Disputationes antiquae

Hoc est tabularium antiquarum disputationum. Non est recensendum.

Sententiae hic collectae inter dies et scriptae sunt.


Hodie paginam numero 90,000, titulo "Buxa", creavit Helveticus noster. Gaudeamus igitur! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:19, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Id quod de categoriis locorum facio ...

Debeo explicare. Quaereo an possibile (et utile) sit categorias creare quae locos tantum orbis terrarum, neque alias res ullas, contineant: utile fortasse si postea capsas facere et automatice recensere volumus, et fortasse si coordinata geographica addere volumus. Interdum possumus categorias, quas iam habemus, in novum arborem addere; interdum necesse erit locos (e.g. urbes) in categorias supplementarias ad hanc rem creatas addere. Experimentum facio: vide supercategoriam Categoria:Loci terrestres et subcategorias. Si alii volunt ibi inserere subcategorias, quae locos tantum, nequa alias res ullas contineant, fac! Si alii mihi dicere volunt hanc rem aut inutile aut impossibile esse, dic! Si nomina novarum categoriarum male constituuntur, facile mutari possunt.

I ought to explain. I want to know if it's possible and useful to create categories that contain only geographical places and nothing else. Useful perhaps for adding and then maintaining infoboxes, also perhaps for adding geographical coordinates. Sometimes existing categories can be used as part of this new tree; sometimes places (e.g. towns, countries) would have to be put in additional categories created for the purpose. I'm just testing: see the supercategory Categoria:Loci terrestres and its subcategories. If anyone else wants to add, into this structure, categories that contain only places and nothing else, do it! If others think this will be useless or impossible, tell me! If the names of the new categories are badly chosen, they can easily be altered. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:05, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)

For many of them, would the single word situs ('sites') be apter? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:43, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)
The idea is that all of them are points in space that can be identified with geographical co-ordinates (countries are admittedly a bit bigger than points, but their geographical centre is thus identified). As a general/mathematical term, I thought "loci" suggested all this better. But I'm open to persuasion! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:10, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so the articles might ideally want to include the latitude & longitude, maybe in a special place or capsa? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:33, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes, that's it exactly! One purpose I have in mind is that when they are all findable in this way, coordinates (from Wikidata perhaps) can be inserted in all of them automatically. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:02, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! A good idea for interconnecting the texts! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:08, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Having made a little experiment, I think that a complete, pure category tree of articles about places won't be needed, because all these places will in any case in the very near future be identified as "Loci" at Wikidata. Many are thus identified already. So the adding of coordinates (for example) can be done, when we want, by a bot drawing on Wikidata. If others who know about bots agree or disagree with me on this, please say!
I think none the less that a modest bit of systematization among categories for inhabited places, will do no harm to editors and readers who want to find them easily. The basic step I think I'll take, adopting a form of words invented by Utilo, is to create (as soon as needed) catch-all supercategories for all inhabited places (cities down to hamlets) in each civitas, like the current Categoria:Loci inhabitati Graeciae. This becomes more necessary as we get more pages for smaller places, which are not always the centres of local administration. So Utilo needed a category for places in Greece that were not, or had ceased to be, "demes"; in the same way, we will need to deal with 10,000 or more small places in France that have been categorized as "communes" by Helveticus, but will soon not be communes any more, just small places. Imagine if Italy reorganizes in the same way! If anyone disagrees on this general line of thought, please say. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:32, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Experimento parvo absoluto, arborem categoriarum plenum, qui paginas omnes de locis contineat neque aliam rem ullam, haud nobis necesse censeo, quia collegae nostri apud Wikidata eandem rem iam faciunt. Mox coordinata geographica in omnes tales paginas (si volumus) robotum inserere potebit, indice paginarum apud Wikidata facto. Si quis roboti magister me errare dicere vult, dic!
Credo nihilominus, si categorias de locis inhabitatis leviter recenseo, utile editoribus atque lectoribus erit ad tales paginas reperiendas. Sicut Utilo iam de Graecia fecit (vide Categoria:Loci inhabitati Graeciae), addere volo graduatim, sub omnibus "civitatibus sui iuris" quando necesse erit, supercategoriam locorum inhabitatorum tam magnorum quam minimorum. Hoc oportet facere praesertim quia plures pluresque paginas habemus de vicis parvis, neque municipiis, neque demis, neque communibus. Sicut in Graecia, mox in Francia paginae permultae de communibus (10,000? 15,000?) quas Helveticus creavit, non iam communia descripturae sunt sed vicos. An talis res de "municipiis" et "fractionibus" Italiae incidere debet? (Usque adhuc nescio!) Rursus dico: si quis me errare censet, dic! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Just a small point about the pattern: Loci inhabitati is intelligible, but one wonders whether Loci inculti would be more idiomatic. For inhabit, Cassell's contrasts "(locum) incolere (usually of a community)" with "(in loco) habitare (usually of an individual)." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:57, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you said that. I don't feel at all certain and it would be easy to change at this stage. What would others think to be the neatest possible expression for "inhabited places/communities"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
If Google is still our friend, loci inculti seems to be good modern Italian as well as Latin. Latin attestations do occur, e.g. ex 1666, 1722, et 1898. However, inhabitare may not work exactly the way habitare (discussed in reference to Cassell's above) works, so let's hear what others say. Of course you could go on using loci inhabitati and trust the bots to make everything consistent later on. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:44, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Google may be our deceiver here: according to my Italian dictionary inculti means "uncultivated", so the opposite of what we want! [PS: I think that may be case with your first two Latin citations also -- I can't access the third.] Likewise, in French, inculte means "uncultured" and inhabité means "uninhabited". Better focus, I suppose, on what gives the required meaning in Latin ...
I've been checking too. I have not found the past participle passive of "incolere" used in this way, though I guess there's no reason why it shouldn't be. I am wondering whether "Loci habitati" (without the in) would be better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
By golly, that's right! Does Latin really switch from the preposition in in most of the paradigm to the negating prefix in- in the past participle? In which case the confusion is easily explained, as it wouldn't be unlike popular (mis)perceptions of English inflammable, in common use (despite what dictionaries say) meaning both 'able to burn' and 'unable to burn'. So it may be best to stick with loci (in)habitati and wait for clarification. ¶ What of loci constituti? Even if a few people are living in a place, it may not be a named or otherwise formally established place, and the category is presumably looking for places only after they've been constituted as such. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:29, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
It's a neat idea, but I'm hesitant over "Loci constituti" because I feel we need something broad enough to cover inhabited places at all levels of formality, even to a total absence of formality. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:00, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Lateiner gefragt


In Vorbereitung dieses Treffens in Braunschweig (lat.: Brunsvicum) benötige ich die lateinische Übersetzung für:

  • Wikipedia-Stammtisch Braunschweig
  • Stammtisch Braunschweig
  • Wikipedianertreffen in Braunschweig
  • Wikipedia-Treffen in Braunschweig

Danke im Voraus! Brunswyk


Salve. De praesente Dalai Lama, nomen Tenzin Gyatso est eius nomen religiosum et Dalai Lama est titulum appellatur, dum natus est Lhamo Dondrub. Tum sitne in commentatione "DEFAULTSORT:Gyatso, Tenzin"? Donatello (disputatio) 17:51, 9 Maii 2013 (UTC).

Ita, utile est hanc formulam mittere, et recte sub "G" littera invenitur, ut mihi videtur (ut apud alias Vicipaedias faciunt editores). A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:25, 9 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Video. Gratias ago. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 12:15, 10 Maii 2013 (UTC).

Pagina mensis

Why is the Pagina prima printing an obsolete version of the pagina mensis? You can instantly spot the problem by noting that the link to mare mediterraneum in the version on the Pagina prima is red. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:33, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)

As a rule, we probably shouldn't be featuring pages whose first few paragraphs—the part to be printed in the Pagina prima—contain red links. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:33, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
If you've made a significant edit to the first few sentences of the page which is pagina mensis, you'll need to make the same edit to Formula:PaginaMensis/Maii 2013 (or whatever the month is!) Don't know if this answers the question ...
There's another solution, as you realise, to the specific problem you mention. Click on the redlink and make a redirect :)
As to your point no. 2: don't let's overdo it, I agree, but why no redlinks? Don't redlinks encourage people to add pages? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:00, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)

De categoriis contrarie divisis

Qui Anglice possunt, fortasse legere volunt hanc commentationem in Signpost "Categorisation of women novelists sparks media debate on Wikipedia's sexism". Vicipaediani Anglophoni multas categorias contrarie divisas (crossover categories) creaverunt, sexu et gente (necnon aliis criteriis) digestas, e.g. "American Women Novelists", "LGBT writers from the United States", "African-American dentists", "American scientists of Ukrainian descent‎‎". Nos Latine paucas categorias tales habemus: id mihi bene videtur. Fortasse eas quas habemus sexu subdivisas ("Actrices, Ostentatrices, Poetriae" etc., vide sub Categoria:Mulieres) oportet dissipare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:44, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)

I have repeatedly argued against creating new crossover categories, and I am happy that we do not have too many of them here on Vicipaedia. Other wikipedias have even fewer of them: The German wikipedia, for example, does not cross people's nationality and people's profession: On de.wikipedia, there is no category "Writers from the U.S.", just a category "Writers" and a category "People from the U.S." If one wants to find out the writers from the U.S., Vicipaedia:CatScan can be used for that purpose.
That said, I would advocate dissipating most of the subcategories of Categoria:Mulieres (perhaps leaving Categoria:Meretrices?) and I would be happy to let UVbot perform the task, if there is consensus. --UV (disputatio) 15:25, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Uh, I can't agree, sorry. It is easy for me to find things using categories and be organized. If a category has more than say 15 members, I would like to subcategorize them. For example, I will soon categorize persons in the Lord of the Rings novels. --Jondel (disputatio) 19:49, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
When this subcategorization adds new information that is not already present via other categories, please go ahead! (I suspect that this is the case with the persons in the Lord of the Rings novels.)
But when this subcategorization only creates a crossover of information that can be expressed all the same without creating new crossover categories, please refrain from creating categories such as a category for „Swedish classical harpsichordists specialized in the works of Georg Philipp Telemann“, and a category for „Swedish female homosexual experts-in-early-19th-century-Southern-Serbian-calligraphy whose last name comprises an odd number of characters“ (I suspect you would not create such a category anyway, but this would be an example of a crossover category).
But perhaps we should distinguish general questions of categorization from the particular question raised here by Andrew following the points that were raised concerning en.wikipedia: whether to keep the few subcategories of Categoria:Mulieres that we currently have or whether to dissolve them. --UV (disputatio) 20:26, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, I see no difficulty at all with Jondel's plan. Go ahead, Jondel! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:44, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Great. I think I get UV's point not to overcategorize. You, Andrew (seemed to ) make a suggestion when I was new here, that it would be good if a category had 3 or more members and it seems to be good guideline. gotta go now.--Jondel (disputatio) 22:02, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
It's good to have a minimum 3/4 as a general aim, I'd say, even if we often don't attain our aim ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:54, 14 Maii 2013 (UTC)

OK, no one having raised objections regarding the issue of subcategorizing by gender (e.g. Categoria:Actrices) I propose that we (a) ensure all biographical articles are in the general categories Category:Viri and Categoria:Mulieres (or a transgender category that we may define), and (b) delete the subcategories of Category:Mulieres. Sex raises its ugly head here, but we can handle it in an adult fashion by moving Categoria:Actrices pornographicae to Categoria:Actores pornographici and Categoria:Meretrices to Categoria:Scorta (the latter is, conveniently, neuter). Would others agree? Do any other specific issues arise? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)

I support this. e.g. Removing reginas category and placing all queens under the kings /reges category.--Jondel (disputatio) 10:24, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Jondel. Yes, reginae to merge into reges. We will need a new name for "Dominae Primae (CFA)". But we will need that anyway, whenever the USA gets its first male "first lady". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:24, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
:)--Jondel (disputatio) 12:58, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Which, then, of Vicipaedia's categories will be analogous with de:Kategorie:Königin? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:32, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
"Reges" will be analogous with it. But it won't be linked with it via Wikidata, I suspect (unless Wikidata leans towards feminism, and I don't think it does). That's not the full answer, however. We can ensure, if we care to, that our "Reges" category is linked both from "König" and from "Königin", and similarly in any other such cases. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:50, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought. Going back to the First Lady issue. Perhaps if there is a strong stereotype for that particular gender then maybe it would be good to prioritize the category in that gender. e.g. Categoria:Dominae Primae even if the First Gentlemen would be placed under it. Btw we refer to the male first ladies in the Philippines as First Gentlemen.--Jondel (disputatio) 09:24, 28 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Yes, maybe it's fine! It is in any case a subcategory of Categoria:Mariti ducum civitatum, which is intended to be gender-neutral. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:19, 28 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I have now disbanded the subcategories of Categoria:Mulieres. --UV (disputatio) 23:54, 28 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Good work. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 13:24, 29 Maii 2013 (UTC).

De nomine adiectivo "lunaris"

Salve. Demiro nomen adiectivum "lunaris, -is, -e" si id est in lingua Latina classica. Lexicon meum Lexicon Norstedianum, Latine-Suetice (editio prima recentissimaque), non dicit si antique, mediaevaliter, nec hodierne est. Si studiosi estis, id dicit:

luna|ris, ris, -re adjective of the moon, moon-; luna|tus adjective halfmoonshaped; luno verb to bend in a moonshape

Donatello (disputatio) 16:13, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC).

A tempore classico in usu est: Cicero, Ovidius, Seneca, Vitruvius.--Utilo (disputatio) 18:59, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Gratias tibi Utilo. -- Donatello (disputatio) 19:13, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC).

De categoria ad cuiusdam praefecturae Francicae urbes pertinente quae improprie nominata est

Pagina de Franciae praefectura cuius Augustonemetum est caput primum Podium Tholi nominata est, quod haud idoneum est quoniam illic Dôme ad deum celticum, neque ad ulla architectonica elementa confert. Itaque cunctas paginas ad hanc praefecturam pertinentes movi. Categoria tamen quae praefecturae urbes enumerat similiter movenda est, sed quomodo fieri potest nusquam repperi. Igitur auxilium consiliumque vobis omnibus peto. ThbdGrrd (disputatio) 21:06, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Categoria:Communia praefecturae Podii TholiCategoria:Communia praefecturae Podii Dumiatis, an recte?
Usor:UVbot hanc rectificationem perficere potest. Vide etiam Vicipaedia:Automata/Category move requests. --UV (disputatio) 21:56, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC)

hardware -> ferramenta, software -> ???

So, I believe that the best translation for "hardware" is "ferramenta", would anyone agree?

What would be the best translation for software? The word software was originally created as a direct antonym to hardware, in that hardware is hard to change because it uses hard parts (printed circuits, metal chips, soldered wires etc) whereas software is easy to change because it uses soft parts (electric and magnetic fields).


(1) http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=software software (n.) Look up software at Dictionary.com

   1851, soft wares, "woolen or cotton fabrics," also, "relatively perishable consumer goods,"
   from soft + ware (n.). The computer sense is a separate coinage from 1960, based on hardware.

(2) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/software

   From soft +‎ -ware, by contrast with hardware (“the computer itself”). Coined 1953 by
   Paul Niquette;[1] first used in print by John Tukey 1958.

My suggestions for the word "software" in latin, as a direct antonym to ferramenta given the etymology above, sorted by my personal preference:

  1. "promutamenta": something devised for changing or to be easy to change
  2. "telamenta": something made of soft fabrics, cloth, tissue, web (its sound contrasts very nicely with ferramenta)
  3. "pannumenta": something made of fabrics (or maybe lanamenta -- wool, or byssumenta -- cotton)
  4. "effigiamenta": something easy to copy/make (or maybe imitamenta)

Any opinions are highly appreciated! I've never seen anyone devoting any serious thoughts on this topic.

Vide commentarios Programmatura computatralis et Disputatio:Programmatura computatralis. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:54, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Salve Iacobe. Sentio tecum. Bonum est vocabulum. -- Donatello (disputatio) 13:58, 17 Maii 2013 (UTC).


Greetings. The English word for technological stuff: "device"; what is "device" in Latin? Could it be apparatus, or machina, or both? In my language Swedish it's called apparat. Donatello (disputatio) 12:38, 18 Maii 2013 (UTC).

Morgan: ".mech device (gadget) inventum; machina (Lev.)." ¶ The English word, meaning 'anything that has been devised', is extremely general in sense, so res might well suffice in some contexts, but White's dictionary, for the sense 'a contrivance', gives inventum, while Cassell's echoes Levine (or rather Levine echoes Cassell's) with machina, but adds dolus. (A device can be a trick.) For the sense 'emblem (as on a shield)': insigne, signum, inscriptio. For the sense 'intention' (as in "left to their own devices"): consilium, propositum. Merriam-Webster says the word itself comes from Middle French division, intention, from Old French deviser 'divide, regulate, tell'. You see what a variable word you're working with! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:02, 18 Maii 2013 (UTC)
As for apparatus : for the meaning of Latin words, we seldom go wrong by treating their morphological constituents more "literally" than their modern reflexes imply. Here: ad 'to, toward' + paratus 'prepared', so in apparatus we've basically got a 'preparation', anything prepared for a purpose. That's almost as general as res. Since machina seems to have a more particular denotation ('anything prepared for performing work'), it might be a better bet. The senses of machina given in Cassell's are: 'crane (for moving heavy weights), windlass (for drawing ships down to the sea), military engine, catapult, ballista', with transferred senses 'fabric, device, contrivance, trick, stratagem'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:17, 18 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I see. :) Big thanks. -- Donatello (disputatio) 16:40, 19 Maii 2013 (UTC).

Tech newsletter: Subscribe to receive the next editions

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message deliveryContributeTranslateGet helpGive feedbackUnsubscribe • 20:52, 20 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Important note: This is the first edition of the Tech News weekly summaries, which help you monitor recent software changes likely to impact you and your fellow Wikimedians.

If you want to continue to receive the next issues every week, please subscribe to the newsletter. You can subscribe your personal talk page and a community page like this one. The newsletter can be translated into your language.

You can also become a tech ambassador, help us write the next newsletter and tell us what to improve. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. guillom 20:52, 20 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I have subscribed to this, requesting that it be delivered to the Taberna. If anyone feels this is totally useless, it is possible to go to the subscriptions page (see above) and delete my entry! If we feel it takes up too much space here, we can alternatively create a sub-page and have it delivered to that sub-page instead. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:42, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)


Habemus nomen Latinum pro Fridtjof nomine Norvegico? Vide commentarium Fridtjof Nansen‎. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:46, 23 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Salve Iacobe. Quaesivi sed non inveni, sed dicere possum nomen "Fridtjof" alia forma a nomine "Fritjof" est, quid est ex nomine Nordico antiquo Friðþjófr, significatio "fur pacis", derivatus e vocabulis friðr "pax" et þjófr "fur".
Donatello (disputatio) 16:17, 25 Maii 2013 (UTC).

De pagina Comoedia

I was just wondering if the Comoedia page should be expanded to also talk about modern comedies and e.g. comedy films, because at the time the page mostly contains of a list of six famous playwrights (four of which from antiquity). The reason I brought this up is because I have created and edited some pages about modern comedy actors/actresses and series, and it seems a little, well, comical, when the link from a sentence like ”The Simpsons est Americana comica series animata” opens to a page that talks mostly about Aristophanes and Shakespeare. Or maybe a new page like Comoedia hodierna should be crated? At least I think the page should mention that comedies can also be in the form of a film, so that references from pages like that of Jim Carrey would be accurate, because now it only says ”Comoedia (-ae, f.) est fabula quae --- in theatro agitur.” Or maybe some other solution for linking the pages? Any views? Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 20:48, 25 Maii 2013 (UTC)

It would be hard to go wrong by translating from Wikipedia Anglica, where, as we see, the first paragraphs of an article on a topic so broad as this tend to define the subject in such a way that they serve as vehicles for an array of links to related concepts:
Comedy (from the Ancient Greek κωμῳδία, kōmōidía), in the contemporary meaning of the term, is any discourse or work generally intended to be humorous or to amuse by inducing laughter, especially in theatre, television, film and stand-up comedy. This sense of the term must be carefully distinguished from its academic one, namely the comic theatre, whose Western origins are found in Ancient Greece. In the Athenian democracy, the public opinion of voters was influenced by the political satire performed by the comic poets at the theatres.[1] The theatrical genre can be simply described as a dramatic performance which pits two societies against each other in an amusing agon or conflict. Northrop Frye famously depicted these two opposing sides as a "Society of Youth" and a "Society of the Old",[2] but this dichotomy is seldom described as an entirely satisfactory explanation. A later view characterizes the essential agon of comedy as a struggle between a relatively powerless youth and the societal conventions that pose obstacles to his hopes. In this struggle, the youth is understood to be constrained by his lack of social authority, and is left with little choice but to take recourse in ruses which engender very dramatic irony which provokes laughter.[3]
The next paragraph brings in highly important related concepts (see the links):
Satire and political satire use ironic comedy to portray persons or social institutions as ridiculous or corrupt, thus alienating their audience from the object of humor. Satire is a type of comedy. Parody subverts popular genres and forms, using certain ironic changes to critique those forms from within (though not necessarily in a condemning way). Screwball comedy derives its humor largely from bizarre, surprising (and improbable) situations or characters. Black comedy is defined by dark humor that makes light of so-called dark or evil elements in human nature. Similarly scatological humor, sexual humor, and race humor create comedy by violating social conventions or taboos in comic ways. A comedy of manners typically takes as its subject a particular part of society (usually upper class society) and uses humor to parody or satirize the behavior and mannerisms of its members. Romantic comedy is a popular genre that depicts burgeoning romance in humorous terms and focuses on the foibles of those who are falling in love.
Good luck! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:41, 25 Maii 2013 (UTC)


  1. Henderson, J. (1993) Comic Hero versus Political Elite pp.307-19 in Sommerstein, A.H.; S. Halliwell, J. Henderson, B. Zimmerman, ed. (1993). Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis. Bari: Levante Editori 
  2. (Anatomy of Criticism, 1957)
  3. (Marteinson, 2006)
Well, that would certainly be a thorough approach to the subject for a Vicipaedia article. I don't feel that I am apt to translate it, especially as it has these terms like "stand-up comedy", about which I would anyway have to consult somebody. So if someone else wants to embark on that, they'll have my blessing :) But I was still thinking how that definition should be combined with what the page already has, because now it says Ex auctoribus comicis quidam praeclari sunt and then there's the list of the six playwrights. Should there be a subtitle that says something like Scriptores et actores comoediae variorum aetatum and then subcategories Antiquitas and Tempora hodierna, and in the latter there would be names like Charlie Chaplin, Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy, Jim Carrey?
But anyway, if there didn't appear to be other volunteers, I could make a short introduction on the basis of the definition on English Wikipedia. But further comments are very welcome so that we can reach a broader consensus. Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 22:30, 25 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Translating from en:wiki is a method often adopted by Iacobus and it works well for him! It's not our standard, and I wouldn't recommend it here unless the en:wiki introduction appears to be exactly what you want. The tag "This article has multiple issues", which I see at the head of en:Comedy, would put me right off. Tha article looks surprisingly brief and list-bound, too. Anyway, getting stuck on translating concepts popular in 21st century English but not so crucial to other times and places ... yes, that's just the kind of problem one encounters.
I suggest "look before you leap". If I'm approaching some topic as broad and deep as this, what I might well do is to spend a couple of hours reading the introductions to other encyclopedia articles on the subject and then launch out ... I often look at several Wikipedias and get an impression of which has the most generally useful approach, even if it's not a language I'm going to translate from. On this topic, de:Komödie looks like the best of a bad bunch: any use? Assuming you are ready to work from English texts, as you certainly appear to be (!) one could additionally suggest the Encyclopaedia Britannica, if you can get a full view of it.
I urge you to go ahead, anyway -- we could very easily end up with the best article on this subject! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:28, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
It's usually best to avoid false definitions. The German "Eine Komödie . . . ist ein Drama [N.B.] mit erheiterndem Handlungsablauf, das in der Regel glücklich endet" absolutely excludes stand-up comedy and the Divina Comoedia. Does the German wiki elsewhere have an article on "comedy" (the concept), in addition to "a comedy" (an example of the concept)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:23, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I'd try to rise above any demand to ensure that our basic definition covers everything that all other languages cover under this term. We are writing Latin, and we have to try to devise what the term may cover in Latin, difficult though that is as concepts and genres change so radically. Divina Comoedia wouldn't be in my short-list of things that must be covered in our definition (not that I'm asking Dante to change his title: he has free choice). Nor would stand-up comedy. Note that the latter is named and defined in some other languages, e.g. French and Russian, without use of the concept "comedy".
I agree with you that, in one article or two, "a comedy" (i.e. a play) and "comedy" (the genre) both have to be dealt with. For what it's worth, these match the two definitions of comoedia offered in the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
PS. If only Jorge of Burgos hadn't eaten the last surviving copy of Aristotle On Comedy, Philetymos could have started from that! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Ok, now I expanded the Comoedia article and included some names of recent comedians too. I also noticed that many other wikipedias don't cover the subject very thoroughly, so I don't think it's that big a sin if the Vicipaedia page isn't absolutely precise. And yea, it would be quite nice to be able to insert some quotes from Aristotle's On Comedy on the page ;) Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 13:47, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Even after today's addition, its size is merely 1908 octeti. According to the ideals of the 1000-pages project, its size should be more than 30,000. Which seems appropriate for a topic of such importance! It should have a huge number of links leading out to other articles, one of which might be the Samoan & Tongan genre known as koniseti (from English concert, but usually referring to a series of comedic skits presented publicly, often for money). And then there's the concept of clowns & clowning. The list goes on & on! :) ¶ The same, of course, in the other direction, with tragoedia—which, curiously, seems not to be one of the 1000 most important topics in the world. Maybe our Amahoney can explain that omission for us! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:01, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Wait! Apparently, neither comedy nor tragedy is in the list of articles every wikipedia should have! Under "Arts and recreation," the only supremely important topics are Culture, Art, Comics, Painting, Photography, Sculpture, Pottery, Dance, Fashion, Theatre, Calligraphy. Is it possible that comedy & tragedy are seen as subsets of Theatre?—which would then have to be taken in an extremely broad sense to include some genres of comedy & tragedy (otherwise, for example, we couldn't rightly describe an epic or a novel as a tragedy). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:13, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps people who worry about the 1000 pages don't have time for laughter [satirizing myself, see here ]. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:25, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Me personally, I'd put Tragedy ahead of Comics and Comedy ahead of Calligraphy. But then I regularly teach this stuff, so I may have a narrow-minded view. Vicipaediani are warmly encouraged to join the discussion on the talk page of the List at Meta; there's more flaming and snarking that we tolerate here, but we do get a chance to sway the discourse. Latin VP is a force to be reckoned with! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:19, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Automatic taxoboxes

Are these a wave of the future or a relic from the past? If the former, adding complete taxoboxes here will become increasingly difficult—so much so that, except on rare occasions, nobody will bother to do it. Are our kind programmers working on this problem? What needs to happen is that data presented thus

{{Automatic Taxobox | name = Naked mole rat | status = LC | status_system = iucn3.1 | status_ref =<ref name=iucn>{{IUCN2008|assessors=Maree, S. & Faulkes, C.|year=2008|id=9987|title=Heterocephalus glaber|downloaded=5 January 2009}}</ref> | trend = stable | fossil_range = Early [[Pliocene]] - Recent | image = Nacktmull.jpg | image_width = 200px | taxon = Heterocephalus glaber | display parents = 3 | parent_authority = Rüppell, 1842 | grandparent_authority = Landry, 1957 | range_map=Heterocephalus glaber dis.png | range_map_caption=Distribution of the Naked Mole Rat | binomial = '''''Heterocephalus glaber''''' | binomial_authority = [[Eduard Rüppell|Rüppell]], 1842 }}

need to print like data in an ordinary taxobox. Note that the entire taxonomy—kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus (with any subdivisions of these)—is missing but needs to print here: it must be stored somewhere other than inside the taxobox, and Vicipaedia needs to know how to retrieve it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:13, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)

I think we're up to speed here. At your earlier request Aylin did a great deal of work on this, and {{Automatic taxobox}} has been working for you. Note the small "t". This system seems to me, as a mere uncomprehending observer, to be very demanding in terms of time -- which may be why scarcely any other wikis had adopted it when I last looked -- but if your current examples require more work to be done, you had better ask Aylin again!
On en:wiki it doesn't seem to have been welcomed with champagne corks popping: see the note on the talk page, "Please note: WikiProject Palaeontology is the only WikiProject to have approved the replacement of already-existing manual taxoboxes with automated ones, and has only provided explicit approval for short or rarely-edited pages." But evidently some people are now using it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Typographically it's a catastrophe. Vide Heterocephalus glaber. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:33, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I see that this taxobox, on which Aylin had done so much work for you creating hundreds of subsidiary formulae, is currently in use on only thirteen of our pages. That's a lot of your friends' time per page! Well, maybe she'll have a go if you ask ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Some may be working, but the one in Heterocephalus glaber is not. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:33, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry! Millions of articles on plants & animals remain to be written, and someday all work on automatic taxoboxes will come into play (assuming that having automatic taxoboxes is the way Wikipedia wants to go). Why, the world has millions of species of Coleoptera alone! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:30, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
That's reassuring :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I am not so sure that Wikipedia will go the way of automatic taxoboxes in their current state. I suspect (but I may be mistaken) that future taxoboxes will accept much fewer parameters, with the omitted information coming directly from wikidata. For an example from a different domain, see this (ugly, but you get the idea of what is technically possible) proof-of-concept: [16] The information is retrieved via the #property magic word from the corresponding wikidata entry (d:Special:ItemByTitle/lawiki/Italia). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:14, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I may be mistaken too, but I likewise suspect the automatic taxobox won't ever float. To be used generally, it seems to require the creation of at least one formula and two maintenance categories per taxonomic node, all the way down to the genus level. Then there's the work the server has to do each time a page containing this formula is displayed. The comment I saw on the English talk page, to the effect that this template is disturbingly greedy in terms of server resources, didn't surprise me.
You have an alternative, Iacobus, which is to copy the data you can see "printed" on the English page into one of our normal taxoboxes. Maybe a minute more of your time -- or actually maybe less, because you wouldn't have to compose messages asking for help :) Worth considering? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 28 Maii 2013 (UTC)