Amsterdam 1997 Foedus Amstelodamensis ictum
Treaty of Nice 2001 Foedus Nicaensis ictum
Treaty of Lisbon 2007 Foedus Olisipiensis ictum

-Ssolbergj (disputatio) 15:34, 26 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Foedus is neuter, so your adjectives are wrong. ¶ If you're going to use an adjective (e.g., Bruxellense), a past participle is unnecessary; if you're going to use a past participle, you need a locative: "Foedus Bruxellis factum," "Foedus Romae ictum," and so forth. ¶ Unico actu Europaea is a mess. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:53, 26 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I don't really know where to find all the locatives, but would the following be correct?:

-Ssolbergj (disputatio) 16:46, 26 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Locatives aren't hard. In the first and second declensions they have the same form as the genitive in the singular (so Lutetiae, as you have), and as the dative/ablative in the plural (so Bruxellis, as you have). In the third declension it's typically -ī in the singular (sometimes -e), and same as the dative/ablative in the plural; thus Carthagini, "at Carthage." In the fourth declension also -ī singular; in the fifth -ē; and the same as the dative/ablative in the plural here too -- but neither of those is going to come up. Finally, the "Single European Act" could be "Actus unicus Europaeus," with both adjectives masc. nom. sg. to agree with actus; instead of "unicus" we could also have "solus" or perhaps even "primus." If it were up to me I'd go with "solus." A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:22, 27 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A problem with Actus Unicus Europaeus (&c.) is that it assumes that we have here 'a single act regarding Europe' (which, being hyphenless, is what the title Single European Act, according to traditional orthography, must mean); but if the correct spelling is actually Single-European Act (see the hyphen), i.e., 'an act having to do with a single Europe', then we might consider Actus Solius Europae. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:45, 27 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's a red-herring (if I may say so, mi Iacobe) because in fact it's written without a hyphen; and compare the French, Acte unique européen. It's an odd name, but I've always supposed it must mean, as you say, that we Europeans require only a single act :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:36, 27 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absent the intent to deceive, it can't be a red herring, or even a read herring. ;) Perhaps it's a cul-de-sac. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:29, 27 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure it wouldn't have happened under Hermanus Van Rompuy's watch; his main subjects were Ancient Greek and Latin. ;) By the way, is there a formula for category renaming requests? I suppose Categoria:Academia Scientiarum et Artium Europaeana -> Categoria:Academia Scientiarum et Artium Europaea, and Categoria:Sodales Academiae Scientiarum et Artium Europaeanae -> Categoria:Sodales Academiae Scientiarum et Artium Europaeae. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 17:53, 27 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or am I wrong? I noticed you were the one who created these. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 18:04, 27 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're quite right, your name is better. But if there's only one or two members in a category, there's no quicker way to do this than to create the new category yourself, edit the pages so that they are in it, and then mark the old category with the {{Delenda}} template. So, go ahead ... :)
If a category with a larger number of members has to be renamed, the best way is to list it at Vicipaedia:Automata/Category move requests. UV's bot then does the work for us. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:30, 27 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks! They are now replaced. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 01:03, 30 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Celebrity, verbum Anglicum recensere

Quid est generale verbum Latinum pro hac notione? Cassell's nobis suadet ut locutione vir insignis utamur, sed haec locutio ad animalia (vide Sgt Reckless) et ad alias res manifesto non pertinet. Fortasse persona (Anglice 'personage'), vel etiam simpliciter nomen? Aut melius erit si modo locutionem vir insignis solum pro hominibus retinemus, et aliud verbum, fortasse cynosura, animalibus adhibemus? Praeterea, commentarium pro Anglico Celebrity desideramus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:54, 20 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Num cynosura Latine metonymice (aut metaphorice?) adhibeatur dubito. Id quod in lexico repperi est: Cynosura = nympha montis Idae (Iovis nutrix) atque Ursa Minor (eadem ad astra evecta).--Utilo (disputatio) 16:53, 20 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fortasse en:Celebrity (novello sensu concreto) Famosus est? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:03, 20 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mihi quidem "famosus" placet!--Utilo (disputatio) 17:42, 20 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brussius recensere

An quis explicare vel defendere potest praenomen "Brussius" apud nos usitatum, e.g. Brussius Braley? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:37, 21 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pro praenomem cognomenve "Bruce" ob illustram familiam regis Scotorum Latinizatio "Brussius" atque "Brusius" consuetudinária videtur e.g.: The Edinburgh Magazine and Literary Miscellany, Volume 84, p.534, "Georgius Buchananus, Rerum Scoticarum Historia" [1] passim, Grace, Kilkenniensis, Annales Hiberniae pp. 94,96,160, atque saeculo XVIº Gulielmus Brussius quidem autor "De Tartaris Diarium" invenitur. --Leonellus Pons (disputatio) 21:20, 30 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias tibi ago, Leonelle. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:18, 31 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anglicani recensere

Habemus commentationem Communio Anglicana et categorias "Ecclesia Anglica", "Ecclesia Episcopalis" et "Religio Anglicana". Una sola categoria mihi satis esse videtur. Quid alii de ea re?--Utilo (disputatio) 13:25, 21 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoriam singulam coniunctam "Ecclesia Anglicana" (sicut "Ecclesia Catholica", "Ecclesiae Orthodoxae") creare fortasse oportet? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 21 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vicipaedia Theodisca "Ecclesia Anglicana" habet, Anglica "Anglicanismus", Anglicani ipsi apellationem "Communio Anglicana" praeferre videntur. "Ecclesia Anglicana" vel etiam forma pluralis "Ecclesiae Anglicanae" aliis appellationibus ("Ecclesia Catholica" etc.) melius respondere videtur.--Utilo (disputatio) 13:51, 21 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reformatores recensere

Helveticus montanus noster, nisi fallor, studio laudabilissimo vitas plurimorum reformatorum Protestanticorum conscripsit eos „emendatores ecclesiae“ vocans. Iam dudum commentatio „Emendatio ecclesiae“ ab aliquo in Reformationem mutata est. Mea sententia etiam „Categoria: Praeclari homines Ecclesiae emendationis“ melius „Categoria:Reformatores“ vel „Categoria:Praeclari homines ecclesiae reformationis“ vocetur, primo quod „reformator“ est verbum usitatissimum (ed ideo facillimum ad intellegendum), deinde quod non omnes Christiani omnes „reformatores“ ecclesiam emendavisse putant (non solum Catholici, sed et alii, qui destructionem artificiorum deplorant etc.).--Utilo (disputatio) 16:54, 21 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sicut fortasse vidisti in disputatione categoriae, iamdudum voluimus titulum breviorem imponere. Ad minimum, meo iudicio, oportet "praeclari" delere. "Categoria:Reformatores ecclesiae" volui dicere, sed Helveticus omnes esse reformatores (sensu stricto) negat. Quid igitur? An "Homines Ecclesiae reformationis"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:29, 22 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apud Cassell's legimus: "reformer, corrector, emendator (with f. emendatrix)." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:02, 22 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pro! antea disputationem non legi. - Vicipaedia theodisca duas categorias habet (categoriam latiorem "Homines reformationis" et subcategoriam "Reformatores") - Fortasse "Homines ecclesiarum reformationis" aut "Assectatores reformationis" ? - Iterum ad verbum "reformator": Sicut "emendator" et "reformator" est verbum antiquum fere idem valens (Plinius ep. 8, 12, 1; Augustinus in psalm. 32. serm. 2. etc.), sed aliter ac "emdator" a saeculo decimo sexto saepe ad auctores reformationis designandos adhibitum est, ut modo in Catechismo Catholicae Ecclesiae (cap. 406): "protestantium Reformationem" - "priores reformatores protestantes". Etiam linguae vernaculae idem verbum sumpserunt. Itaque hoc verbum praeferam.--Utilo (disputatio) 20:06, 22 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Landmark recensere

Ave. Quid Latine bene sive optime esset verbo Anglico landmark? Lexicon A copious and critical English-Latin lexicon aliquae simile alicui a landmark habet, sed fortasse non bonae. Exempli gratia verbum egendum commentatione Ortygia nuper creabam. Quid scitis sive censetis? Donatello (disputatio) 02:04, 23 Octobris 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Meo iudicio verbum hodiernum Anglicum "landmark" eo contextu haud idoneum est! Insula ipsa "landmark" potest esse, i.e. res ab iter petentibus late visa. Auctor Anglicus, nisi fallor, multa monumenta historica ibi stare dicere voluit.
Lexicon copious and critical alium sensum veteriorem verbi "landmark" agnoscit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:23, 24 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bene sonat Andreas. :) Quid de 'signum terraneum'? Hehe. Sed condicionem tuam melius sonet.
Donatello (disputatio) 13:37, 24 Octobris 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Apud Cassell's legimus: "landmark, lapis, terminus." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:07, 24 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... sicut in copious and critical. Credo Angli saeculo XIX talem rem dicere voluisse quando verbo "landmark" usi sunt, sed hodierni, nisi fallor, omnino aliam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, but it's all the same thing! In English, a landmark, apud Merriam-Webster, = 'an object (as a stone or tree) that marks the boundary of land'. (That sense maps well with that of lapis 'a stone . . . a boundary-stone . . . a mile-stone' and terminus 'a boundary-mark'). From there the English shades into 'a conspicuous object on land that marks a locality' and then 'an anatomical structure used as a point of orientation in locating other structures' and then 'an event or development that marks a turning point or stage' and finally 'a structure (as a building) of unusual historical and usually aesthetic interest: esp. : one that is officially designated and set aside for preservation'. We might even recognize a sense even even vaguer: 'a conspicuous example', as in "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is a landmark of symphonic composition." Same word throughout! Why shouldn't transferred senses, metaphors, and so forth work the same way in Latin? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:09, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wouldn't language be easy if it worked like that!
But thanks for the definition "structure (as a building) of unusual histori[c]al and usually aesthetic interest" -- I have never encountered that sense of "landmark", and clearly it is the one intended in Donatello's question. I haven't thought of anything better than "monumentum" as a rough equivalent for it: certainly not "lapis" or "terminus". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:50, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm surprised, Andrew, that you haven't heard this sense of "landmark," since for me it's one of the more common meanings, alongside "conspicuous object that marks a locality." Does that mean it's an Americanism? I note that Iacobus cites Merriam-Webster, an American dictionary (whereas Smith's Copious and Critical is British and I think Cassell's is too). A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:04, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha! If senses aren't even shared between Anglic and American, we'd certainly better not assume they are shared between English and Latin.
My usual dictionary is the full OED (2nd ed., CD-ROM). Believe me (although numerous American texts are cited in the OED of course) this sense of "landmark" does not occur in it. Instead I have "1. The boundary of a country, estate, etc.; an object set up to mark a boundary line. b. ? A district. Obs. 2. An object in the landscape, which, by its conspicuousness, serves as a guide in the direction of one’s course (orig. and esp. as a guide to sailors in navigation); hence, any conspicuous object which characterizes a neighbourhood or district. 3. (In mod. use.) An object which marks or is associated with some event or stage in a process; esp. a characteristic, a modification, etc., or an event, which marks a period or turning-point in the history of a thing." I regard sense 1 -- the one assumed in Cassell's -- as completely obsolete (the OED's last citation is from Thirlwall's Greece in 1838). Sense 2 is the one that seemed most familiar to me, hence my remark to Donatello, far above, that the island itself might be considered a landmark. I had honestly never encountered this sense in which the tiny island of Ortygia might have several landmarks on it. We live and learn. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:21, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fortasse, 'īnsigne locī' contextū intellegetur. - IāxCūpārius

De imagine recensere

Abhinc multas menses decrevimus imaginem haud pulchram esse et aliam voluimus, nisi fallor. Aliam ergo misi, in illa Formula:Taberna. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:28, 24 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Censeo te optime fecisse: haec decet imago et multo melius adhibetur.--Poecus (disputatio) 21:16, 29 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bot, perhaps? recensere

We make a lot of use of Formula:Nav as a frame for navboxes at the foot of the page. I think it is called in about 200 other formulae. It's nice and simple, and perfect for its purpose except that one parameter is in German: "INHALT". Could a bot perhaps change all instances of this to "Textus" (or some other suitable word)? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:29, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll give this a shot: it sounds easy. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:23, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was easy. There were 188 formulae, including for example Formula:Caesar tituli and Formula:Opera Shakesperii -- have a look and make sure everything is satisfactory. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:39, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And my apologies to anyone who reads audit trails for the left-over change description! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:40, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much -- seems to work perfectly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoriae Opera et Operae recensere

Nobis sunt duae categoriae distinctae: Categoria:Opera, quae genus artis, et Categoria:Operae, quae exempla huius generis continet. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:47, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ut mihi videtur Categoria:Opera alias categorias continet quae de omnibus artis generis tractant, ut Categoria:Genera litterarum et Categoria:Pelliculae. Categoria:Operae autem paginas et categorias ad musicam adhibentes continet, ut Die Zauberflöte. Prima categoria: "quid est opus artis?" Altera: "quid est opera scaenica?" A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:02, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Conflictus editionis -- fortasse easdem res scribo?] : Categoria:Opera, iam diu constituta, est valde generalis, "opera humani ingenii" conprehendens (Latine opus sg., opera pl.): vide quae in hac categoria insunt, et vide quod iam ad Disputatio Categoriae:Operae scripsi. Si categoriam "Opera" colonizare vis pro hac re quae Italiane "opera" appellatur, per me, tibi licet! -- sed oportet antea nomen aliud pro eis rebus nunc sub categoria:Opera comprehensa excogitare et rite proponere. Quid proponis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Premite iterum et videte: Opera et Operae ! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:54, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nescio cur nexus quas supra imposueras nuper mutavisti ...? Restitui igitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:09, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modi dicendi recensere

Good day. May anyone tell me what the phrases Nice to meet you. and (I'm) pleased to meet you. would be in Latin or classical Latin? I can translate them easily, but it would be good to know if there are any equivalent, then languages have their own ways. Donatello (disputatio) 16:13, 25 Octobris 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

In colloquiis Erasmi potes synonyma invenire huiusmodi. --Martinus Poeta Juvenis (disputatio) 13:04, 26 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[2] --Martinus Poeta Juvenis (disputatio) 14:13, 26 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vide quoque apud Stoam ubi sunt pluria colloquia, non modo Erasmi sed aliorum scriptorum! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:27, 26 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Haec inveni: Salvum te advenire gaudemus. Sospitem adesse, volupe est. Te nobis redditum esse, voluptati est. Gratulamur tibi felicem reditum. Gratia superis, quod nobis incolumis redieris. Quo molestius fuit nobis tui desiderium, hoc redditus conspectus tui iucundior est. Gratulamur et tibi et nobis, quod vivus ac valens nobis restitutus sis. Hoc reditus tuus est nobis iucundior, quo minus exspectatus.Resp.. Ego vicissim laetor, quod incolumis vos incolumes offenderim. Quod te salvum repererim, vehementer gaudeo. Non viderer mihi redisse salvus, nisi vos salvos reperissem. Nunc demum mihi videor sospes, quum vos incolumes ac pulchre valentes conspicio. --Martinus Poeta Juvenis (disputatio) 16:39, 26 Octobris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pagina·mensis·Novembris·MMXII recensere

Cur in pagina mensis, quae prima vicipaedia pagina est, verba haud Latina "zoná demilitarizatá" invenimus? --Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 13:47, 6 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hanc rem (et nonnullas alias quoque) in symbola ipsa mutavi. Neander (disputatio) 15:37, 6 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Formula quae paginam in prima pagina ponit iam correxi, cuius nomen est Formula:PaginaMensis/Novembris 2012. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:53, 6 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias ago! Neander (disputatio) 07:44, 7 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin name for Bergen (Norway) recensere

Are there any sources for the latin name "Berga" for "Bergen", as in the article Berga? The university of Bergen calls itself "Universitas Bergensis", but this would only show the genitive form. The most natural name for Bergen would then be as in Norwegian "Bergen", declined after 3rd declension, with root "Bergens-".

-Vegarius- 22:29, 6 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hoffman has Berga urbs Scandinaviae maritima ... cum arce "Bergenhusium"... emporium... societatis Teutonicae [pro Hansa ]. --Xaverius 23:26, 6 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Salvete. Fortasse Bergen in chartis veteris invenies. Id invenire probabam in Carta Marina, sed non poteram. Fortasse ibi non est, sive nomen incognitum habet. Re vera, Berga anno 1070 condita est et Carta Marina ab anno 1539, ita esse esset.
Donatello (disputatio) 00:20, 7 Novembris 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thank you. I found Bergen on the map. It's called Bergē, and is located just south-west of where Tilemarchia, or Telemark, is located. Not quite precise, but it has to be there. It also fits with the directions found in face="Gill Sans">Andrewl Hoffman has Berga.
-Vegarius- 08:43, 7 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To explain from your original question: Bergensis is not a genetive, it is an adjective. If the noun is Berga, as Hoffman confirms, it is normal that there should be an adjective "Bergensis". So all seems to be well. [Andrew Dalby 10:01, 7 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, you found it on the map! Good. :)
Donatello (disputatio) 21:22, 7 Novembris 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Norma vs.Cumbersomeness recensere

In the red corner weighing 220 pounds, heeyers Norma!.....When a non-native adopts a new language, he invites ridicule or appears quaint when he uses standard textbook example patterns. (It behooves me to say... :) )It is ridiculous today to use thou, lest, whilst, hither, thither, behooves etc in English. However natives would excuse this saying, "Oh that is ok. He is a foreigner/non native speaker... etc". Not to mention, he would be readily understood, and even be supported by academic people.

Cumbersomeness disappears with frequent use like the w/u sound for v in latin , e.g getting used to saying wobis for vobis, wenire for venire etc.

Since Latin is not a native language for most of us, let's take advantage of known patterns and while no one is around to coerce or pressure us in avoiding standard patterns of usage( while it is still early?). Remember that whatever you have in your dictionaries is most probably in other dictionaries as well.

Cumbersomeness is expected at the beginning(in any new language); and norms and correct patterns can be made customary by frequent, massive usage.Just get used to doing it right the first time! WHEN YOU LEARN A NEW LANGUAGE, IF YOU CAN, IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU CAN BE (ARTIFICIALY )NATIVE WITH STANDARD PATTERNS. eg. make it part of your reflex/instinct just like kung fu!--Jondel (disputatio) 03:19, 10 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One note: "whilst" is perfectly standard among some speakers; here in the US it's not common, but in British English it's not ridiculous. And I see no issue with "lest" in certain uses. I also use "behoove." (All of this is related to my age, where I grew up, my level of education, and perhaps my gender: I don't claim that all Americans, or even all Bostonians, speak the same way I do!) That is, even in this living language, widely spoken as a first and second language, there is a lot of regional variation and register variation -- and that's not even taking into account diachronic variation.
The same will surely be true for Latin. So while I agree that we should try to use native patterns, I wouldn't want to get too dogmatic about exactly what those are, beyond the obvious (such as putting verbs last, or omitting anaphoric subject pronouns). And let's remember where the phrase norma loquendi comes from -- a tendentious, opinionated work by a poet! (for those who don't recognize it, it's Horace Ars Poetica 72) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:33, 13 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Off the tangent] Whilst ad lest are 'ridiculous'? Blimey, first notice... --Xaverius 10:18, 15 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whilst may well be unidiomatic in the Western Hemisphere, where (if we may toss another term into the ring) its seeming cousin amongst is heard & seen a little, but still, to some, evokes echoes of the Commonwealth (Canada fortasse exclusa); lest, however, has friends everywhere: the KJV's "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matt. 7:1) is often quoted as "Judge not, lest you be judged." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:53, 15 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Amongst our weaponry" (1:18)--Xaverius 11:43, 17 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lamp Latine recensere

Salvete. Quid appellater verbum Anglicum lamp Latine? Lexicon meum ab Ebbe Vilborg (Suetice-Latine) dicit:

lampa lucerna f, lychnus m, lampas ('adis) f; glöd- (meaning 'light bulb', which in Swedish is glödlampa) lampádula f * electrica

Quid censetis? Donatello (disputatio) 18:50, 14 Novembris 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Mihi aptus est lampas.--Jondel (disputatio) 00:43, 15 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mihi quoque. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 15 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cassell's: "lamp, lucerna, lychnus" + these are oil-lamps, and a lampas is a torch, especially the kind used at weddings and for torch-races. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:35, 15 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias tibi nuntiatione Iacobe.
Fortasse 'lucerna electrica' sive 'lychnus electrica'? Credo veteres Romani verbum creavissent, relatum cum 'lucerna' sive 'lychnus'.
Donatello (disputatio) 22:37, 16 Novembris 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Automatically generated articles recensere

This relates to an earlier discussion, now archived. In case an example is wanted, here's one:en:Hopea ultima (the name itself rather amusing, evoking a 'last hope'), where the code begins: "<!-- This article was auto-generated by [[User:Polbot]]. -->." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:43, 16 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aliud exemplum: Plagiolepis grassei. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:00, 23 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Robert is working on this for species, isn't he? Haven't seen him much recently, though.
Robert's auto-generated asteroid articles are better-looking than that English example. See 3000 Leonardo, among thousands of others. Better-looking, I mean, because there is plenty of readable text to stand alongside the infobox. I guess, when he's ready, we could work out a similar standard design for the species articles. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 16 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi everybody, cause I didn't remeber, I've opened the same page. Is it possible to remove the second? Gratias ago omnibus

Rex Momo (disputatio) 11:32, 22 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have created a redirect. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:34, 22 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very well, then you took off the second page, right? Vale! Rex Momo (disputatio) 06:37, 23 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Identitas recensere

Hi all. I hope we could accept identitas in Latin? Would you know other ('pure' latin)options? symbolus? agnitio? se agnitio? I need this for example in internet identity, security identity, electronic identity. Symbolus seems to pop into my mind. Its is information which represents an entity. Thank you in advance.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:53, 28 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (of English) says identitas is a Late Latin word. In turn, that word comes from idem, and it's why the basic sense of identity is 'sameness of character', though the word is probably (one might say) most often used in modern English to mean merely 'self', especially 'self conceived as a unique set of attributes'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:09, 28 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The root idea is info representing somebody or thing(entity). I guess we are forced to use identitas. I feel there is reluctance to use symbolus or any other word. I have to go now.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:26, 28 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see why we couldn't use identitas. Worse things happen here every day. :-) Neander (disputatio) 18:41, 28 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great!--Jondel (disputatio) 05:27, 10 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

professor recensere

Me quaeso faciatis callidiorem: Virum in universitate quadam docentem professorem solemus dicere. Sed quid de muliere eodem munere fungente? Num et eam dicimus professorem? - Bavarese (disputatio) 20:06, 28 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sunt qui verbo "profestrix" utuntur, sed "professor" etiam recte dicitur, ut mihi videtur. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 22:00, 28 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoc credo multum in moribus cuiusque nationis / culturae positum esse. In Scandinavia quidem item viri et feminae appellari volunt eodem titulo, qui, si Latine loquamur, sine dubio professor sit. Sed memini disputationis fervidae in Linguist List habitae a Francophonis, quorum pars titulum segregativum professeuse aut professeure malebat. Idea feminismi semper eadem est, sed rationes agendi interdum differre videntur. :-) Neander (disputatio) 23:56, 28 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tibi assentior: Linguis romanis loquentibus partim mos est talibus vocabulis - sicut in lingua Latina et forma masculina velut victor et propria feminina velut victrix - simili modo uti atque in lingua Italiana dottore/dottoressa, professore/professoressa aliaque eiusdem generis. (Fortasse ab exemplis velut barone/baronessa, conte/contessa tractum est?) Haud imitandum, ut mihi videtur. Nam nomini masculino suffixum femininum insuper addere equidem minime Latinum puto. Alio in errore haerere puto eos, qui vocabulo profestrix utuntur. Nam eiusmodi vocabula a participio perfecti passivo formari opportet; qua de causa recte professrix dicendum esset. Sed huius vocabuli nullum sonum Latinum ausculto. Consensusne Vicipediae nostrae utentium adhuc desideratur?- Bavarese (disputatio) 11:14, 29 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Si homines cuiusque sexús eodem officio perfunguntur, distinctio superflua est (dico ego), sed, si in bona Latinitate verba distincta reperimus, e.g. rex/regina, oportet uti. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:50, 29 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salve. For 'energy' in Latin, how is energia as a word for 'energy' in Latin?

As you may know, vi|s (f) is "power" (kraft and makt in my mother tongue Swedish, which is two kinds of "power" in English; "The boss has makt over his people", "It takes much kraft to lift a car") and vig|or (-ris, m) is "energy" (or kraft and energi in Swedish), energy as the lexicon A copious and critical English-Latin lexicon says "life and spirit, both of animate and inanimate things".

So that means then for example as a personal quality "I'm out of vigor". In physical term, energia and vis are used.

I think we never use vigor in physical term. But it may work anyway. Donatello (disputatio) 17:24, 29 Novembris 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

In the latter example, power could be unusual, unless, perhaps, it were referring to electricity: the usual word, if we're talking about humans, would be strength, and the idiom would be, not it takes much power, but it takes a lot of strength.It takes much X is grammatical and intelligible, but it doesn't sound quite native-speakerish. Curiously, it takes no little X sounds perfectly all right, though it's not the sort of phrasing you'd encounter in the lowest registers, where it takes a lot of X (or a great deal of X) would probably be the likeliest way of getting the idea across. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:17, 30 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Energia --Alex1011 (disputatio) 22:45, 11 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Air transport command? recensere

Could someone give their opinion on how the name of en:European Air Transport Command could be translated into Latin? I'm considering a bunch of words (but it would be great if someone can think of something better):


Regarding imperium, it is questionable whether the command has "supreme military power", for instance. A title including "Imperium Europaeum" would perhaps also be somewhat provocative. -Ssolbergj (disputatio) 01:33, 30 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps it's better to have it as European Air Transport Command--Xaverius 11:16, 30 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Translating the names of international organisations (Consilium Europae and Consociatio ex pacto Atlantico Septentrionali etc.) seems to be common practice on Vicipædia, though. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 14:38, 30 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Omnia dici possint Latine. :) Secundum exemplum optime omnium sonat: "Ducatus Vectionis Aeriae Europaeum".
Donatello (disputatio) 16:09, 30 Novembris 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Ducatus is a strange uncommon word, and it's masculine, so if you were to use it, "ducatus Europaeus" would be required. Perhaps administratio or procuratio -- perhaps administratio Europaea vectionis aeriae? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:04, 30 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Though I notice, not without some surprise, that we have pages fr:European Air Transport Command and de:European Air Transport Command and nl:European Air Transport Command, all using the English title as the proper name; this argues that the Latin page should have the same name as well (at least as an available re-direct). A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:07, 30 Novembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm not able to tell whether a word is common or uncommon in latin, but I reckon few latin military terms are used today at all. I looked through this glossary. Most of the roman military terms concern individuals, not institutions or organisations. Ducatus isn't on that list, but it's a military term, derived from dux, i.e. "commander". Its a noun that's been translated to "command", "authority", "the position or function of a leader, leadership" (latter: Oxford Latin Dictionary). The command's motto is "Integrated, Innovative, Efficient", and I suppose this entails once and for all accepting English as the single working language. I don't however see why Latin Wikipedia should surrender just because the French have. :) The command edits its article on English wikipedia, so bearing in mind that Britain hasn't joined the command, maybe the Latin version of the article might inspire them to a name-change ;) - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 00:54, 1 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Auctoritas aërotransportationum Europaea?--Xaverius 00:51, 1 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it conventional practice to create word combinations like aërotransportationum? - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 23:58, 2 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accentus recensere

Ubinam accentus verbi 'tenebrae' positus est? Ténebrae seu tenébrae? --Martinus Poeta Juvenis (disputatio) 18:26, 2 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ténebrae.--Utilo (disputatio) 18:32, 2 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Br semper brevis habetur? --Martinus Poeta Juvenis (disputatio) 18:42, 2 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In lingua Latina consonantes b, p; c, k, qu, g; d, t mutae vocantur, l, r; m; n liquidae. Coniunctio mutae cum liquida in metrica Latina longitudinem ex positione (plerumque) non efficit. Si liquida autem est -l- vel -r-, poetae (!) syllabam vel longam vel brevem, quo opus est, metiuntur.--Utilo (disputatio) 21:52, 2 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sed cum in uno vocabulo muta et liquida in syllabis diversis concurrunt, semper syllabam positione longam efficiunt, e. g. aBRumpere. (Vide: Crusius Friedrich / Rubenbauer Hans, Römische Metrik. München (Hueber) 1961, § 9 Muta cum liquida) - Bavarese (disputatio) 14:40, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Distinction between Gemini as real people and as Gemini fictional regarding categorization ?? recensere

Salve Omnes, Could I ask why is there a distinction between Gemini as "real people" and the "Gemini ficticii" (for the categoria)? Why do they have to be different concepts? Gemini is /are about Geminis whether they are real or not(fictional). Geminis can be real they can be fictional. Gemini is a concept of twin. I do not see the logic. We are probably the only wikipedia who makes that distinction. I can directly read and verify this in wikipedias of 7 languages, so can many of you in other languages that you know. Thank you for your inputs.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:56, 5 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At least, Categoria:Gemini ficticii could be a sub-category of Categoria:Gemini, necne? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:27, 5 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my view, we should settle on what Categoria:Gemini is supposed to contain.
  • Should Categoria:Gemini contain (as is currently the case) only articles about individual, real persons who happen to have a twin brother or a twin sister?
Not 'only' articles, no. Only about articles of persons (real or fictious) who is a member of the twin group.--Jondel (disputatio) 04:16, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If so, Categoria:Gemini should be a subcategory of Categoria:Homines (our category for articles about individual, real persons), and should not have Categoria:Gemini ficticii as its subcategory (as that would indirectly place a number of articles within Categoria:Gemini that treat a topic different from a single real person).
Yes, even if the subcategory Categoria:Gemini ficticii is about fictious, the super category Homines is about real people. It would be going to extremes not to do so. And this is the natural way of doing it. Fiction is based on what is real. We are being paralyzed by overcategorizing this. --Jondel (disputatio) 04:16, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. It should include triplets, quintiplets etc. and individual direct members of those groups. The concept is based on twins.--Jondel (disputatio) 04:16, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If so, all the current contents should be removed from Categoria:Gemini, and it should be a subcategory not of Categoria:Homines but of Categoria:Greges hominum. Whether Categoria:Gemini ficticii should be a subcategory of Categoria:Gemini would depend on its contents: Castor et Pollux would fit the description (2 persons), but Romulus alone would not (1 person only).
Ah , no .--Jondel (disputatio) 04:16, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Should Categoria:Gemini contain everything that has something to do with twins or with twins in general, e. g. not only the articles about Benedictus de Nursia (a person who happened to have a twin sister) and Cosmas et Damianus (a pair of twins), but also Idioglossia (a phenomenon that may occur among a group of persons, including among twins)?
Has to do with everything like Idioglossia, a phenomenon mostly found with twins. Placing it in the family is a bit overcategorizing it. Take the middle path, most often occuring phenomenon as the logic.(ratio)--Jondel (disputatio) 04:16, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If so, Categoria:Gemini should be a subcategory neither of Categoria:Homines nor of Categoria:Greges hominum, because not all of its contents would fit the requirements of either category.
No. It should allow content of individuals (who has a direct twin sibling).--Jondel (disputatio) 04:16, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or we might have more than one category. Cf. fr.wikipedia, which has fr:Catégorie:Jumeaux (for twin pairs) and fr:Catégorie:Gémellité (for articles related to the concept in general).
I will look at this .--Jondel (disputatio) 04:16, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no strong preference what Categoria:Gemini is supposed to contain, but whatever we settle on, we should make it clear in the category description and choose appropriate super- and subcategories.
Which way would you prefer?
That we don't overcategorize and be a slave to overcategorization. Follow your instinct. My preference is as indicated.--Jondel (disputatio) 04:16, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to the "invisible wall", as Andrew calls it, between categories that should contain only articles about individual, real persons, and other categories, I tried to set out a number of reasons at Disputatio Usoris:UV#Categoriae a few weeks ago. Beware – this is somewhat lengthy to read.
Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:45, 5 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newbies are going to slam into this invisible wall, ouch. I 'm reading it s-l-o-w-l-y. hmmm--Jondel (disputatio) 00:29, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The French solution is interesting. Our category "Gemini" (=real members of twin pairs) -- and the other relevant categories too -- could all be sub-categories of e.g. "geminitas" (which would be a subcategory of "familia" etc., not of "homines"). This would mean you'd find everything to do with twinness under "geminitas". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My french is bad. Just some thoughts about the discussion page at category: -Geminis can idealy contain articles about individuals (who cares about the other twin). This is what was needed right? If the article is about both, then we would have to use that grouping categories.

Let me just say a few other things. Rules and Categories should accomodate people. People shouldn't be slaves to (Over)categorization and rules.

  • Even if the super category is (Real ) Geminis, the Fictional Geminis should be under the Gemini category.
  • The Fictional Geminy will then be forced to have a Fictional Category.2 Categories, So what! It will be more convenient and easy to navigate by instinct.--Jondel (disputatio) 11:54, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Geminis should contain both individuals (who are direct members of the twins). Who cares if the other twin died, and if both are notable, then both twin members.
  • If both are notable or the article pertains to both then they still should be under twins and groups.
  • Again, please allow a sub category Fictional Gemini/Twin to conflict with the super category Real Person/Homines.
  • Please be aware if you starting to be slaves or obsessive to these over categorization and rulings.If it goes against instinct, forget the rules.--Jondel (disputatio) 11:54, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any slavery here. My feeling is that we want to make the category structure serve as many human purposes as we can -- it's just that, in this special case, Jondel's human purpose differs slightly from UV's human purpose! It seems to me that with a category "Geminitas" we can serve both human purposes (but it's just one solution, there are other possible solutions too).
To save newbies from hitting their heads against the wall, it may be that the infobox formula, which already appears at the head of all biographical categories, should include a guideline -- e.g. "this category should only contain biographies". En:wiki has lots of guidelines like that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:25, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reading further, I gather Jondel has already rejected the solution of a category "Geminitas", so I won't press it. Another solution comes to mind. Some while ago I merged category "Homines gemelli", which I think Iacobus created, with category "Gemini", which I myself created. I did it because I'm a "slave" (as Jondel puts it) to brevitas, but perhaps I made a bad choice there. If we recreated "Categoria:Homines gemelli", it could contain the biographies (only) and be a member of the category tree "Homines". It could also be a subcategory of "Gemini"; then category "Gemini" would contain all the subcategories relating to twinness, and that, I think, is what you really want, Jondel :) Shall we do it that way? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bear in mind that anciently attested gemini include:
  • twin-born siblings, especially Castor & Pollux (Cicero, Livy)
  • double weddings (Terence)
  • paired battle-lines (Vergil)
  • paired ears (Ovid)
  • Chiron, the Centaur, half-man & half-horse (Ovid)
  • Cecrops, half-Greek & half-Egyptian (Ovid)
And the zodiacal Gemini can't be all that recent either. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:15, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is what UV says in the 'lengthy read' discussion': it is a good idea to ensure that Categoria:Homines is understood as an is-a-category and contains articles about individual persons only. I'm not sure about is-a-category but what the requirement is individual person.(fiction or not). I have to go now.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:30, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made the change I suggested, reinstating Iacobus's Categoria:Homines gemelli and making Categoria:Gemini a more general category. This agrees with en:wiki's structure. See if it works for you, Jondel. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It works for me, Thank you Andrew. I believe that this will help not only me, but all. Please continue as before.--Jondel (disputatio) 06:40, 7 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"navigation menu"? recensere

Equis scit quare verba anglica "navigation menu" in parte inferiori omnium paginarum nunc stent? Quae modificatio apud Wikimediam nos oppugnat? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:22, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ut videtur, est elementum <h2> in classe "mw-navigation" ubi sunt nexus ad paginam usoris, ad paginarum custoditarum tabulam, etc. (qui in parte superiori paginae stant). In aliis WP versionibus idem elementum HTML video ("view page source" utens) sed titulus in pagina non apparet. Nescio autem ubi haec "divisio" HTML definiatur, nec utrum fortasse praeferentiam male mutarim. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:30, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In brausero meo haec verba heri vidi, hodie non video. An utile erit paginam vi reimponere ("force a reload")? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:03, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita, hoc feci, frustra autem. Nihil video inter paginas nuper mutatas (sed nescio an modificationes in CSS vel HTML illius MediaWiki visibiles sint hac in tabula). A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:21, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Si conventum claudo, titulus evanescit; si navigatro ("brausero"?) Konqueror nomine utor, (non, ut saepius, Firefox) titulum non video. Quod aenigma! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:49, 6 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non video ullum 'navigation menu'. IE8 utor. --Jondel (disputatio) 10:41, 9 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salve. Est casus annuus mense Decembre. Hodie certior sum unum vidi. Magnus erat. Quid vobis? Nuper hanc commentationem creabam. Adiuvetis aliqua verba? Quid est sive sit, si non est, meteor shower Latine? "Pluvia meteoritea" scribebam, sed paulum vitiose sonat. Et quid est "Geminides" singulari? Sit ut "androídes" (m) ubi "androídea" (n) sit? Sive modo "Geminidis"? Amplior, quid scitis sive censetis Zenithal Hourly Rate Latine?

Donatello (disputatio) 18:22, 12 Decembris 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Vicilibri recensere

Hello, just letting you know that Wikipedia has a sister project called Wikibooks. The Latin edition seems to be completely inactive. Would anyone be interested in reviving the Latin Vicilibri?

(Debeone latine sribere?)

Salvete! Vicilibri soror Vicipædiæ est. Vicilibri latinus inactivus et mortuus est. Vultisne Vicilibri recreare? PiRSquared17 (disputatio) 02:57, 15 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we create our own copyleft book, like how to converse in latin or dictionary with focus on modern conversational idioms? If so, then yes, I would like to revive it.--Jondel (disputatio) 05:03, 15 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's what the project is for (but the text should be in Latin). To write a book in English, see the English Wikibooks. PiRSquared17 (disputatio) 17:28, 15 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assentio. --Alex1011 (disputatio) 18:32, 15 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nexus "scientiae"? recensere

We have dozens (or even hundreds) of perhaps once blue links to [[scientia]] that seem recently to have turned red, now directing readers to a disambiguation page. How do we make them blue again? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:28, 16 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hold on, which do you mean? Have they really turned red (if so, please link to an example where this is seen) or do they lead to the disambig page? The cases are different, and the action to be taken will be different. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:14, 16 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They lead to a disambiguation page, which lists several possibilities, among which are [[Scientia (declarativa)]], [[Scientia (ratio)]], [[Historia naturalis (scientia)]]. If a writer wants to reference just plain "science," which of those links accomplishes that? For example, the article Geographia tells us about "[[scientia]] locorum et telluris proprietatum." To which science-related article should that link take us? ¶ On my screen, links to disambiguation pages print bluish on an annoyingly bright rosy background, with a superscript DIS. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:26, 16 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mine too. It is useful, isn't it? But I think you can change it, under "Praeferentiae", if you really find it annoying.
I was the one who added the "disambiguation" formula to the new Scientia page; that's when links turned from the normal link-to-existing-page form to the link-to-disambiguator form. (In my own preferences I keep them the same, but it's a user choice.) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:45, 22 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I didn't see that. If so I was wrong, just below, to say that this was ever Neander's problem! If so, sorry, Neander. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:39, 22 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, well, I think this is Neander's problem (to begin with) because I think he did the split-and-move. All such actions carry consequences. Since it was decided to have no substantive page called "Scientia", all links to Scientia now go to the disambig page, as you rightly say. So the first question, for Neander and/or others, is this: should nearly all of them go to the same one of the new "Scientia (...)" pages?
If nearly all the links should go to the same one of those pages, there are two easy solutions: (a) perhaps a bot can change them all, if we ask it nicely, or (b) perhaps we should reconsider whether one of those pages should simply be called "Scientia", moving the current Scientia page to Scientia (discretiva).
If it is unpredictable which of the pages each link should go to, then we can do nothing automatically, just change the links one by one when we encounter them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 16 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, yes, I see now: on 9 December, Neander moved the article Scientia—with its lemma of just plain Scientia—to Scientia (ratio), thereby sending all the remaining [[Scientia]] links to the disambiguation page, rather than to the article to which they'd formerly been attached. As you say, the solutions are: (1) move the page back, or (2) change the links so they read [[Scientia (ratio)]], either all at once (via a bot), or from time to time (as they come into view). Others may have ideas about which procedure should prevail. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:30, 16 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking of Neander's problem — which consists, I guess, in guiding ingenuous links to false destinations — there may be other instances (not due to me) to similar effect. One case in point is the old redirect from "Elis" to Elis (nomus Graeciae). Because of the redirect, most of the links were misdirected to the reality of modern Greece; for instance, "Phaedon Elidensis" was supposed to have founded "Elidensem sectam", though modern Greece isn't too famous for its philosophical sects. I have now changed Elis from a redirect to a full-fledged article (stipula!) on ancient Elis. There may be a lot of similar cases around here. But I was the one who got caught. :-) Neander (disputatio) 15:42, 27 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Err ... yes, at Elis you have definitely improved things (so far as I can see)!
The slightly dangerous act -- always legitimate, sometimes positively useful, but needing careful consideration -- is turning a redirect into a page. If there were a lot of links pointing to that redirect, they will henceforth, for better or worse, point at your new page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:39, 27 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the change in question consisted in the replacement " [[Scientia]] ⇒ [[Scientia (ratio)]] ", I'm sure that a bot can do the job. ¶ By the way, I happened to run across another inadequate link in oeconomia. Among "res oeconomicas", the text lists " operas ". In view of the fact that the bona fide meaning of opera is 'service, work', it may be misleading to use the technical opera as the default title. Neander (disputatio) 22:30, 16 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine, since no one else has commented, let's ask UV if this can be done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we all agree that there shouldn't be a "primary" entry at "Scientia"? It means, for the future, that links we wish to make to the most common sense of this word will be longer, because it is usually unhelpful to link to a discretiva page. There are a lot of such links, and there evidently will be a lot more. If everyone's happy with that, then UVbot is prepared to obey! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:36, 21 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would a simple redirect work? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:02, 21 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The change made by me consisted in the simple redirect " [[Scientia]] ⇒ [[Scientia (ratio)]] ". Somehow I fail to see the problem. Neander (disputatio) 12:29, 21 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Was that what it was? All remaining instances of [[Scientia]] redirect to a disambiguation page, rather than to [[Scientia (ratio)]]. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:58, 22 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After (most) redirects have done their thing, an announcement of the fact of the redirect appears at the top of the page to which the redirect has taken the reader, and the redirect command can then & there be accessed (with a click) & reedited. In this case, however, no such announcement appears, so the redirect for [[scientia]] can't be accessed from within the disambiguation page, and it therefore can't be edited. Is this is true of all redirects to disambiguation pages? If so, programmers must have provided some sort of workaround—perhaps deleting the disambiguation page and starting over? Or will deleting the {{discretiva}} command render the announcement of the redirect visible and thereby enable its editing? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:08, 22 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All redirects can be edited in the same way. There is no redirect at scientia. It was briefly a redirect; then Neander turned it into a page again, and then Anne marked it as a discretiva page. Now I really am leaving this alone! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:34, 22 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but you can't make a simple redirect using the word scientia. Perhaps the problem is the {{discretiva}} signal. Perhaps Scientia should be moved to something like Scientia (vocabulum polysemum)—and then the word scientia might be available to serve as a redirect. In any case, something must be done, because the current pages aren't commutative: our Scientia links to English Science, which vicissim links to our Scientia (ratio), not back to Scientia. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:52, 22 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is getting too subtle to my simple mind. Maybe it's best to revert the whole crap to the stage anterior to my magical touch of disarrangement, i.e. to the old good state with scientia 'science' and gnaritas 'gnowledge'. And please, continue watching my doings very very closely and critically. This is the best way to maintain the standards of Vicipaedia. Neander (disputatio) 00:04, 23 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
¶ Andrew, are you suggesting that the most common sense of scientia is 'science'? As far as classical Latin is concerned, the most common sense of scientia is 'knowledge'. In fact, it's quite hard to come by passages in which scientia means 'science'. Neander (disputatio) 12:29, 21 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what I found by reading several sources is that the way that the distinction in meaning is conceptualized is different in latin and english. Being more specific, there are
A. the raw preliminaries given by the senses,
B. the initial and unsystematic attempts that yield a very doubtful ideas and conclusions that are thought to be uncertain because the person knows there are gaps
C. Attempts that result in ideas and propositions that are believed to be true but not obtained by a definite method that guarantees certainty
D. Attempts that result in ideas and propositions that are held to be true and certain or proper because a proper method is used to arrive at the conclusion; usually referred to as true knlowledge or science
Both the concepts 'cognitio' and 'scientia' in the broadest sense include A through D, scientia referring to the mental product of inquiry and cognitio referring to he process itself. Speaking more narrowly and scientifically, however, B and C (and to an extent A also) cannot be descried as something we know., but can only be described as preliminaries to knowledge. Thinking along these lines, Descartes proposed to use scientia to only refer to D (justified true belief), and use 'cognitio' to refer to A--D (cognitive inquiry leading upto justified true belief as well as the intermediate products of that process).-- 07:35, 23 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That said, the division of pages used here is good, and I approve. Scientia is the best tranlation for knowledge, and, even though the english knowledge page is talking more about 'inquiry' than disambiguating the various senses of knowledge, the english wiki also has a page on 'inquiry' and that can be linked to a future latin page on cognitio. In turn, I believe the page on cognition should be linked to a future latin page cogitatio(?) sice that seems to be the closest latin word, although i havent found a source for that.-- 11:36, 23 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean "common on Vicipaedia", not "common in classical authors". UVbot promised to make this change if there is consensus: I was just verifying that there is. I usually leave big juicy meaning-packed abstract words alone. Don't worry, I'll keep that rule from now on :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:31, 22 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this is a useful change; scientia is such a broad word. Yes, I'd say we should change existing links from plain Scientia to Scientia (ratio); would have done it myself if I'd realized sooner that it's desirable. Indeed, arguably I should have, since what made the change salient was my adding the formula. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:45, 22 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

trying to sum up recensere

From reading the discussion above, I gather the following facts and conclusions:

  • Our article/discretiva Scientia currently explains the different meanings of the Latin word scientia, which are significantly broader than the meaning(s) of en:Science.
    • Therefore, our article/discretiva Scientia should not have an interwiki link to en:Science (and it currently should not have any interwiki links at all), because there is currently no article/discretiva on any other wikipedia that covers the same subject (i.e. the different meanings of the Latin word scientia).
  • Our article Scientia (ratio) corresponds to en:Science.
  • It was a good decision to move the article Scientia (ratio) in its current place, because among classical authors scientia (ratio) is not the primary meaning of the Latin word scientia.

This leaves me with two possible solutions for the issues that are still open:

  1. The article/discretiva Scientia should stay in its current place.
  2. The article/discretiva Scientia is helpful, but is not a common link target. It should therefore be moved to Scientia (discretiva). In the place of Scientia, a redirect should again point to Scientia (ratio) (because, although this meaning is not the most common among classical authors, it is the most common meaning in usage in Vicipaedia articles – therefore, there is no need to correct incoming links). On the top of the article Scientia (ratio), an {{alius}} notice should point to Scientia (discretiva), so that the different meanings of scientia can be found as well when one just types Scientia and gets redirected to Scientia (ratio).

Did I get the above facts and conclusions right? Do yo prefer solution 1 (with or without UVbot's changing of incoming links?) or solution 2? --UV (disputatio) 09:10, 23 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think you got it absolutely right! Not being a bot owner, if I make this kind of change in pagenames myself, I normally adopt solution 2 (because it's so simple). But, given that both solutions are on offer here, I am neutral as to our choice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:47, 23 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Solution 2 looks better over here, not least because it's along the lines of what the little gray cells had already thought of doing (see above), and imposition of the {{alius}} alert is an added benefit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:22, 23 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer the first solution. We'll inevitably have people linking to simply "scientia," and they may mean "knowledge" by it, so that redirecting the reader to "scientia (ratio)" wouldn't make sense. Besides, is the difference between "science" and "knowledge" always clear-cut? what if, in an article, we don't want to link to one or the other? Linking to "scientia (discretiva)" would seem clumsy in such a case, as if we just didn't know which one we were talking about. Finally, scientia is a good (short, but good!) article, so that we gain a lot by giving it prominence! Mattie (disputatio) 18:00, 23 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I prefer solution 1 because the current page named scientia points to the english wiki page named knowledge. If scientia ere moved to scientia (discretiva) and the iw removed from it, then we would need a separate new page that links to en:knowledge. -- 08:06, 24 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page currently named Scientia points to the English wiki page named Science. The English page named Knowledge is a different article, which links to our Scientia (declarativa). A danger lurking in the background here is that careless changes of links could reduce our score in the table of 1000 most-important pages. Science is one of those pages, and our equivalent of that article (among the 1000 pages) is the article that recently became Scientia (ratio). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:42, 24 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Our score in the 1000 Pages table is not the most important thing (really!), and we can tidy up the inter-wiki links once we figure out what we want; the appropriate epistemology for an encyclopedia in Latin isn't necessarily the same as that for one in English, after all. So I agree about solution 1, and would suggest changing the existing links. If there's consensus on that (which I realize there isn't yet), I will remove the inter-wiki links from Scientia (pagina discretiva) and make sure that the pages in English WP point to the right pages here (because the links from English to other languages are used in calculating the score in the 1000 Pages competition). A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:29, 24 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think, if Iacobus accepts that we can solve the 1000-page issue, there could be consensus here. (I agree with Anne that we can solve it.) That will be good: UVbot can then apply solution 1. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as the correct link to the 1000 pages survives, universal happiness will reign. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:05, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wonderful! Let's do it after the 1000-page statistics have been updated for January, to give us plenty of time for adjustment afterwards. Is that OK, UV? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:17, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure! (Please do remind me in case I forget.) Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:30, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Better late than never ;-\ I have, with the help of UVbot, now changed most of the links in the main namespace and all of the links in the Formula and Porta namespaces, but have left the other namespaces alone. I guess the remaining changes, if any, should be better made manually. See Specialis:Nexus ad paginam/Scientia and Specialis:Nexus ad paginam/Scientia (ratio). --UV (disputatio) 21:26, 3 Februarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxobox programmatores! recensere

Signum "| unranked_superfamilia = cladus" effectum non habet. Vide exempla in commentariis de Mandeliidis et Mandelia. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:21, 16 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formula {{taxobox}} emendata cladus nunc in commentariis apparet. --Aylin (disputatio) 17:34, 23 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Macte! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:08, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inscriptio in historia quam recenseo recensere

Ave. Primum... My apologies for asking this question in English. I am editing (pro bono, of course) a long Internet story called The Circle. At the end Part 1, there is a Latin "inscription." I am pretty sure there are some problems with it and am hoping someone here can help. Here it is, followed by my editorial comments:

Here Concludes
“Paradise Theater”
Part One
“A Circular Musical Interlude” Also Known As “The Circle: Part Two”

My editorial comments, in part, were:

  1. Why not “Theatrum Paradisi” (theater of paradise, genitive)
  2. Can is/ea/id be used as an indefinite article?
  3. In doesn't seem to belong in the title. If it did belong, it should take the ablative or accusative case, depending on whether it means “in” or “into”. Circulus is in the nominative case.
  4. Do we need a verb somewhere? Note that haec clausula means “this ending”, not “here ends”
  5. Interludium doesn't seem to be a word in Classical Latin, though I well imagine it exists in later forms of the language. At any rate, I would lose the macron over the first U.

Actually, I would prefer to give the author a corrected version, rather than my comments. However, for my own education, could someone please address the points I raised, in addition to the ones I missed? Gratias vobis ago. Peter Chastain (disputatio) 02:55, 18 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you have seen some of the problems. Every word in this text is a problem. I guess the author has never learned a foreign language and thinks you can translate by looking up each word in turn -- or maybe just put the English text into Google Translator, which acts on the same principle.
Someone here may well help you, but let me ask this: when you say "pro bono", do you actually mean that the story is to be available free? If it's for a paysite, and you want the bits of Latin to be correct, you [or the author] really ought to pay a translator to do it :)
To answer your particular points: (1) Yes, why not? "Theatrum Paradisi" is acceptable Latin, "Paradisus Theatrum" is not. (2) No, Latin has no indefinite article, and "is/ea/id", being definite, certainly cannot play that role. (3) You are right about "In" and it could simply be omitted. (4) Yes, "haec clausula" (meaning this end-of-sentence prosodic pattern) is a pretty poor stab at here concludes. You do want a verb. So for this line you might e.g. say "Hic concluditur". (5) One suspects "interludium" with macron was supplied by a different source from all the rest. As you probably know, many dictionaries and some texts for beginners show macrons, whereas in Latin as normally printed there are none. I expect some other Vicipaedian will comment on whether "interludium" is acceptable and whether there's a better alternative. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:43, 18 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both White's and Cassell's say 'interlude' is embolium, but Ainsworth gives that term a more precise definition (relating to the beginning of a comedy) and offers the Greek-derived exodium (not to be confused with exordium) and the classical Latin fabella and ludicrum. Note that none of these words is interludium, a newfangled word, dating from the Middle Ages. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:44, 18 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratiae Andreae Iacoboque. Addressing some points you raised: (1) I meant "pro bono" in the sense that we all work on Wikipedia pro bono. I don't know of any Internet fiction writers who receive anything except glory (or ignominy!) and the joy of expression. (2) This particular story is set in a 20th-century, mostly secular, context, so mediaeval or church Latin usage would be just as valid as classical. (3) Cassell's renders exodium "a comic afterpiece" and embolium "a comic interlude," so I think I prefer the latter. (Thanks!)
Here is my next, but probably not final, attempt at correcting the inscription: HIC CONCLUDITUR THEATRUM PARADISI PARS PRIMA DE EMBOLIO MUSICO CYCLICO QUOQUE NOTUS UT CIRCULUS PARS SECUNDA
I would appreciate comments on the following points:
  • Is pars, followed by a neuter cardinal number, a valid way to denote parts of a work? Is it better to use an ordinal number, as I have done?
Pars prima is right. The use of de to mean 'of' is not. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:58, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To clarify that he is referring to a work called "Paradise Theater," rather than to a theater itself, the author has surrounded it with quotation marks, which AFAIK might even be legal in non-classical Latin. Would it be more reasonable to use a construction like "Hic concluditur opus appellatum Theatrum Paradisi"?
  • Is this a valid use of ut? Lewis & Short seems to say yes, but that is one of the many little words whose multitude of meanings has always confused me, as a not-very-good Latin student (and Andrew Dalby said that every word in the inscription was problematic).
I may have exaggerated slightly :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Are there any other problems with my translation?
Quoque tends to follow, but you've got it preceding. Try etiam ? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:58, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, thanks! Peter Chastain (disputatio) 18:02, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Iterum, gratias, Andrea et Iacobe, pro auxilio quod nobilissime mihi dedistis. Peter Chastain (disputatio) 17:42, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Programmatores benevoli! recensere

Capsa "Location map" effectum non habet. Vide Insula Christi Natalis (Nova Scotia). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:58, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The formula (template) "Location map" was last modified in 2010, so my first instinct was to suspect a problem in how it is used in the article, but I couldn't find any obvious problems there. I created a harenarium to experiment with changes to the template, and a test-case page to test those changes. I have not yet actually made any changes in the sandbox, and it should be said that my template-programming skills are even less than my skills in Latin composition, so if anyone wants to try, please feel free. If so, I would appreciate a note in my pagina disputationis usoris, so we don't step on each other. I probably won't be able to work on this until later today or early tomorrow. Thanks. Peter Chastain (disputatio) 18:04, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This template appears to diverge considerably from the English version. Perhaps another approach could be to copy that template (to the sandbox!), and retrofit it for use here. Peter Chastain (disputatio) 18:32, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you may have seen, Robert.Baruch transferred that template (possibly in response to an earlier request by Iacobus!) and no doubt it worked well at the time on the specific pages it was transferred for ... Robert hasn't been around so much recently. If you care to work on it, you're very welcome: it might be a good idea to mention it on his talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:59, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy End of the World Day! (for the nth time) recensere

According to the Mayan Calendar and Nostradamus prophecy. Prepare for Zombies walking the earth, earthquakes and floods..... :)--Jondel (disputatio) 11:12, 21 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Nutin happened day!! recensere

Stay tune to your local doomsday prophet, Nostradamus, etc for the next end of the world(again) prophecies!!--Jondel (disputatio) 17:14, 27 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really appreciate the warning, Jondel. It really might have happened -- and then where would we be? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:43, 27 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Annus 2012, et forsan 2013 recensere

Salvete Jondel et alii lectores. Dicta est Terra Mater et omnes creaturae eius nunc sero anno a 2012, et fortasse etiamnunc, divulgantur ad altiorem formam materiae, aut cum aliis verbis explicare sed eadem significatio, altior frequentia. In theoria, dicere potes de evolutione de materia in hoc modo: vigor divulgat ad materiam (forma firma), et materiam divulgat ad vigorem. Iter materiae tum est ingenter longum tempus, milliones millionum annorum. Non tote evolutionem intelligimus, sed videmus scimusque ad altiorem divulgat. Videt omnis ire volit ad altiorem formam.
Quando viam sapientiae capis, sapientior et prudentior erit, et omnis in universo melius intelligas. Meditatio quoque pars viae sapientiae est. Meditatio potenter est. Meditatio ponit mentem tuam in gradum altiorem, et omnis in universo quoque melius intelligas. Per capere viam sapientiae, mens tua in altiorem gradum ponitur, ergo consciam conscitatem expanditur. Per hanc viam capere, celerius tu divulgas, ergo evolutionem tuam. Quando illuminati sumus, celerius ad ascensionem erit.
Salutatibus Donatello (disputatio) 18:19, 27 Decembris 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Salve Andrew and Donatello, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! (answering the above)'We' would still be around. Our souls would still be around.

Please don't pay too much attention to this doomsday prophecies. I used to. They are very entertaining though. There are too many self proclaimed authorities who capitalize on fear and ignorance. The death and end of the world which the mind fears , for me, is spiritual rebirth. You die physically but you continue where you left of f, spiritually (or where you stopped in spiritual growth). The bible Revelation is a form of kundalini. The 7 churches are the 7 major chakras. The pentecost, gift of the holy spirit, samadhi, moksha are all the same. Do investigate philosophy both eastern and western and do meditate (as Donatello recommends above as well as ascend). Don't overdo it though, meaning, watch out for obsessions and cults!--Jondel (disputatio) 11:53, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On investigating philosophy: I hope you don't mind, but what I find in these musings is not so much philosophy as mysticism. Neander (disputatio) 11:24, 31 Decembris 2012 (UTC):Reply[reply]

Quid significat flumineae, nomen substantivum femininum plurale? recensere

What does it mean, as in Urbs Lutetiae (praefectura Franciae), to say that the Sequana is a fluminea (one of the flumineae)? Nomen adiectivum acceptissimum videtur, ut in commentario de lacustuario, quod, legimus, "est aestuarium aquae dulcis ubi aquae flumineae lacustresque inter se miscentur." Sed in plus quam quadraginta commentariis, Flumineae est caput, ergo (ut credere possumus) nomen substantivum, aut fortasse significat (res) flumineae 'riverine (things)'. Is that OK? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:54, 23 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usor:Leonellus Pons hunc titulum nuper addidit: oportet igitur apud eum quaerere! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:41, 23 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bene intellexisti Iacobe, fluminea est nomen substantivum femininum quem in variis commentariis plurale usus sum (ac in Urbs Lutetiae etsi nunc ipsum ibi scriptum flumen unum constat, alii decursus sunt, vide fr:Catégorie:Cours d'eau de Paris). Pro decursu aquae qualicumque congruere mihi viditur quia fluminea (subauditum aquae flumineae) decursus aquae sonat sicut synonymum suum fluentum, id invenitur non semel apud Hyginum Gromaticum et quamobrem a Gaffiot relatum est. --Leonellus Pons (disputatio) 03:56, 24 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rationem huius verbi male intellego. Usum verbi "flumineus -a -um" sensu substantivo in fontibus Latinis nondum repperi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:37, 27 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ut substantivum verbum "flaminia -ae f." aut "fluminia", quod francice "cours d'eau" sonat, recte legendum "flumínea -ae f." sicut monetur Nicolaus Rigaltius in "Auctores Finium regundorum" p.138, invenitur apud Lexicon Gaffiot p. 676 saltem sed etiam fonte Latine usum constat in "Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser: Gromatici veteres" vol I Caroli Lachmanni quo saepissime deinceps occuret (p.311, 13. 19. p.316, 8. 14. 15. 21. p.319, 1. p.320, 19. 25. p. 321, 6. p.324 8. 9. 24. 30 31.) atque índice verborum vol. II eiusdem tituli p.495. --Leonellus Pons (disputatio) 19:40, 30 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rigaltius et Gaffiot eruditi pro certo fuerunt, sed an in textu Innocentii "de casis litterarum" bene distinxerunt haud scio. Lachmannus, qui et ipse eruditus fuit, emendationem Rigaltii ut videtur reiecit. Ita minime in editionibus textús obscurissimi ab Innocentio scripti sed in commentario tantum Rigaltii et in dictionario Gaffiot hoc verbum videmus. Fortasse Innocentius hoc verbo usus est, aut fortasse, si Lachmanno credimus, non usus est. An recte dixi?
Sed flumen est res communis de qua permulti scriptores loquuntur. Ridiculum erit, verbis "flumen, fluvius, amnis" quibus illi omnes usi sunt oblitis, verbum ab Innocentio aut Rigaltio inventum -- ad amnem minimum, qui inter casas rurales fictas currit, describendum -- in hoc usu generali usurpare! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:58, 30 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias tibi ago ob responsiones tuas quia lumen attulerunt ad rebus quae non attingebam. Rationibus tuis accedo et iam igitur retraho verbum "flumínea" ubi eum ante scripseram. --Leonellus Pons (disputatio) 22:28, 30 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Iam fecisti, nisi fallor ... sed da veniam, Leonelle, si verbo inurbano usus sum! Re vera gratias tibi ago quia Rigaltii (qui ex eadem regione, ubi habito ego, ortus est) librum quem antea non perlegi tandem cognosco. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 31 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Musica rustica recensere

Ave. Aliquis scire quid country music Latine est? Donatello (disputatio) 23:36, 27 Decembris 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

IONIS Education Group recensere

Hello everybody. Please may I request help for the article IONIS Education Group. I am doing my best but I am not the best in latin language. Please do not hesitate to help directly into the article. Best Regards and happy new year. 2A01:E34:EEFA:F070:7C1A:786C:C855:CDB9 13:11, 29 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I just fixed some words: may it be useful, I also explained my corrections in the summarium.--Poecus (disputatio) 21:47, 3 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acroamata, oratores, rhetores recensere

Quomodo distinguere possumus Categoria:Oratores (=en:Category:Rhetoricians) a Categoria:Rhetores (quae nexibus intervicis caret)? Confer praeterea en:Category:Lecturers. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:04, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anniversarium recensere

Hodie clarissime declarari potest me tribus abhinc annis Vicipaediae sodalitati adiunctum esse. Gratias ideo agens felicem novum annum vobis pariter exopto. Valete. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 12:30, 31 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Higher education recensere

Quomodo Latine recte dicamus quod Anglice higher education (Italiane exempli gratia istruzione superiore) appellatur? An "institutio/eruditio universitaria" aut "institutio/eruditio altior"? Ut funditus intellegatis, vobis dico me hanc in quaestionem occurrisse paginam IONIS Education Group recensentem. Videte s.v.p. mutationem meam| (disputatio) 22:07, 3 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Puto nos higher education institutionem superiorem appellare posse. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 18:06, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoria:Urbes Saxoniae Inferioris recensere

Ave. Iam aliquot conlationes de communibus Saxoniae inferioris coepi et et sub categoria "Urbes Saxoniae Inferioris" ordinavi. Sed quaero, an communia parva ut Arholzen "urbes" sint. Propono, ut subcategoriae "Urbes" et "Oppida" instituerentur categoriae novae "Communia Saxoniae Inferioris". Hoc modo censeo et ceterae terrae Germaniae esse dividendae. Quid vos sentitis?--Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 09:30, 6 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a few thoughts (I do not yet have a solution or an alternative proposal to offer):
I have always understood Categoria:Urbes and its subcategories as not referring to the legal status of cities/towns/villages etc., just like de:Kategorie:Ort does not refer to the legal status. (Perhaps Categoria:Urbes is not the best name for this concept.)
If we were to introduce legal/political/administrative categories (like de:Kategorie:Gemeinde in Niedersachsen, de:Kategorie:Gemeindefreies Gebiet in Niedersachsen etc.), then in my view we would have to pay strict attention to the legal terminology that is applicable to the place in question, in order not to violate our Vicipaedia:Noli fingere rule. This would, in my view, have the following consequences:
  • The results are sometimes surprising. E.g. de:Rattenberg (Tirol) is a Stadt despite the fact that it has only 405 inhabitants, while en:Stockport is not a city, just a town, despite the fact that it has 136 082 inhabitants.
  • In order to form our category names, we would need acceptable Latin terms for the local legal terms. Cf. Lower Saxony (de:Niedersachsen#Verwaltungsgliederung):
    Das Land ist in 164 Städte, 54 Flecken und 804 Gemeinden (davon 735 in Samtgemeinden) sowie 25 gemeindefreie Gebiete unterteilt, die insgesamt 37 Landkreise, eine Region und acht kreisfreie Städte bilden.
de:Kategorie:Gemeinde in Niedersachsen seems to cover Städte, Flecken and Gemeinden; other places (such as districts, Samtgemeinden, or villages that do not happen to form a separate Gemeinde) do not belong in there. --UV (disputatio) 19:58, 6 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ego sic censeo: Omnes conlationes de vicis, oppidis, urbibus sub categoria "communia" subscribi possunt neque autem omnia sub "urbes", quae sunt maxima communia sola, ut olim in Imperio Romano e.g. Roma, Athenae, Alexandria. "Oppida" autem minora communia sunt, quae Germanice (ut maiora) "Stadt" nominantur. Cetera loca certe "communia" tantum nominanda sunt.
Sunt etiam categoriae Communia Franciae et Urbes Franciae.--Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 11:22, 7 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De hac re meditavi sed responsum "finalem" haud offero: habemus enim varias consuetudines.
  1. In Francia communia omnia (lege definita) sub "Communia praefecturae ..." comprehendi debent; urbes (a nobis selectae) insuper reperiuntur sub "Urbes Franciae".
  2. In Anglia oppida et vici omnes (nulla lege definiti) sub "Oppida comitatus ..." comprehendi debent (vide Categoria:Oppida et vici Angliae); urbes (a nobis selectae) tantum reperiuntur sub "Categoria:Urbes Angliae". [Credo melius esse easdem urbes et in categoriam "Oppida comitatus ..." addere, sed usque adhuc id non fecimus.]
  3. In Italia systema re vera complicatum exstat, quod fortasse Nuada explicare potest :)
  4. In Germania tu melius quam ego sine dubio intellegis id quod usque adhuc fecimus.
Dico ego utile esse lectoribus indicem "urbium" potiorum, aut sub natione ("Urbes Angliae") aut sub regione ("Urbes Saxoniae Inferioris") in unam categoriam simpliciter reperire. Tales urbes saepe subcategorias a se ipsis habent (quod sunt loci universitatum, episcopatuum etc.). Quando igitur multas paginas de oppidis et vicis minoribus creamus, pro certo oportet categorias separatas habere ubi omnes "habitationes" singularum provinciarum seu districtuum enumerantur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 7 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Schulz-Hameln, suadesne sub categoria "communia" etiam commentationes de vicis parvissimis subscribere (e. g. Ortsteil, Weiler, quae magistrum civium proprium non habent, quia una cum aliis vicis vel oppidis civitatem formant)? Si hanc rem suades, nobis fortasse opus erit subcategoriae quae ad communibus strictu sensu (= Theodisce: Gemeinden) spectat … Quid censes? --UV (disputatio) 21:11, 7 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Minime. Communia sunt habitationes autonomae, i.e. Gemeinden, ut dices. --Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 19:21, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bene! Si vis, contenta categoriae Categoria:Urbes Saxoniae Inferioris ad categoriam Categoria:Communia Saxoniae Inferioris movere possum. Tum, potes (sub)categoriam de urbibus (strictu sensu) creare. --UV (disputatio) 23:45, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias tibi ago. Ita habitationes recte ordinare possumus. Forsitan et categoriam "communia Germaniae" creare possumus, ut et aliarum terrarum foederalium communias describere possumus.--Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 10:12, 9 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vide Categoria:Urbes Saxoniae Inferioris, Categoria:Communia Saxoniae Inferioris et Categoria:Communia generalia Saxoniae Inferioris. An recte feci? --UV (disputatio) 23:09, 9 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perfectissime--Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 14:25, 11 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessory recensere

Ave. Aliquis me adiuvare verbum Anglicum accessory in lingua Latina sit? Lexicon meum, lexicon Vilborgianum (Suetice-Latine, editio secunda, 2009) iam vocabulum habet, sed fortasse aliae versiones sunt. Dicit:

accessoarer adiunct|a (-orum) npl [vestimentorum]

Verbum in signis [...] significat verbum uti non egetur. Verbum Sueticum accessoarer in hoc lexico dictum pluralis est. Signularis accessoar est. Etiam Anglicus accessory saepe plurali dictus est. Alium verbum pro accessory Suetice est tillbehör (sg/pl) (fortasse alium locutorem Sueticum melius intelligere quam locutorium aliorum sermones).

tillbehör instrumentum n, adiunct|a (-orum) npl

Donatello (disputatio) 13:11, 6 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Cassell's, noster amicus, adfirmat:
accessory, adj. = additional; use verb accedo.
adiuncta ["N. pl. as subst." < adiungo]: collateral circumstances : Cic., Hor.
N.B.: nomen accessary (cum A, non O) = accomplice; apud Cassell's: conscius, (culpae) socius. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:51, 6 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scin tu? recensere

De capitulo "Scin tu?" paginae primae renovato vide, s.v.p., Disputatio:Pagina prima et commenta addite! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:00, 7 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saint Thomas Christians recensere

Salve! Me valde delectat tuum auxilium reddere ex Anglice Saint Thomas Christians . Gratias tibi ago.--Jondel (disputatio) 03:41, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings. I would appreciate your help to translate the phrase Saint Thomas Christians (in the plural). Gratias tibi ago.--Jondel (disputatio) 03:39, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verba idonea "Christiani Sancti Thomae" (et scriptura breviori "Christiani S. Thomae") reperiuntur si apud google quaerimus. His verbis ita uti possumus. An aliae versiones exstant, nescio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non possum repperire cum Christiani Sancti Thomae in google, sed valde me adiuvat tuas translationes et utar. Gratias Andreas. --Jondel (disputatio) 10:06, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Si efficaciter petis, has invenies sententias: "Ecclesia Syrorum Malabarensium („Christiani Sancti Thomae") in India meridionali progenies huius ecclesiae est. Ecclesia, quae saeculo tredicesimo summum culmen fortunae attigerat, saeculo decimo quarto a Musulmano Tamerlane paene exstincta est." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:08, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salve, gratias tibi ago Iacobus. Licet investigem emendemque posterior. A Musulmano Tamerlane paene exstinctam esse necopinans eram. Ut scies iam rem esse Christiani Sancti Thomae.--Jondel (disputatio) 02:23, 9 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forsitan Christianismus in India et Christiani Sancti Thomae coniungantur?--Utilo (disputatio) 21:20, 12 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sententiam retraho, ignoscatis! Christiani Sancti Thomae tantum sunt pars Christianorum in India viventium ....--Utilo (disputatio) 21:26, 12 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be a Wikimedia fundraising "User Experience" volunteer! recensere

Thank you to everyone who volunteered last year on the Wikimedia fundraising 'User Experience' project. We have talked to many different people in different countries and their feedback has helped us immensely in restructuring our pages. If you haven't heard of it yet, the 'User Experience' project has the goal of understanding the donation experience in different countries (outside the USA) and enhancing the localization of our donation pages.

I am (still) searching for volunteers to spend some time on a Skype chat with me, reviewing their own country's donation pages. It will be done on a 'usability' format (I will ask you to read the text and go through the donation flow) and will be asking your feedback in the meanwhile.

The only pre-requisite is for the volunteer to actually live in the country and to have access to at least one donation method that we offer for that country (mainly credit/debit card, but also real time banking like IDEAL, E-wallets, etc...) so we can do a live test and see if the donation goes through. **All volunteers will be reimbursed of the donations that eventually succeed (and they will be very low amounts, like 1-2 dollars)**

By helping us you are actually helping thousands of people to support our mission of free knowledge across the world. If you are interested (or know of anyone who could be) please email All countries needed (excepting USA)!!


Pats Pena
Global Fundraising Operations Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

Sent using Global message delivery, 21:04, 8 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Quater ut videtur ex medio Decembre quidam usor sine nomine paginas de praesidibus Civitatum Foederatarum foedavit. Quater! O magistratus omnia providentes et animadvertentes, si fortasse dormitis, expergiscimini ut hominem sceleratum relegatione multetis! Potius omnes eicite usores quorum numeri 213.103.161 incipiunt. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:41, 12 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah! Nunc factumst. Macte! Sed nolite oblivisci usores,,, usque ad (disputatio) 16:42, 12 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Et hodie usores et Eicite, O magistratus, eicite et in perpetuum impedite omnes usores quorum numerus est 213.103.161. . . . IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Numquam debemus "omnes usores quorum numerus est A.B.C...." eicere, quod fortasse sunt qui paginas bonas faciant. (Anglice: Barring a range of IP addresses is generally inappropriate and only to be undertaken with great caution. In this case, the range of numbers belongs to an ISP in Sweden; I certainly wouldn't want to state that anyone using the net on a mobile device from Sweden must be kept out of Vicipaedia, even for two weeks, never mind forever and ever. Barring a single IP for a while is reasonable, though of course we all know that every time you connect to the net you may get a different IP address, so a hypothetical vandal can work around such a ban.) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:28, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The suggestion is to ban 999 computers out of (is it) several billion, the ones from to Any banned computer can formally request unbanning, right? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:19, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
256, actually. But instructions to admins are quite clear on this: banning a range of IPs is just not done, except in really unusual circumstance -- and I don't claim enough experience to recognize when those might exist. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:25, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It could, for example, be a school or university.
Another possible route, since this user seems interested in recent US presidents, is to protect those pages for a bit; but that's very undesirable on pages to which quite a lot of users might potentially contribute. Meanwhile we watch and revert. This time it was Jondel whose eyes were on the Nuper mutata. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:31, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formula:Sfn recensere

Would a kind programmer like to make this formula work? Inveni potest in, exempli gratia, commentario Botanice. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:01, 18 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure it's worth it. In English, this template makes "short footnotes" (hence the name) of the form "Smith 2013, p. 123" and turns those into internal hyperlinks to Smith's piece in the bibliography. That's possibly useful if there's a long article with a lot of bibliography, I suppose. But the template also assumes that the citations in the bibliography are in a particular form (specifically, using the {{cite}} template with the "ref=harv" parameter added, to make the internal hyperlink anchors work). We haven't chosen to use standard bibliography templates and many of our bibliographies are formed by hand; the SFN formula wouldn't have its full effect in those pages. If it were me, I might just take the {{sfn|Wilamowitz|1921|p=55}} from the source text and turn it into <ref>Wilamowitz 1921, p. 55</ref> with an editor macro. On the other hand, it looks like much of the machinery this formula relies on is already here, so if someone did want to port SFN it probably wouldn't be too difficult. Should we consider a more elaborate standard bibliography form? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:09, 18 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK then: I'll do the conversions by hand tomorrow, when I add another chunk of text to Botanice. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:43, 18 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anne's is a good question and I don't know the answer. Speaking for myself, as a trained bibliographer, I'm quite at home with templates like that and can easily use them. In fact I began to use them when I first edited on en:wiki. A year's experience showed me that the templates kept being changed and that some of what I was doing would gradually be rendered useless by future changes. As was indeed the case. Further use of en:wiki showed me that many editors don't know how to use the templates, don't have the understanding of bibliography that they require (why should they?) and don't really want to learn (why should they?) resulting in unusable references and useless added information when they try to do it by guesswork.
This experience left me pessimistic that complex citation templates can ever be used to their full potential on an open wiki. I eventually said to myself, since it always takes much longer to apply the template than to write an entry by hand, why on earth bother?
There is, however, a potential system of internal hyperlinks between footnotes and bibliography which does not require these templates and can be applied by us. UV very kindly helped me to set it up for myself, a few months ago. I haven't yet written an instruction for it that others could follow, but I will gladly do so.
There is of course the question of the format of entries in a bibliography. I really wish we had some agreement on this ... but it isn't actually necessary before applying the system of internal hyperlinks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:53, 18 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an open wiki, as you say, Andrew, but it's different from en:wiki in that so many of us are scholars or students, who should know the basics about bibliography (call it "meta-data" if you like). I would have thought that templates would make it easier to get things right and keep them uniform, particularly for easy cases (referring to a book, for example). And in principle if we were to use {{cite book}} and its siblings, we could change the appearance of our bibliographies all in one go, just by changing the template (say, print authors' names in green, titles in blue, and make the ISBN the first thing on the line). I'm used to BibTeX, so I'm also comfortable with the templates -- but, like you, I've generally found it easier just to format the entries by hand, cutting and pasting from library catalogs as necessary. If we decide that templates would be better, for whatever reason, I'd be happy to play along, and to experiment with automatically converting entries where feasible, too. (given "Wilamowitz, Ulrich. 1921. Griechische Verskunst. Berolini: Weidemann" it's not too hard to turn that into "author= Wilamowitz, Ulrich" and so on). A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:18, 18 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You make me feel optimistic again, Anne! We could do it, no doubt: but how long would it take to convert our existing bibliographies? Can there really be a (semi-) automatic way to do that?
The format I naturally fall into is utterly different from the format Iacobus naturally falls into (and yours is rather like his, I think, or maybe identical). I probably would have changed to that one, before now, if I knew what the rules are. It's easy to switch with the example you give, but one or two questions arise when faced with "Benjamin Z. Kedar, "The Patriarch Eraclius" in B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer, R. C. Smail, edd., Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem presented to Joshua Prawer (Hierosolymis: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982) pp. 177-204"! Is there a clear explanation of it anywhere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:17, 18 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two competing styes:
Footnote: Benjamin Z. Kedar, "The Patriarch Eraclius," in Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem presented to Joshua Prawer, edited by B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer, and R. C. Smail (Hierosolymis: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982), pp. 177–204.
Bibliography: Kedar, Benjamin Z. 1982. The Patriarch Eraclius. In Outremer: Studies in the History of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem presented to Joshua Prawer, edited by B. Z. Kedar, H. E. Mayer, and R. C. Smail, 177–204. Hierosolymis: Ben-Zvi Institute.
See discussion below. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:42, 19 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
gee, and I thought I was imitating your biblio format! How complicated it gets when we start poking at it! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:58, 18 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The difference of perception could be explained by the fact that I'm very unobservant, or it could be because when my pages interest him Iacobus sometimes systematically changes my format to his; you may be looking at those pages. Whichever it is, I agree, it does get complicated :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:05, 18 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW (very little in fact, because I don't specially urge it on others and I would change if we agreed on a format we all liked) my own biblio format is visible at Innocentius III (Iacobus hasn't been editing my 12th-century pages). I devised this when I was still a librarian and was meditating a dissertation, about 1988, and have used it ever since. I said to myself then what the Wikipedians were going to say c. 2001: there's no need to reverse people's names visibly if you know which is the filing word. But it's very widely done, of course.
The two things I really don't like about Iacobus's biblio format are the excessive (I think) use of the dot, and the linking of dates. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:07, 19 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the linking of dates: It's no worse, surely, than the linking of ISBN numbers in bibliographies, automatically done by the formulas that we import from the English wikipedia. In bibliographies, I like it more for the color than for the link. Utinam, in bibliographiis, annus adnectat ad omnia opera ex anno dato nota! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm astonished that you suppose the two cases are parallel. ISBN links take you (if you choose) to sources of information about the book. The book is relevant to the article, therefore you might, while reading the article, want to know where you can find the book. It's useful.
Dates take you to the date page: that's just the year when the book was published, it has nothing to do with the subject of our article, and nothing else on that date page is likely to be relevant. So it's useless.
If you do it for the colour, that's worse than overlinking, it's vandalism (in my view) very irresponsible. If that's your reason, you should stop now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:27, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not one's own style, of course, but that of many academic journals. Before we even get to particular points, however, it's best to recognize the fundamental failure of citations in the English wikipedia: it doesn't know, or care, that footnotes & bibliographic entries serve different purposes and are therefore different things and might want to follow different formats. Traditionally, a reference in a footnote is all one sentence, often citing a specific page, and it has no room for ISBN numbers, doi numbers, and so forth, which belong only in bibliographies. A footnote gives an author's name in the natural order, first name first and last name last (Hungarian & Chinese names being a separate issue), because it stands on its own and no alphabetical sorting of anything is in play. A bibliographic entry will sort primarily by author's last name, so a bibliography will put an author's last name first (except in German reference lists?), and in one standard style it'll sort secondarily by year, so that's conveniently given second. Hence, we have two kinds of reference to the same source:
Footnote: John Doe, This Is the Title of the Book (Londinii: Thames & Hudson, 1992), p. 239.
Bibliography: Doe, John. 1992. This Is the Title of the Book. Londinii: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 123456789.
Or, for more a complicated case:
Footnote: John Doe, "This Is the Title of the Chapter," in This Is the Title of the Book, edited by Jane Roe (Londinii: Thames & Hudson, 1992), p. 239.
Bibliography: Doe, John. 1992. This Is the Title of the Chapter. In This Is the Title of the Book, edited by Jane Roe, 231–248. Londinii: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 123456789.
(Note the differing paginations and the coming & going of double quotes; also, indications like edited by were formerly abbreviated in that location in references, but nowadays, to avoid ambiguity, as between the edited by and editor(s) that ed. can imply, they're spelled out.) One basic style, sometimes called the author-date style, avoids such footnotes and cites works & pages parenthetically in the text, as "(Doe 1992:239)." It's prevalent in the social sciences, and is found in Cultura (or, rather, it was, until other editors began to abolish that article's distinction between citing & bibliographing). I've come to favor it, largely because it's more efficient: it uses less space, and it helps the reader by restricting footnotes to the function of providing subsidiary commentary, not unlike medieval glossing. The other style, perhaps more usual in the humanities, differs in many particulars. It may use such footnotes and avoid having a bibliography altogether, and the form of its bibliographic entries, if it has them, differs drastically from the form of citations in the author-date style. For the contrast, see The Chicago Manual of Style. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:42, 19 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So yours are "Chicago-style citations" as described on that page? That's useful, thanks. If others like it, I'd be prepared to follow that style in bibliographies.
But I really don't think we ought to be linking all the dates in bibliographies. I can't see what possible use it is. How about dropping that? I notice that en:wiki now outlaws the routine linking of dates, even in the text of articles. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:28, 19 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Citations like "(Doe 1992:239)" would be fine for an immutable text, for example in an article that appears in print or on a website that cannot be modified by other people. However, I see a danger when citations like that appear in wikipedia articles: When another editor comes around and adds to the bibliography section a second publication by some Doe that was published in 1992 as well, it is no longer clear to which publication the citation is referring to. Or, when another editor decides to remove Doe from the bibliography section (perhaps on grounds of the inferior reputation or quality of Doe's work compared to the reputation or quality of other works in the bibliography section) and fails to notice that Doe is still used in a citation, it may become nearly impossible to find out what "Doe 1992" is referring to, thus rendering the citation useless. In my view, every citation should therefore carry a full bibliographic citation (in whatever format) that, on its own, makes it possible to find the cited work. --UV (disputatio) 19:58, 19 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a number of hard questions around ensuring that statements on Wikipedia continue to match up with properly-cited sources, and this is one of those questions. It is a very knotty issue. Before going further into it, how do you feel, UV, about the linking-of-footnotes-with-bibliography that en:Template:Sfn effects (the same kind of in-page linking with which you helped me, a few months ago). Do you think it helps to solve the problem you raise, or not?
I ask because, even with this internal linking, it is still possible for someone to decide the item is no longer required in the bibliography, and delete it. On the other hand, all sorts of other bad decisions are possible at any time -- for example, changing the facts in the text without changing the footnote that was supposed to justify them! That happens a lot. Or, if several footnotes are supposed to be identical, deleting the one instance that contains the footnote text! This often happens too. I can see no easy way to guard against that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:17, 20 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, that is a bunch of nasty problems indeed. I have no objection at all against linking from footnotes to entries in the bibliography section. However, I would be rather hesitant to shorten references in footnotes to the extent that a typical reader cannot any more identify the cited work without going to the references section, as that section might be altered or removed. Bytes are cheap, and so is screen space in the footnotes section, so why shorten the footnotes? --UV (disputatio) 23:28, 20 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, UV, I must admit that naming more problems doesn't solve any ... Although I quite like the system of abbreviated references in footnotes (e.g. surname and date) leading to full references in a bibliography, I admit it isn't the safest method for an open wiki. Well, if others agreed that we shouldn't do that, and should always give explicit references, I'd go along with it, though I fear a very long article would probably gain an even longer footnote section as a result! Any other views on that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:05, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't like templates, in fact, I'm shrinking at the idea of templatising our wiki. Yes, I have used templates every now and then, when editing the Finnish wiki, but my experience is precisely the same as Andrew's, when he says: "I eventually said to myself, since it always takes much longer to apply the template than to write an entry by hand, why on earth bother?" And in general, I'm not fond of strict formatting in matters genuinely open to various stylistic options. But, as said, this is an open wiki. I'm happy as long as I'm not being forced to using such a Procrustean bed. But I'm asking myself: Is this really our primary concern at this stage? I think, our primary concern should be grammatical rules. :-) Neander (disputatio) 18:38, 18 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, except that I can see how to use a bot to produce uniform-looking bibliographies, but I've got no idea how to make a bot correct Latin grammar! If I did, grading would get a whole lot easier! :-) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:57, 18 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for me, this matter interests me because of my bibliographical background or nerdishness, and I don't think it really precludes getting the grammar right! But it's a fact that templating (nice verb) makes Vicipaedia less easy for ordinary editors to edit. What they see in the edit window frightens them. We should consider that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:07, 19 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A supplementary question recensere

I notice the arrangement on fr:wiki, active though not universally implemented, in which simple templates in the footnotes or bibliography of a page can link to a bibliography namespace (still on fr:wiki) in which each book has its own page. It seems to me that Wikidata could be used in just that way as a space where bibliographical data is kept, and not deleted, to which notes and bibliography on any page of any wikipedia could link. It's a clear case for a multilingual database, because a good bibliography is never restricted to one language. Does anyone know if such a project has been discussed anywhere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:18, 26 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin Wikivoyage? recensere

Does anyone else think it would be cool to have a Latin version of Wikivoyage? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:22, 18 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it certainly would, but would it slow the progress of Vicipaedia? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:14, 19 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see, thinking about it, that we might create quite a lot of pages rather easily, and that this could become another way to bring people to Vicipaedia. I have a doubt, though: Would the dear old Language Subcommittee accept it? At the time when I was writing The World and Wikipedia they were language-planning bureaucrats and Latin didn't fit into their plan (neither a mother tongue nor an artificial language). But their minds may have opened. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:34, 20 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It still doesn't fit into their plan, as far as I can see, unless with very delicate persuasion. However, I've always wanted to start a wiki! I have now done so, thanks to you, Anne. See incubator:wy/la/Pagina prima. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:47, 20 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latin Vicipaedia is one of the largest Wikipedias, in fact: we are 46th in the official list by number of pages, which puts us in the top 1/6th -- ahead of Greek, Tamil, Yoruba, and Bengali (picking a few languages with lots of native speakers). We have more active users (official definition: someone who's made at least one edit in the past 30 days) than Tamil, twice as many as Urdu, and exactly as many as Hindi, by today's figures. Whether the Language Subcommittee likes it or not, we're actually a pretty large community within Wikipedia/Wikimedia. (We're Here! We're Latin! Get used to it! to borrow a chant.) What more do they want? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:39, 22 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nifty! Seems to me, if we did a few key destinations (Rome, Pompeii, Athens, the medieval university towns, the Renaissance humanist centers), we could get started fairly quickly on a Latinist-friendly travel guide. There are books about, say, the Latin inscriptions of Rome, or the Gallo-Roman patrimony in the Ile-de-France -- and doing such a thing in Latin has high hack value (as we used to say). A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:06, 20 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps Benedict XVI (who is expected to begin tweeting in Latin today) will be an early user. He travels a bit. The pagina prima is lightly adapted from the French first page -- all improvements welcome of course.

Si contribuere vultis, O amici, hic incipe. Oportet (si recte intellegi) paginam (fortasse brevissimam) de civitate (e.g. Italia) incipere, ibique nexum urbis (e.g. Roma) inserere. Categoriam supponimus pro tempore Category:wy/la. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:25, 20 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An quis videre potest cur formula GeoData, quae (cum formulis dependentibus) e Wikivoyage Theodisco repetivi, in pagina incubator:wy/la/Cambosia male agit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:15, 21 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This template relies on several features, including mw:Extension:MapSources (more precisely: the special page Special:MapSources and the parser tag #geoLink that are both provided by this extension – this extension is currently enabled only on wikivoyage projects but not on incubator or on any wikipedia), and changes to MediaWiki:Common.css on de.wikivoyage. I made the template more or less work, but it will not appear in the upper right corner but within the article instead. --UV (disputatio) 22:57, 21 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's very kind of you, UV. If the project attracts editors, and if it is accepted by the Language Subcommittee -- two doubtful questions -- that will be time enough to do the fine-tuning. Meanwhile it will be possible to copy this template from all the German :voy: pages and to see a useful result. I really appreciate your help!
In the same way, luckily, I've been able to make it possible to copy the country infoboxes from all the French :voy: pages about countries, just changing a couple of words each time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:34, 22 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like this! I've put in one simple page just to demonstrate interest -- will do more! One thing I'd like to see is information for the Latinist traveller: where to find Latin speakers, Latin conventicula, Latin Mass, and so on. This is something I want to know when I go to a new city, and I may not be the only one. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:22, 22 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, anything we can offer that is clearly relevant to a community, and that the other WikiVoyages don't offer, should stand us in good stead when we go ahead and apply to Meta for approval. We don't have to rush that step, it seems to me. It is already possible to link among the WikiVoyage languages even while in the Incubator. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:24, 22 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A similar thought to yours, based on some further reading of the other Wikivoyage languages. They tend to assume that their readers are tourists/backpackers (and the English tone of voice is often reminiscent of the Rough Guide/Lonely Planet style). Actually people have many reasons for travel, not just seeing the sights and coming away again. It'll be good to keep those other purposes in mind.
I'm continuing to work on this now and then. Sometimes one can add or improve a Vicipaedia page and add a Vicivia page in the process. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:12, 24 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope to fill in a bit more here too; I'm currently playing with Theoria copiarum but will not lose track of Vicivia either. (That's clearly a better name than vici-iter, perigrinatio, cursus, navigatio, ... -- do we need to do anything special to make it the official translation of "Wikivoyage"?) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:27, 24 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Vicivia" was just the first thing that came to mind, and is only seen in one or two places. The choice is open! I guess when the stage of applying to Meta is reached, one would want to have agreed on a name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 24 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you help me to improve the page Fountains of Wayne? I would like to give Latin translations for the albums' titles, but I can't find a word for "traffic" in this sense: . Casquilho (disputatio) 11:48, 19 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good day Casquilho. My lexicon Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok (it's a Swedish-Latin lexicon), second edition from 2009, by Ebbe Vilborg says this about traffic:
traffic commeat|us (-us) [vehicularis], frequéntia f [vehiculorum], celébri|tas (-tatis) f [viarum]
The words in square brackets, like "[vehicularis]", significates that these words are not forced to use. The context can decide when such words ca be used.
Donatello (disputatio) 13:51, 19 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Wikimedia sites to move to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia. Read-only mode expected. recensere

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) Next week, the Wikimedia Foundation will transition its main technical operations to a new data center in Ashburn, Virginia, USA. This is intended to improve the technical performance and reliability of all Wikimedia sites, including this wiki. There will be some times when the site will be in read-only mode, and there may be full outages; the current target windows for the migration are January 22nd, 23rd and 24th, 2013, from 17:00 to 01:00 UTC (see other timezones on More information is available in the full announcement.

If you would like to stay informed of future technical upgrades, consider becoming a Tech ambassador and joining the ambassadors mailing list. You will be able to help your fellow Wikimedians have a voice in technical discussions and be notified of important decisions.

Thank you for your help and your understanding.

Guillaume Paumier, via the Global message delivery system (wrong page? You can fix it.). 15:28, 19 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formula Commune Germaniae recensere

Loca in tabula per hunc formulam creata mihi quodam causa videntur plus in australem regionem mota quam re vera sunt. Vide e.g. Gottingam urbem Saxoniae Inferioris, quae in Hassia sita esse videtur. Nescio, quomodo haec corrigi possit. Forsitan usor peritior adiuvare potest.--Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 09:55, 20 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rectene videntur nunc loca? --UV (disputatio) 23:17, 20 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nunc loca in positione recta sunt, gratiam tibi ago, UV!--Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 15:51, 21 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blackout recensere

Salve. Quid sit blackout in lingua Latina? Transtuli nomina alborum Anglica a Britney Spears ubi album Blackout "collapsus affectus" scripsi. Quid censetis de verbo hoc? Libere sentis contribuere omnium harum translationium commentatione.

Donatello (disputatio) 19:12, 21 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Salve et tu! Curnam nomina ista Latine convertere vis? In aliis Vicipaediis ita non videtur fieri. Neander (disputatio) 21:32, 21 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unlike the front pages of most other wikipedia language editions, Pagina prima has direct links to a whole bunch of important articles, categorised in the "Encyclopaedia" section. This way of directing all visitors to articles cuts the portals of Vicipaedia entirely off, and fails to use the potential that portals actually have. I've made a few new portals, and placed them in this proposal for a new headline box for the pagina prima:

Encyclopaedia quo omnes ad contribuendum invitantur!

What do you think about this idea? The selection of portals could of course be entirely different, but if some people here say which ones should be prioritized, then most important ones that aren't yet created, could be made. And perhaps the big headline "Pagina prima" is removed from the front page, as is the case in the front page of most other language editions. Thanks. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 00:13, 22 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salve Ssolbergj, thank you for starting this discussion! Personally I like the idea of adding links to selected portals to the main page (but perhaps not in the headline box), although our portals are currently not too well-maintained: In the last months, you have been the only contributor who has made substantial improvements to our portals. I guess we should split up the issues you raise like this:
  • 1. Should we add links to selected portals to our pagina prima? (My answer: yes)
  • 2. If yes, should those links appear in the headline box or at a position farther down (my answer: farther down, in or near the "ENCYCLOPAEDIA" box)
  • 3. Should the current headline box be changed? (my answer: why should we? – but I am open to any suggestion)
  • 4. Should the big lemma heading that says "Pagina prima" be hidden on the main page (only) (like many other large wikipedias do)? (my answer: yes)
And let me add another question:
  • 5. Should the main page, since it does not constitute an encyclopedic article, be moved from the main namespace to the Vicipaedia: namespace, like on the German and French wikipedias? (my answer: yes)
What do others think? --UV (disputatio) 22:16, 22 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with both of you that linking to portals is a good idea, if the portals are kept up as you've started doing, Ssolbergj. My votes on UV's questions: 1 yes. 2 further down. 3 no need to change. 4 yes, remove the link on Pagina prima that goes to itself. 5 this would be tidier but is of course a low priority. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:07, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Yes 2. Headline box, since this maximizes their visibility. They would after all serve the essential purpose of the main page, namely to guide visitors to the contents of Vicipaedia, and should perhaps as such be prioritized. The current "encyclopedia" section is placed pretty far down, compared to most of the Wikipedia editions' main pages. @Amahoney, the portals would probably attract more editors than previously if there were linked to on the main page. What do you think about the proposed selection of portals? 3. If the Pagina prima heading is removed, Caesar's head would cover the search box. And I think the current, additional (which goes against consistency), vicipaedia logo, along with the massive gray row waste too much space. "Vicipædia Latina" in plain text, perhaps with serifs, is sufficient IMO. 4. Yes 5. That makes sense, but I have no strong opinion on this.
- Ssolbergj (disputatio) 09:08, 28 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ad 2. Well, perhaps this is a question of the en:chicken or the egg, but I would be reluctant to add the portals in such a prominent place while, as is currently the case, no regular contributor makes sure they are constantly improved. I also doubt the importance of portals to guide visitors to the contents of Vicipaedia – when I use Vicipaedia (whatever language) to look up things, I never use portals to guide me to the content I am looking for. But perhaps other users have different habits? As I stated, portals should have their place in the main page, but for now perhaps not in the headline box.
Ad 3. I am surprised that you, Ssolbergj, are making that point, since it was you a few years ago who proposed and designed our current massive gray row. I, for my part, have come to like it! But perhaps time has come for a change or facelift now. Anyway, I am open to new ideas and proposals to be discussed here.
Ad 4. Oh, you made an important point here. If we hide the big lemma heading that says "Pagina prima", Caesar's head would (together with the other content of our pagina prima) automatically move up to the point that it would indeed be partly hidden behind the search box (for users of the Vector skin) or, at least partly, be off the top of the page (for users of the Monobook skin). So, if we decide to hide the "Pagina prima" heading, we should indeed modify our headline box, at least to make Caesar smaller.
--UV (disputatio) 20:52, 28 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both the French, German and English wikipedias have links to portals in the headline boxes. Though if people don't thik that's a good idea for this edition, then perhaps the Spanish design could be adopted? - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 12:55, 4 Februarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On en:wiki not many editors are interested in portals and they get a low number of hits (i.e. relatively few readers look at them). Here's a fairly recent discussion, closely followed by another. It's said that portals are more popular on some other wikis. But I don't myself know what use they are: I don't ever use them. If I were revising the links on the Pagina prima, I'd still go straight to selected pages -- good pages as samples of Vicipaedia in different subject areas, because, from any page, you can navigate directly to others. Sorry to be negative. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:36, 4 Februarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1000 famous pages are portals of sorts: each article is the hub from which spokes radiate out in the form of links to secondary & tertiary topics. (That's why they, especially their first few paragraphs, are, and should be, riddled with blue.) Several hundred of these articles match perfectly certain of the 1000 numbers in the Classificatione Decimali Deweyensi, but the scheme broke down when biographies began to be added to the list and notions of affirmative action for underachieving cultures took hold, and so now we have Vladimirus Vysockij as one of the thousand most important concepts of all time. Still, many of the 1000 famous pages do fulfill their basic function, and portals are placed at the top of some of them; for example, see Ars and Scientia (ratio). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:20, 4 Februarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right! And they all exist, though at very different states of (im)perfection. One portal, serving as a guide to those thousand pages, might even encourage chance visitors to improve them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:52, 4 Februarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the proposed portae panel would be nice in my opinion, but then it should include the porta eruditionis as a link so that we can then eliminate it as an extra panel from the pagina prima. Also given the greater size these days of the aliquid novi panel, it would be nice to move the scin tu panel to the left side under the pagina mensis panel. I wouldn't want to eliminate the encyclopaedia panel.--Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 02:07, 10 Februarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that all makes good sense to me. You may realise, Rafael, that I got the idea for the aliquid novi out of a very old conversation of yours. Helveticus and I are currently the ones who add most of the news, but of course anyone else can do so who wishes. Begin by adding to Formula:Nuntii, where the material remains long-term, and then copy any latest item to Formula:Aliquidnovi, whence you should delete an earlier item to make room. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:26, 10 Februarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does Rafaelgarcia, or anyone else for that matter, think an encyclopedia box (a list of article links) should be separate from the list of portals? I've made a draft pagina prima here. What do you think? Please suggest changes. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 20:47, 12 Februarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Textus paginae primae recensere

While we're discussing page one, doesn't anybody else worry about the grammar of "Vicipaedia adhuc habet 85 613 commentationes"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:22, 28 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be bold, improve it! (In case you can't find that text, it is at Formula:Pp-ave.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:34, 29 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nuntium 28 Ianuarii emendare temptavi -- an recte, haud scio. Si alii rursus emendare volunt, ite -- Formula:Aliquidnovi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 29 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Iacobe, Can you explain what is wrong with the statement? To me it says, "Vcipaedia thus far has 85 613 studies/articles." Some latinists prefer to translate article as commentatio, although the classical meaning is a little less specific. I would have thought that the mediaeval articulus would be a better, more specific term in this context--is that what you are worried about?--Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 01:35, 10 Februarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Rafael! I'm sure that Iacobus is concerned (et quidem iusto iure) with the syntax of numerals. As soon as the amount 2000 articles (duo milia commentationum) had been reached, the construction "X milia + Genetivus" should have been adopted. Neander (disputatio) 08:49, 10 Februarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture of the Year voting round 1 open recensere

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons.

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

This message was delivered based on m:Distribution list/Global message delivery. Translation fetched from: commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2012/Translations/Village Pump/en -- Rillke (disputatio) 23:54, 22 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De binominibus recensere

Salve. Suntne nomina sicut felis vel corvus vel musca existimanda nomina generum biologicorum, cum littera maiuscula litterisque inclinatis, an nomina linguae Latinae sicut Anglice ant vel Hispanice pingüino? Gratias, et ignosce mihi si male scribo! --Anedia (disputatio) 14:52, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nescio an quaestionem tuam recte intellegi. Multi tituli nostri sunt nomina taxinomica (generum aut specierum); alia sunt nomina communia Latina. Si pagina de genere taxinomico loquitur, id fere semper vides in prima sententia; vides insuper saepissime capsam taxinomicam (infobox) in talibus paginis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Est ergo sciendum de quo loquetur. E. g., corvus genus Corvus est, sed feles est species Felis silvestris et musca est species Musca domestica. Suntne fontes? --Anedia (disputatio) 17:37, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Salve Anedia. Ignosce mihi si non recte te intelligo. Dicis nomina solita Latine, sicut Anglicae mallard contra autem Anas platyrhynchos et barnacle goose contra autem Branta leucopsis?
Donatello (disputatio) 17:44, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Certe, fontes sunt, et paginae saepius dicunt quae sunt. Exempli gratia, vide de Musca domestica, quae pagina dicit illum Linnaeum nomen anno 1758 dedit. Binomen et Systema taxinomicum Linnaeanum quoque de talibus rebus plura dicunt. Num hoc est, quod vis scire? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:23, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias vobis. Quaesivi: suntne nomina taxinomica Latina; estne semper, exempli gratia, anas generis Anas, panthera generis Panthera… sed male dixi. Spero vos me recte intellegere… --Anedia (disputatio) 18:48, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latina taxinomica est lingua specialis. Nos fortunati sumus quia omnes qui Latine loquuntur illam linguam facile intellegere possunt! Sed oportet scire ideam generum et specierum ante Linnaeum haud exstitisse. Is et sectatores eius verbis communibus Latinis novas significationes attribuere coeperunt. Id quod antiqui X (e.g. "anas", "panthera") appellaverunt, in lingua Latina post-Linnaeana erit interdum genus X, interdum species X communis, interdum duae aut tres species similes antiquis cognitae ... etc. Non possumus unam legem statuere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:21, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ceterum ... si lynx "binomen a Kerr anno 1792" <datum> est, sicut in ea symbola dicitur, quidnam lynx lynx est? Neander (disputatio) 21:15, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An dixi opus nostrum perfectum esse, amice Neander? Haec verba ab Hendrico addita sunt, qui Latine scripsit sed non intellegit. Sine ullo dubio corrigere oportet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:24, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a few interwiki conflicts recensere

Interlanguage links (= the links to "linguis aliis" in the left-hand column of a page) should only point to articles on other wikipedias that cover exactly the same subject, and not to articles that cover a broader subject, a narrower subject or an otherwise different subject.

Therefore, when we have two articles on la.wikipedia that both point to the same article on another wikipedia via an interlanguage link, this indicates a problem:

  • Either, our two articles cover exactly the same subject – then they should be merged ({{contribuenda}}, Categoria:Contributiones Propositae),
  • or, our two articles do not cover exactly the same subject, then at least one (perhaps both) of the interlanguage links is wrong and should be changed or removed.

Over the past few weeks, I have fixed quite a number of instances of this problem. Here is the remaining list of nine cases where I am unsure. Please help to fix these (and please strike lines you have fixed), or just tell me in what ways these cases should be fixed, and I will do the rest.

Thank you! --UV (disputatio) 23:11, 23 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest merging Anatolia into Asia Minor. For Arcadia, I've changed to en:Arcadia (ancient region) -- but then realized that's a section of a larger page to which we already have an IWL. Arcadia (nomus Graeciae) seems correct. I removed the link to :de from Gaius Iunius Tiberianus (consul 291) since we believe he and his son are different, while :de (and :it) identify them. In English they're distinct, so I've added links there. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:07, 24 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe Bithynia (regnum) should be merged into Bithynia (like in most Wikipedias except for Galego)? Circulus (iurisdictio) corresponds to de:Bezirk and its intervici links.--Utilo (disputatio) 18:20, 25 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the solution you suggest for Bithynia would work in the long run . The early history of Turkey/Asia Minor is a bit patchy in the wikipedias generally, but this will change, and ancient kingdoms, like this one, will in due course all have their own articles, I'd say. But our two Bithynia articles are very brief, and they could be merged right now, I must admit. Anyway, for the present I've done it a different way: there is a specific article whose title matches "Bithynia (regnum)" in Turkish ... it's not a good article, but it exists ... so I've linked to it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:43, 26 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just linked to the article gl:Reino de Bitinia, covering the same subject.--Utilo (disputatio) 10:53, 27 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[