Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 27

Disputationes antiquae Hoc est tabularium antiquarum disputationum. Non est recensendum. Sententiae hic collectae inter dies 16 Decembris 2016 et 30 Decembris 2017 scriptae sunt. ❮ Tabularium 26 Omnia tabularia Tabularium 28 ❯

Heidelberga: hospes vias

Ante tres annos in disputatione paginae Heidelberga rogavi, quid istis vocabulis aenigmaticis exprimatur. Nullo responso adhuc accepto mi liceat illam quaestionem hoc loco repetere. --Bavarese (disputatio) 20:09, 16 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Ad hanc rem respondere non possum! Nihilominus in paginam disputationis respectivam verba vagantia scripsi :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 17 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Haec verba dubia (sc. hospes vias) in aliis quoque paginis , e. g. Manhemium reperiuntur. Verendum est, ne pluries scripta sint. Estne nobis aliquod instrumentum, quo, si alicubi adhibita sint, indagari possint? --Bavarese (disputatio) 12:19, 21 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Pugiles ~ pyctae

What's the difference between these terms? and why are there categories for each of them? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:48, 20 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

When occurring with pugil, pyctes denotes a boxer who fights in the Greek manner, and pugil one who fights in the Roman manner. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 18:26, 20 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

We will be deleting the pyctae Category as it is redundant with the pugil category. I would like to assume everyone is ok with this.--Jondel (disputatio) 15:02, 31 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Iacobus for pointing this out and Martelli for elucidating! :)--Jondel (disputatio) 02:13, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

de communibus Franciae

Many of our articles about French communes had a weblink to insee.fr (the French national statistics agency). I have now created Formula:INSEE commune, and (with the help of User:UVbot) I have converted all those weblinks to use Formula:INSEE commune, in total more than 34 400. This now allows us to better check the consistency of our data against Wikidata:

• I have found ~300 articles about communes that were connected to the wrong wikidata item, and I have corrected all of them;
• I have found 764 articles (listed at Categoria:Error formulae INSEE commune, which makes roughly 2% of the total number of 34 400 articles) where the commune ID in our article is different from the commune ID available at Wikidata. I have the strong suspicion that in all those 764 cases we are wrong and Wikidata is correct (example: our article Amfreville-la-Campagne wrongly links to 27017 [Angerville] where it should instead link to 27011 [Amfreville]), but I do not have the means to check all those 764 cases individually. I therefore propose that I use UVbot to change whatever (probably wrong) commune ID we currently use in those 764 articles to the (probably correct) commune ID available at Wikidata. Comments? Objections? --UV (disputatio) 23:58, 8 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Keep up the good work UV!  :) --Jondel (disputatio) 02:12, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Macte! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:41, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you should go ahead. I know there have been many small errors in our French commune pages, which were created at astonishing speed. In this case the bots that added data to Wikidata are likely to have done it right in nearly every case, so, although after your work we might end up with one error or two, that will be far fewer than we have now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Gratias ob responsa vobis ago, paginas mutavi. --UV (disputatio) 18:00, 22 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Wildlife

What's the best Latin word or phrase for English wildlife? Cassell's says plain fera, -ae (sc. bestia) is OK for wild animal ; for wildlife, that might in turn give us ferae, -arum. Is anything better? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:25, 10 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

I have used "silvaticus", and, now that you've made me look it up, I still think it's OK. Used by good authors when speaking of boars, mice and plants; translated "wild" in Lewis & Short. I think the neuter plural "silvatica -orum" would work for "things in the wild, wildlife" in general. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 10 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Ferae, plurale collectivum, etiam ab aliis (sicut Pitkäranta, Vilborg) suadetur, sed sine dubio etiam consilium Andreae utile est. Apud Varronem (Rust. 2.9.2) etiam dictionem q.e. bestiae silvestres repperi. Neander (disputatio) 15:59, 10 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Calendarium non iam valens

In paginis singulorum dierum anni per formulam "Calendarium" calendarium mensile anni 2005 apparet. Nonne possibile est, ut formula uteremur, quae quotannis automatice calendarium anni praesentis monstrat? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 08:59, 14 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Difficile est sed fortasse formulas corrigendas alicui placet. Duodecim sunt: Calendarium-Ianuarii usque ad Calendarium-Decembris, ubi dies mensis anni 2005 scribuntur; formulae quam minime callidae sunt. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:44, 18 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

There are some templates on Simple English Wikipedia I could bring over. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 23:50, 18 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Formulas mutavi. Nunc, ut suasisti, Bis-Taurine, automatice calendarium anni praesentis monstrant. --UV (disputatio) 23:29, 23 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Maximas tibi gratias ago, UV, quia hunc laborem peregisti! Facile enim est desiderium praesentare, difficilius rem facere. Salve! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 05:54, 25 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Optime! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:27, 25 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Speaks Your Language

Hello all and sorry for writing this message in English. It is my pleasure to inform you about the launch of the Wiki Speaks Your Language initiative with the goal of enriching the Wikimedia projects with freely licenced audio (and video) files documenting spoken examples of every language, language variety and dialect in the world.

The idea originates from the curiosity of many readers viewing language articles not only to read about the language but also to hear how does it sound. In most of the cases, our language articles lack such files and readers usually end up searching videos on YouTube, notwithstanding that we have the capacity as a movement and the resources to meet their wish.

The initiative lists three possible ways of acquiring the freely licenced audio (and video) files: 1) by adapting existing audio and video files on Wikimedia Commons (mostly from the Spoken Wikipedia projects), 2) by liberating existing audio and video files from the repositories of GLAM and educational institutions, and 3) by engaging Wikimedia communities, GLAM and educational institutions in the recording of new audio and video files.

In the first phase of the initiative, the easiest way to start is by working with the resources we already have and therefore my proposal and kind request to the Latin Wikipedia community is to get involved in adapting existing videos from the Spoken Wikipedia project. There are some useful tips on what the existing files should be adapted to. The adapted files should be categorised under "Category:Wiki Speaks Latin", tagged with WSYL template and added to the list of languages.

Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (disputatio) 15:14, 15 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

For starters: which pronunciation is to be used? Two divergent sets are predominant: the reconstructed classical pronunciation (as the language was spoken by the most prestigious speakers in the first centuries BC and AD) and "church Latin" (more or less the modern Italian tradition, as used in the Roman Catholic Church). Traces of lesser traditions, like the English national pronunciation (which was standard in academia in English-speaking countries until well into the nineteenth century), remain. For example, the word videlicet 'to-wit' in those three traditions, transcribed in Associated Press phonetics, not the IPA, might be:

wee-deh-lee-ket

vee-deh-lee-chet

vye-da-lye-set

And acetum 'vinegar':

uh-keh-tooh

uh-cheh-too-muh

uh-see-d'm

And then so-called vulgar (unprestigious and quite common) pronunciations in "classical times" are known to have had their own quirks. ¶ Most academicians would probably recommend the reconstructed classical pronunciation, but many students (of all sorts) who try to recreate it on the internet consistently fail, most notably perhaps in not accommodating a distinction between short & long vowels and a distinction between single & double consonants, as in the first example your link leads to. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:00, 15 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Your first example sounds like an attempt coming from South Asia (which would be fine in itself, if only the substrate weren't intruding so blatantly), and it's far too halting & wrong to be useful; aside from ignoring the length of vowels & double consonants, in the first few seconds alone it stresses the wrong syllable of libera and Christianorum and numerum. Your third example isn't wholly in Latin: it's in alternating Latin & French, and the accent is so thick that the Latin sounds like French. And it stresses the wrong syllable of Aesopus. If it can't pronounce Aesop's name right, what good is it? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:15, 15 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

The most consistently competent of your (six) examples is the last, which is both on and in the modern ecclesiastical pronunciation. Of course it would have the living Cicero rolling in the aisles with laughter (or pain), but that's a different point. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:35, 15 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the present examples are not very promising, and I think the file should be removed from Ecclesia Catholica Romana (apart from sounding amateurish, it's also more than ten years old). But I don't think we should dismiss the possibility of including spoken versions, if they are fluent enough and the pronunciation corresponds to one of the commonly used norms. Perhaps there are people out there who would like to listen to a Vicipaedia article on their daily jog. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 11:25, 16 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it could be useful to disabuse the OP of his assumption that the problem has a simple solution. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:12, 16 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

I guess it's not so very likely that Kiril Simeonovski will be back to read all this, because he will simply have been circulating a message to all Wikis at the same time.

The files you're talking about were criticised here ten years ago, and would no doubt be better deleted, but, since they are on Commons, that's not likely to happen unless they are directly replaced. So, yes, we want a volunteer to voice new versions superseding those very files ... please! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:33, 16 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

As a singer, most of whose direct experience with Latin is through music (and used Church pronunciation), I would add that it may well be that some articles (those on ancient Rome, for example), are better pronounced classically, while other articles (those on the Church, for example) are better pronounced ecclesiastically. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:35, 16 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

A valid argument! I went ahead and removed the link on Ecclesia Catholica Romana for the reasons above, since no one seemed attached to it. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:01, 16 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Regarding replacing those faulty pronunciation files, if one of you is thinking of attempting this, you may be interested in a tool I made for this purpose, automating away some of the repetitive labor involved (recording, saving, converting, naming). It is called Pronuncify, and is available in a command-line version (which also supports automatic uploading to Commons), or a Windows GUI version. If you do end up using it, I'd love to hear about it (and might be tempted to help). Ijon (disputatio) 00:22, 3 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

I would try it, but both our PCs run Windows 10, which is not yet supported. Maybe someone else could? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:11, 3 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

decumulator

Salvete. Cupidus addiscendi aliquid, vocabulo decumulator nonnullis in paginis (tantum Nuadaneis?) reperto, quaero a vobis, quae sit vis et testificatio huius vocis. (Agitur de aquis superfluentibus vel per canales deducendis, non de rebus pecuniariis.) --Bavarese (disputatio) 18:50, 3 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Preferentiae

In preferentiis scriptum video
"Change or remove your e-mail address"
Potest-ne id traducere? Gratias ago. --Vogand (disputatio) 10:44, 12 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Nonne pagina usoris publica tamquam est?

Pagina usoris HunteWinchester123 ad deletionem proposui, quia mihi et probabiliter maiori parti lectorum fastidio est neque aliquid personale (nisi fortasse notionem) usoris continet. Usor ille in pagina usoris mea nunc planxit.[1] Linguam Latinam conoscere non videtur. Qualis est opinio vestra? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 11:24, 12 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Nonne paginae usoris in Vicipaedia (re vera in omnibus Wikipediis) ad usum conlatorum constitutae sunt? Qui apud nos res encyclopaedicas confert, conlator est et iure suam paginam usoris administrat. Qui non, inter conlatores non est numerandus nec dignus est, cui spatium apud nos concedatur. Neander (disputatio) 14:20, 12 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Garry Marshall

O magistratus, ne bellum editoriale ad infinitum pergat, si vobis placet, protegite commentarium Garry Marshall. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:20, 13 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Paginam semi-protegit, spero fore ut bellum finiatur! Lesgles (disputatio) 16:23, 13 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Genitivus absolutus?

In pagina prima infra diem currentem haec "sententia" scripta est: "126 212 paginarum Latine scriptarum." Id mihi bonum Latinum non videtur. A quo hic genitivus dependet? Genitivum absolutum non nisi in lingua Graeca cononsco. Nonne melius esset scribere "Adhuc N.N. paginae Latinae conscriptae sunt." Quid est opinio vestra? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 09:57, 18 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Bis-Taurine, non de genetivo absoluto sed de genetivo partitivo hic agi videtur, sed cum suspiciosus es in hanc dictionem, rem acu tangis. Si numerus paginarum 126 000 esset, recte "centum viginti sex milia paginarum" diceretur, sed ut primum numerus miliarius numeris 1-999 superatur, genetivo non utimur. Itaque numerus paginarum q.e. 126 212 dicitur: "centum viginti sex milia ducentae duodecim paginae". Neander (disputatio) 13:26, 18 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Gildersleeve #293: "If a smaller number comes between, the substantive usually follows the smaller number." Exemplum de numero 3500 =

tria milia quingenti equites

tria milia equitum et quingenti

equites tria milia quingenti

equitum tria milia quingenti

"But duo milia quingenti hostium in acie periere, L. XXII. 7, 3." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:47, 18 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Utique ratio et consuetudo ex Liv. 29.25.2 apparet: "alibi decem milia peditum, duo milia et ducentos equites ... in naves imposita invenio." At non est difficile in varietates incidere, sicut "sagittarios ... tria milia" (Caes. B.C. 3.4.3); et contra: "equitum mille" (Caes. B.C. 3.84.4), "hominum mille" (Cic. Mil. 53), "mille equorum" (Liv. 23.49.11), etc. Neander (disputatio) 07:14, 19 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Vide etiam disputationem priorem. Equidem hic nominativo faveo. Lesgles (disputatio) 09:16, 19 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

De formulis mutandis

Ubi vel quo in loco aptissime de formulis mutandis disputari potest si quid de quo dubitatur in oculos incurrit? Nigidiolus (disputatio) 16:30, 18 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Salve, Nigidiole. Quas formulas mutare vis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:38, 18 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Salve tu quoque. Dico formulam In progressu_{Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo} In usu, in qua verbum usque ponitur in sensum adhuc usque vel etiam nunc. Aut fallor? Quod ad mores Vicipaedianos attinet, certe tiro sum, verbum autem usque solitarium in hunc sensum positum in operibus Romanis Ciceronis temporum nondum vidi. Cum usque ita ponitur, tum in sensum sine intermissione, incessanter vel per totum tempus in actibus qui aliquamdiu tenent. At hoc notavi, cum materiam quae ad Vicipaediam Latinam administrandam pertinet casu et fortuito legerem, neque quemquam stulte rogando obtundere volo. Nigidiolus (disputatio) 10:27, 20 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Optime. Si verba talis formulae rescribere vis, tibi licet sine metu paginam Formula:In progressu_{Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo} Formula:In usu mutare. Omnis usor recensere potest. Si autem incertus es opinionesque aliorum postulare vis, utile erit disputationem incipere apud Disputatio Formulae:In progressu_{Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo} Disputatio Formulae:In usu. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:41, 20 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Obiter dictum

I replaced the "non-stipula" template with a move-to-Wiktionary. What's here is a dicdef, so this should probably be moved. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 18:09, 24 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Victionarium is not very active. For Latin phrases we have at least one other option, which is to merge each non-stipula about a phrase to an alphabetical list of phrases. Two possible benefits: we build up a fuller and more useful list of Latin phrases with definitions; we have an easy format for citing sources for each of them whenever someone has time (I wouldn't know how to do that on Victionarium).

I speak as one who doesn't understand the value of the multiple Wiktionaries as currently designed. I can't see why anyone would use them. So I could just possibly be biased :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 26 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

That Obiter dictum is a "regular" article in seventeen other wikis, including most of the major ones, might be an argument in favor of leaving it where it stands. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:31, 26 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's another option! One might improve it by citing a source or two.

First used in English text, so far as the OED knows, by Thomas Jefferson. That seems worth saying, so I'll say it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:19, 26 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

"Obiter dictum" mea quoque opinione ratio iuridica est, quae eadem modo ac in aliis wikipediis hic explicari debet. Ex hac scilicet termino technico postea orta est phrasis, quae "in transitu dicere" significat. Qui usus "phrasticus" per me in Victionario inseri potest, quamquam Andreae de utilitate Victionarii dubitanti facile assentior. Neander (disputatio) 15:24, 26 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

All fine with me. I was just trying to rescue it from the land of the non-stipula. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:48, 27 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

New template {{Notae}}

When "subst"-ed in, this just drops a "Notae" section, along with a div for references-small. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:56, 27 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

It works fine for single-column notes, but we apparently still have to use the old system for multicolumn notes. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:02, 27 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Eventually I can get it to do that. For immediate purposes, I was thinking more of non-stipula articles where I can drop in a quick reference or two and save from oblivion. I'll keep it in mind. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 21:07, 27 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Getting the non-stipulas up to speed is a good idea. All it takes is often a footnote or a bibliographic entry. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:10, 27 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

This formula adds an unwanted extra line below any listed items. Could that line be globally deleted? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:39, 14 Martii 2017 (UTC)

I think I've cured that. If not, Steven will no doubt intervene.

The instruction on the formula page is not to write Notae but subst:Notae within the curly brackets (hence Steven's use of the word "subst" above). There is a difference (though the result looks the same on the reading screen), and we may want to discuss which way of using this formula is preferable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:05, 14 Martii 2017 (UTC)

As Steven suggested, this template should in my view be subst:ed (either by a user or by a bot - UVbot could from time to time subst: all occurrences). I do not see the advantage of keeping this template call around – == Notae == <references /> (see the subsection below on a proposal to retire the <div class="references-small"></div> part) is not much more complex and conveys its meaning much more clearly compared to a {{Notae}} template call. --UV (disputatio) 21:50, 14 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Formatting of the references section

Across our articles, the references section is currently not formatted in a uniform manner:

• Many articles use <div class="references-small"><references /></div>, which produces a
  slightly smaller font size
  compared to the normal font size;
• some articles use normal <references /> (normal font size),
• a few articles use a fixed number of columns for a multi-column layout of references.

As it was announced yesterday on Vicipaedia:Nuntii Technici#Tech News: 2017-11, the MediaWiki software now allows a so-called responsive design for the references section: When this feature is enabled, it will automatically show the references in a multi-column layout when screen width is large and in a single-column layout when screen width is small. This feature is currently not the default on la.wikipedia, but if there is consensus among us, it can be enabled as the default on la.wikipedia.

Question 1: Should the responsive design for the references section be made the default on la.wikipedia? (My personal view: Yes.)

As to the font size: Do we really need the normal font size for references anywhere? If not, we could make the smaller font size the default for all references, and we could omit typing <div class="references-small"></div> (and we could remove this code from {{Notae}}).

Question 2: Should the smaller font size currently produced by typing <div class="references-small"></div> be made the default for all references? (My personal view: Yes.)

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:50, 14 Martii 2017 (UTC)

The "responsive" format for notes would give a two-column layout for notes whenever suited to the user's screen (which I like: it is a better use of space), so I feel favourable towards question 1.

I also like a smaller font for notes throughout (they are always supplementary to the text, and often contain detailed references which not every reader needs) so I would answer yes to question 2 as well, but, as UV says, this is a separate issue. The wikipedias are ever tending towards fuller citation of sources, which means that, if the notes are at full size, they can almost overwhelm the page in some cases. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 15 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Concinimus! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:05, 15 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Sic. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 16:31, 15 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Yes on both. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 20:10, 16 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. I have now made the change described in question 2 (no need to write <div class="references-small"></div> any more!) and I have now requested the change described in question 1. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:07, 18 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Whenever you edit a page, it is safe always to change <div class="references-small"><references /></div> to just <references />. While it would be easy for UVbot to perform this change everywhere, I guess this task alone is not worth 27538 bot edits (this is the number that a search for "references-small" gives). --UV (disputatio) 21:39, 19 Martii 2017 (UTC)

The requested change has been made. Reference lists containing more than ten references will now be automatically formatted in two or three columns when screen width is large. For an example, see Sebastianus Erizzo#Notae. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:10, 21 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Macte! Lesgles (disputatio) 09:40, 21 Martii 2017 (UTC)

How large is "large"? The window I use for Vicipaedia is 13.5 inches wide, and the first line of the first footnote of Sebastianus Erizzo#Notae is:

Forma Italiana mihi quidem praevertenda videtur ; raro enim et varie nomen latinizatum est: in catalogo collectorum numismatum Huberti Goltzii(1563)

(Yes, that's all one line on my screen.) Yet the references have not divided themselves into two or three columns. ¶ Why the restriction of "more than ten"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:27, 26 Martii 2017 (UTC)

On the question "why no 2-column layout at Sebastianus Erizzo#Notae", I see an answer. You (and I) are near the limit at which it switches from 1 column to 2 columns. I usually read the Vicipaedia site at 90% standard font size, and I see 2 columns. But if I increase my screen font size to 110% I only see one column. If I decrease to 50% I see four columns (but, no good, I can't read them). [It also depends on the width of the window. Damn clever.] You might want to experiment with that if your browser makes it easy. UV may also have a comment.

With a small font size, very long lines are always more difficult to read, so instead of a restriction of "more than ten" it might be better to have no restriction at all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:39, 26 Martii 2017 (UTC)

But how about Ioannes Stuart Mill? I've tried maximum window size (almost 50 cm) and gradually switched the font size from default to so small that I can hardly read the text, yet I fail to get the 2-column layout. It looks like the "responsiveness" is irresponsibly low. I've also tried various browsers. Neander (disputatio) 16:14, 26 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Yes, on that page I get the same result as you. I don't know why. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:31, 26 Martii 2017 (UTC)

The restriction of "more than ten" (I personally would rather have chosen "more than three" instead) is currently hard-coded in the MediaWiki software, so alas it is not easy for us to change.

The article Ioannes Stuart Mill was last edited before responsive references were activated, so it still showed the old form. I have now purged the article ("null edit": click on "edit", then click on "save" without changing anything), and now the references show up as responsive in this article for me. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 18:58, 26 Martii 2017 (UTC)

With responsive references, minimum column width is currently set to 35 em (see en:Em (typography)). So, roughly, when the available width is less than 70 em, there will be one column, for more than 70 em up to 105 em, there will be two columns, for more than 105 em up to 140 em, there will be three columns and so on. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:06, 26 Martii 2017 (UTC)

It seems still not to be working. The following 70 ems

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

all fit on one line on my screen, but the references are not automatically being formatted in two columns. Try setting the column width differently? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:43, 6 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

Below, do you see only one column or more than one?

1. A
2. B
3. C
4. D
5. E
6. F
7. G
8. H
9. I
10. J
11. K
12. L
13. M
14. N
15. O

If you just see one column, then you are probably using an old browser that does not understand setting the minimum column width to a certain number of ems, and you might want to consider to update your browser.

If you see more than one column here, the probable cause is that 70 em is a bit more than the width of 70 "M"s ... Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 16:58, 6 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing five columns, of three items each. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:33, 6 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

Ok, then the probable cause is that 70 em is a bit more than the width of 70 "M"s. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:54, 6 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

Why not then change the limit so that more viewers will automatically see two (or more) columns? Leaving all that white space in the notes is bad typography. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:49, 7 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we could change the minimum column width from 70 em to e.g. 50 em. This would introduce a slight formatting descrepancy compared to the formatting at most other wikipedias, but it would be an easy thing to do. --UV (disputatio) 19:21, 9 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

For reference

For reference, here are the notes in the article on Cassius Dio as they're automatically displayed on my screen (except that in number 12, the text from the start all the way to and including Dion is on one line):

Notae [recensere | fontem recensere]

1. ↑ Hist. Rom LXXIII.12.

2. ↑ Der Neue Pauly, Stuttgardiae 1999, T. 2, c. 1014-1015

3. ↑ Cassius Dio, Historia Romana 73.23.

4. ↑ Litsch (1893), Kyhnitzsch (1894) etc.

5. ↑ XXXVIII.39-46.

6. ↑ BG I.40.

7. ↑ Qui fuerit vel an omnino fuerit difficile dictu est.

8. ↑ XXXVIII.18-30.

9. ↑ LIII.19.

10. ↑ XXXVII.52-53.

11. ↑ XXXVII.47-48

12. ↑ Freyburger‑Galland M.L. (2003), « La conception de l’histoire chez Dion Cassius », in Grecs et Romains aux prises avec l'histoire p.109. Cf ibidem Guy Lachenaud, "Dion

Cassius homme de culture ou plagiaire impénitent", pp.97-108.

13. ↑ Nobis respublica Romana oligarchia potius quam democratia fuisse videtur, sed Dio aliter sentiebat.

14. ↑ Cassius Dio, Historia Romana 73.23, cf. 75.3.

IMHO, this is too much white space. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:10, 12 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

How best to acknowledge translations

Some time ago, we had a discussion on acknowledging translations: Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 17#Acknowledging translations. When translating an article from another wikipedia, it is legally required to attribute the original text to the original authors. On the different ways how this can be done, see en:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, in particular en:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution.

Over the last few years, we have mostly either, when creating our translated article, added an edit summary like "translated from en:Original article, see the page history there for attribution to authors", or we have added {{Attributio}} to the talk page of our translated article. (I do not recall anyone actually copying the edit history of the original article, preserving the author names, to the talk page of our translated article.)

While the two methods that we currently use are reasonably ok as long as the original article is accessible, I was recently made aware of the fact that in case the original article ever gets deleted or moved out of sight for whatever reason, both the edit summary method and the {{Attributio}} method described above would not work any more (as they would not any more show the names of the original authors), which would turn our translated article into a license violation and therefore a copyright violation.

I was pointed at the Import feature that can prevent such a result, especially when it is used to import the source article to la.wikipedia before starting to translate it. (Importing a source article when we already have a translated article is much trickier.) You can see the results of importing an article by looking at the edit history of Basilius Pandžić (currently the only import ever on la.wikipedia): The page's revision history now starts with edits that were in fact made not on la.wikipedia, but on hr.wikipedia. Currently, only meta:Stewards can import articles to la.wikipedia. If, however, there is consensus here, this feature can be enabled for Vicipaedia:Magistratus (and possibly for individual trusted users who regularly create articles by translating them from other wikipedias) as well. What do you think about this feature? Do you think we should request for the Import feature to be enabled here, or should we continue with the status quo (and risk having to delete an article when the source article gets deleted or moved out of sight)? --UV (disputatio) 00:00, 5 Martii 2017 (UTC)

I was extremely puzzled when I saw the log record for Basilius Pandžić, but then I saw that UV had had a hand in it, so I thought "It must be all right and all will become clear". Thank you very much for explaining! I now see the reason for that import.

I can speak neutrally because I really never translate an article from a single source, not even as a beginning. (For full disclosure, I am a qualified translator, and I do translate for other purposes.) But I'm a magistratus, so, if the feature is enabled, I would be able to do this for others. So if Iacobus asked me to import an article from en:wiki for him to work on, I could do it (I use you as an example, mi Iacobe, because I know that you work like this: you start articles by translating from the English article. Others do too, of course.)

So in that way the history of contributions preceding the act of translation would be all listed here. Including a vast number of completely irrelevant edits, because they will have been made and unmade many years before the act of translation, and nobody on Vicipaedia ever saw them. That's even the case with the Basilius Pandžić history: I was asking myself as I looked through that history, "Was this ever here? Did these edits appear in "Nuper mutata"? No, they didn't. OK, the irrelevance of ancient article histories doesn't matter, and correcct attribution does matter. I see that.

A problem is that in this way we facilitate the spreading here of articles that are not in Latin. This is confusing for us active Vicipaedians (who try to maintain a Latin encyclopedia) and confusing for readers. But of course it already happens: people copy to us non-Latin text, or text that only they believe is Latin, and we have to assess it and sometimes delete it.

I have to go and chop wood now ... my thoughts will continue ...

... and my thoughts have crystallised into a question. Considering (1) the legal requirement for attribution stated above by UV, and (2) the steady increase in unreadable machine-translated new articles (obviously based on en: or another Wikipedia and therefore in breach of the attribution requirement), is it a possible way forward (a) to prevent article creation by anonymous users (en:wiki has done this for many years), and (b) not to allow article creation by translation except using this import routine, and (c) importing into userspace as a first step, from which any user could move the article into mainspace when it's in Latin? (With the assurance, mi Iacobe and all others affected, that a user could always have any number of articles imported, to work on at leisure, just by asking.)

... and another question. UV might know. Can we potentially assign import rights to trusted users who are not magistratus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:34, 5 Martii 2017 (UTC)

The chances that I'll be making a Latin adaptation of an article in the English wiki that's going to be deleted over there are quite low, practically indistinguishable from zero (one should think). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:34, 5 Martii 2017 (UTC)

That's quite true! One should keep a sense of proportion, as you rightly imply ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 5 Martii 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Iacobus that when translating articles that have a low risk to get deleted (or to get moved out of sight), our current practice of either using an appropriate edit summary or placing {{Attributio}} on the talk page is probably fine.

To answer Andrew's last question first: Yes, we could have import rights assigned to trusted users who are not magistratus. Upon our community consensus on whom to grant which rights, meta:Stewards can add users to our (currently empty) Transwiki importers group (members of this group can directly import articles from other wikipedias – a feature that is not too difficult to use) or even to our (currently empty) Importers group (members of this group can – just like members of the Transwiki importers group – directly import articles from other wikipedias, and can a well "import by upload" – a feature that should better only be used by people who are familiar with XML and know exactly what they are doing).

The "content translation" tool automatically adds a (more or less) appropriate edit summary that links to the original article, see e. g. the revision history of our article Tottenhamia. So for articles created using the "content translation" tool, the attribution requirement is probably met as long as the original article and its edit history remain accessible. The fact that the "content translation" tool itself does not provide for automatically importing the original article is maybe a hint that we might, in many cases, live fine without importing the original article.

While it is technically possible to prevent article creation by anonymous users (enwiki is an example), I currently do not believe that this is the way we should go, as it raises a barrier for casual readers to become contributors, and not all pages created by anonymous users are useless.

When importing an article, it is possible to specify the namespace to import to, so yes, importing into userspace is possible. --UV (disputatio) 14:08, 5 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Please note, that the Content Translation Tool "supports" a possible copyright violation because the contributors to the article are linked only, but if the source article has been deleted (there exists any reasons) the link will fail and all the contributors cannot be listed any more. If a user wants to translate an article, he should call for an import of the source revisions, best into the user's namespace. The page can be moved into main namespace then. I am a very trusty importer at German wikipedia and have very much experience with transwiki imports and import uploads. Note, that a partition of one article to two and a unification of two articles to one often need a revision import too to avoid a copyright violation. Thank you, Doc Taxon (disputatio) 14:57, 5 Martii 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to start making use of the Transwiki importers group, we may wish to develop a consensus that local sysops be able to add and remove people from this group. This is not a right that we ought to have to run to stewards for all the time. I would also probably add the rights autopatrol, patrol and rollback to this group.

Note: I would not do the same for Importers group. Nobody should be placed in this group who is not already in the previous group, and being in this group should only be for as long as necessary to accomplish the task. That is normal practice where that right is concerned. Disclaimer: I'm not a candidate for either group on this wiki, so I'm a disinterested observer. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:07, 7 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Qua de causa paginae mensualis versio in pagina prima differt?

Miror qui fiat, ut pagina quae tamquam pagina huius mensis ostenditur quaeque de urbe Roma scripta est, si eam cum pagina ipsa de Roma comparaveris, non eadem esse videatur quae per nexum '...' infra sermonem situm aditur (etenim recens mutata non habet.) Nigidiolus (disputatio) 03:17, 8 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Hoc accidit quia textus brevis ad paginam mensis praeponendum die fere ultimo anterioris mensis praeparatur (a me, hoc tempore). Mutationes paucas facere soleo (e.g. notas subiunctas e textu praeponendo deleo). Ab eo die textus praepositus a textu paginae normalis differre potest. Si quis corrigere vult, certe potest paginam normalem et textum praepositum corrigere ... per editiones duas. Vide s.t.p. Vicipaedia:Pagina mensis, et, ut textum praepositum corrigas, i ad Formula:PaginaMensis/Martii 2017. Ibi emenda sine metu! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 8 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Correxi. Neander (disputatio) 15:57, 8 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Mutata inutilia

Redirects to years

User 153.107.192.210 has made about sixteen curious & unexplained redirects. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:57, 9 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Bella editorialia

It looks as if Magna Curalii Obex and Mechanica Newtoniana need to be protected from anonymous contributors: the one (160.39.133.16‎) insists that the Great Barrier Reef is no more, and the other (158.129.160.173‎) keeps inserting gibberish. Also, the latter has been bothering Leges Keplerianae. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:02, 9 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago, mi Iacobe. Protexi, correxi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 9 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Furor intus sedens vinctus aenis nodis

Veniam quaeso, o sodales, detis mihi, qui quaestionem non ad ipsam latinitatem pertinentem hic quaerere audeam. Quis non novit illam imaginem verbis gravibus a Vergilio pictam? imaginem dico horridi Furoris vincti aenis nodis sedentis super arma et frementis ore cruento in templo Belli clauso (Aeneis 1.293-296) Compagibus artis Belli portae clausae sunt. Id est: bellum in mundo est, per aliquantum temporis incarceratum. De hac fictione tracta est sententia theodisca de bello incepto: bellum erumpit (ein Krieg bricht aus), sc. e suo carcere, e suis vinculis. Cupidus sum discendi, utrum etiam vestris in linguis simili more ac modo, sc. dictione quasi vergiliana, dicatur de bello capto erumpente. --Bavarese (disputatio) 12:11, 12 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Anglice "war erupts" et "war breaks out" dicere possumus; dubito autem num Vergilius rei insit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:50, 12 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Etiam Suecice "krig bryter ut"; Finnice autem non, nam "sota syttyy" ('bellum exardescit') dicitur. Neander (disputatio) 14:27, 12 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Anglice etiam nomen substantivum habemus, e locutione verbali derivatum, "outbreak (e.g. of war)". Quod substantivum ut videtur Shakesperius primus in Hamlet scripsit (sed non de bello), "the flash and out-break of a fiery mind". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:29, 12 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Punctum an non?

Dubium animadverto in subscriptionibus imaginum, quae sententiae non sunt. Ego enim punctum non scribo vel deleo sicut moris est in lingua Theodisca hodierna. IacobusAmor invicem punctum scribit vel adiungit.

Melius esset, si de hac re consensus fieri posset. Itaque disputationem inire volo. Quid censetis? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:46, 20 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Regarding dots at the end of picture captions, I have up to now tended to remove them when I encountered them, unless the picture caption forms a complete sentence. In my view, those dots are not necessary and do not contribute to readability (rather on the contrary). They are also not part of our style recommendations at Vicipaedia:Structura paginae or Vicipaedia:Imago. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:56, 20 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Et ego puncta removere soleo nisi sententiis plenis (verbo activo munitis) finem faciunt. Quae consuetudo cum regulis editurae Anglicis a me cognitis consonat et (quod maius interest) cum scriptoribus seu editoribus Latinis recentioribus, non omnibus sed permultis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:18, 21 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Pragmatically, every caption is a complete sentence, whether it displays a verb or not; so a caption that says merely "Ioannes Doe" = 'Hic est Ioannes Doe' vel 'Hic habes effigiem Ioannis Doe'. In many contexts of course, a terminal period (full stop) is usually omitted from a variety of identifying and explanatory material, as on tombstones, the title pages of books, the logotypes of newspapers, the nameplates of buildings, and often in published illustrative material. ¶ As with other typographical conventions, people will follow different traditions and have different preferences. The obvious answer is to set up a gadget to enable readers to choose the style they want: in the context of the last character of a fasciculus, those who want to see a period could choose the option that retains one where it's already coded or adds one where it's missing just before the closing "]]"; and those who don't want to see a period there could choose the option that suppresses one where it's already coded. ¶ An argument could be made for differential deployment of terminal periods in captions: that the captions of illustrations in the text should have them, and the captions of illustrations printed under the heading of "Pinacotheca" should not. ¶ Whether a "caption" is a single phrase (a "tag") or has extensive explanatory material may be a pertinent issue (see the indented examples below). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:55, 21 Martii 2017 (UTC)

A caption, strictly speaking, is only the name of an illustration, and further material is called a legend. In US academic writing, the former doesn't take a period, but the latter does. Thus the rule given by the Chicago Manual of Style (the most influential styleguide in the humanities): "A period is not used after a caption set on a line by itself but is used if the caption and legend are run together." Here are two examples given in the styleguide (on halftone plates, captions are usually printed in SMALL CAPS, whereas legends are printed in (a perhaps smaller version of) the standard font):

¶ PLATE 2. WALL DRAWING of HUNTSMEN ← No period. (Note the SMALL CAPS; why thus? because it's a caption printed on a plate)

¶ Fig. 2. Photomicrographs of mouse-radius rudiments. A, left radius cultivated for 3 days in PTE; . . . C, left radius cultivated for 2 days in PTE. ← Period. (Here, the matter that's functioning as a caption—"Photomicrographs . . . rudiments"—is printed as if it were part of the legend, which begins with the italic A, and the caption is separated from the legend by a period; it could just as well—or perhaps better!—end in a colon instead.)

Naturally, to casual readers, the variability of the deployment of a period shown in the examples above looks inconsistent, and so some blatant regularity might be preferred (with a gadget for the finicky). ¶ The same concern applies to entries in bibliographies and footnotes, where the closing period is mandatory and nonnegotiable in American academic writing; but that's perhaps a question for another day. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:15, 21 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's part of the same question. We all differ in our preferences on these issues. There are various models we can follow, but they also differ! I can imagine a guideline not unlike that on en:wiki about the choice between British and American English: I can imagine saying that whoever creates a page, and whoever undertakes a complete revision of a page, can choose a consistent format for captions, notes, references, and that those who make minor edits should prefer to maintain an existing format. Would that work, or not? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:31, 21 Martii 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a printed edition of Wikipedia with separate plates for pictures, preferably with that thin protective paper you see in old books. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 09:25, 22 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Iacobus proposed a gadget that would add or remove periods from image captions. It is not difficult to create a gadget that adds a period (when it is not present already) – I have now created such a gadget and you can, if you wish, enable it in your preferences ("Addere punctum (.) in fine imaginis descriptionis"). On the other hand, creating a gadget that removes a final period if the preceding text is not a complete sentence, and retains a final period if the preceding text forms a complete sentence, is currently not doable, as computers are currently not good at finding out whether a sequence of words forms a complete sentence or not. I would therefore suggest that editors should write the period when the caption forms a complete sentence and omit the period when the caption does not form a complete sentence. That way, those readers who wish to see a period after a complete sentence, but not elsewhere, will be happy, and also those readers who wish to see a period everywhere will be happy when they use the new gadget. An alternative would of course be to apply the rule that Andrew suggests above. --UV (disputatio) 23:47, 21 Martii 2017 (UTC)

It's amazing what you can do with gadgets, UV! That's really great. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:18, 22 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Despite the minutious arguments brought by Iacobus (for academic english writing) I think it would be better, if there could be found an agreement. Legles' sarcastic commentary made me lough loudly, but what's his opinion regarding our problem? Could we agree on Andrew's and my proposal? If not the proposal of UV will run from now (second best solution). Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 07:53, 26 Martii 2017 (UTC)

"Minutious" is a nice word :) My suggestion is to set aside any wider issue (e.g. bibliographies), which, as Iacobus rightly said, is a question for another day. For image captions I now believe UV's gadget (which already exists) gives us the very best solution. Our rule in captions -- for all of us -- should be: do not place a final stop, unless a complete sentence precedes the stop. Existing final stops (not following a complete sentence) can be removed whenever a page is being edited. Those who like to see a final stop should apply UV's gadget, and everyone will see what they want. Does anyone disagree with that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 26 Martii 2017 (UTC)

In response to Bis-Taurinus: my personal preference is similar to yours and Andrew's (no period except for sentences with a subject and verb), so I'm fine with the proposed rule and gadget, which I think would make everyone happy. Lesgles (disputatio) 11:42, 27 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Huic categoriae IP oratio potest?

Utrum fieri possit ut emendo Memento locos IP Vicipaedia latine? Sum a ordinarius apud [en.wikipedia.org], itaque miratus sum, si quis potes recensere. 68.233.214.74 15:32, 23 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Nescio an quaestionem tuam bene intellegi. Usor "anonymus" paginas et categorias fere omnes emendare potest; si autem paginam movere vult, necesse erit nomen imponere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:56, 23 Martii 2017 (UTC)

I think he wants to say(--Jondel (disputatio) 09:41, 25 Martii 2017 (UTC)):"Would it be possible to to correct the memory of locations of IP (addresses)" in the latin wikipedia? I am a regular (user) at [en.wikipedia.org] and thus I am wondering if anyone can update/examine."

Ah, yes, perhaps you're right. Thanks, Jondel. Under limited conditions magistratus can delete items from a page history, though I've never done it myself. If that's what it is, the user, if he looks in again, could send an email to a magistratus (to me for example) to explain what needs deleting and why. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:53, 25 Martii 2017 (UTC)

"praemium vicit"

Haec verba saepissime apud nos lego, e.g. David Storey (auctor nuper mortuus) "praemium Man Booker vicit". An hoc re vera Latine dicere possumus? Quomodo melius? Ego interdum "... praemio X laureatus est" temptavi, sed incertitudo me obsidet! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 27 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Ego fortasse nonnulla "praemium vicit" incaute scripsi. "Praemio laureatus est" mihi placet, sed hoc in sensu Latinitatis posterioris videtur. Caesar scribit praemium consequi et Suetonius praemium auferre. Lesgles (disputatio) 14:04, 28 Martii 2017 (UTC)

'praemium recipere' etiam suadere velim. Obiter hunc situm 'glosbe' uti etiam suadeo.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:24, 29 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Bonum est tibi O Andreae monstrandi hoc. Nos ducis. Gratias ad Lesgles, exemplum suum, Caesari ('consequi') utiendo corrigendoque in vicipedia mox futurus sim. Etiam ecquis certe corrigere potest.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:44, 29 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Optime, Lesgles et Jondel, praemium consequi sive recipere sive et auferre possumus! Gratias ago ambobus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:39, 29 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Praeterea praemium accipere dici potest vel vocabulis praemium alicui vel datur vel defertur vel tribuitur uti licet. --Bavarese (disputatio) 14:48, 29 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Exemplar syntacticum in Cassell's est alicui praemium dare pro aliqua re (Cic.); aliud verbum appositum = consequi (Caes.). ¶ Ainsworth's habet "to carry away the bell, day, or prize" = palmam ferre et victoriam reportare. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:34, 29 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Et praemio aliquem donare vel afficere dicere licet. Fortasse etiam praemium merere?--Bavarese (disputatio) 09:03, 30 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Pagina Nomen Mozart

Quid agendum sit de rubro paginae nomine 'Nomen Mozart'? Haec res ullis auctoribus omnino orbata est (et pleno iure quidem), eandemque delendam esse censeo. --Bavarese (disputatio) 09:28, 9 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

De hoc nexu rubro in commentatione Wolfgangus Amadeus Mozartus vide commentationem en:Mozart's name. An nobis opus est commentationis Nomen Mozart nescio. --UV (disputatio) 19:17, 9 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

Notam quintam in pagina Wolfgangus Amadeus Mozartus subscriptam nexumque rubrum Nomen Mozart continentem superfluam esse puto. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:30, 9 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

... cinematographicus

film director - Dispositor cinematographicus
film producer - ... cinematographicus? --Alex1011 (disputatio) 11:26, 25 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

Producer = 'choragus' (Traupman). Iam habemus commentarium de procuratore televisifico ('television producer'). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:30, 25 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

Formula:Capsa pelliculae

Quid est "fundata in" in Formula:Capsa pelliculae? --Alex1011 (disputatio) 09:49, 2 Maii 2017 (UTC)

fortasse "based on" --Alex1011 (disputatio) 09:11, 18 Maii 2017 (UTC)

Ita, fortasse. Haec capsa ab usore anonymo anno 2014 magnopere aucta est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:31, 18 Maii 2017 (UTC)

Memphis, Tennessee

Starting yesterday, a number of articles related to Memphis, Tennessee have been created or expanded by new users (all newly created articles are currently in a non-stipula state):

• Ducks Unlimited created by User:Will.huffman
• Billy Hardwick created by User:JimmyMorrow
• FedEx Forum created by User:Runcmk
• Memphis (Tennesia) expanded by User:Mr.Sellers and by the aforementioned User:JimmyMorrow

Perhaps a Latin class? Anyone willing to reach out to the class/their teacher? --UV (disputatio) 20:08, 2 Maii 2017 (UTC)

Gotta give them credit for trying, though. Really! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 21:53, 2 Maii 2017 (UTC)

I left a message for Runcmk, creator of the page FedEx Forum (which is now OK as a stipula I think). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 3 Maii 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew!

Some more articles created meanwhile:

• Mount Vernon Baptist Church
• Silva de Overton
• Fredericus Smith
• Theatrum Orphicum
• Dulcia de Gibson
• Memphitici Ursi
• Academicus Ludus Memphis

--UV (disputatio) 20:46, 3 Maii 2017 (UTC)

Little syntax problem

I wanted to make a formula {{SIMBAD}} (resembling {{Fontes biologici}}, and to be renamed if other links are added to it) to place on each astronomical page about a star, initially reproducing the link that is available on Wikidata to the SIMBAD database, which contains handy information about each star and links to other databases. The relevant SIMBAD identity for each star is listed on Wikidata as d:Property:P3083. Tiny problem: these identities contain space characters (usually two), which cannot form part of a URL and are anyway interpreted in MediaWiki as the break between the URL and the page's name. To construct the real URL for each relevant page on SIMBAD, you have to replace the space character with +. Wikidata somehow already does this (because clicking the link on Wikidata takes you to the SIMBAD page) but I don't know how it does it or whether we can do the same. Can anyone help? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:57, 15 Maii 2017 (UTC)

One possibility:

SIMBAD: * 15 Ori

Another possibility:

SIMBAD

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:14, 15 Maii 2017 (UTC)

Just what I needed! Thanks, UV. Interesting that the two results are not quite the same, but both useful. I will work on this later today. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 16 Maii 2017 (UTC)

m:Requests for comment/Global centralnotice for the blockade of the Turkish government

Hi, you are invited to participate in the discussion on the proposal to make a banner through m: centralnotice to inform more people around the world about what the Turkish government has done about Wikipedia, ie all the language versions of Wikipedia are You are obscured, so in Turkey it is impossible to view the * .wikipedia.org site. To hope that the Turkish government will remove the block, it is necessary to raise awareness of this fact around the world because it is important to succeed in this mission because Wikipedia can not be seen in Turkey. With this message also for those interested, I invite him to sign the Wikimedian appeal.

If you have any questions or questions do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks best regards. --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 17:14, 1 Iunii 2017 (UTC)

Tabulae societatum pedilusorum

Anonymus quidam, lingua Latina ut videtur non loquens, tabulas societatum nationalium pedilusorum his diebus addit, nominibus Hispanicis sive aliis linguis (sed saepius Hispanicis) et nexibus rubris plenas, sine textu, sine fontibus. Cur hanc rem apud nos facit, non explicat. Paginae plures (vide e.g. Ligue 1‎‎) Latinitate "pessima" a me et Iacobo aestimatae, nihil continentes nisi quod multo melius in aliis Wikipediis iam reperies, periculum deletionis incurrunt ... nisi quis de his paginis augendis laborare velit! Si res tibi interest, commentum hic adde! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:04, 9 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Non omnes hae paginae etiam verae sunt: e.g. pagina MLS dicit 10 greges in foedere esse, sed hodie sunt 20 (nisi fallor). Aliquas paginas iam corregi, ut Poculum Aureum CONCACAF, et bene est tales paginas habere, ut opinor -- sed egomet malo de rebus mathematicis necnon linguisticis scribere; reliquas corrigendas non possum recipere. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:35, 16 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Oratio directa

Haereo, quo modo in paginis nostris oratio directa notari oporteat. Ita e vobis, o notores, quaero, utrum habeamus certum huius rei vel morem vel legem? --Bavarese (disputatio) 07:35, 24 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Bona quaestio. Dixerim ego, melius esse " " uti (modis Francogallicis, Hispanicis, Theodiscis etc. relictis) non quod Anglus sum, sed quod omnes, nisi fallor, haec sigla " " habent inter claves computatri. Quo dicto, si intra titulum operis aut intra citationem, quam in commentationem Vicipaedicam insero, sigla « » stant, rescribere non soleo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 24 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

en:Miss World

De victricibus certaminis Miss World hae verba bis apud nos legi: "et victoria erat [[Domina Mundus|Dominae Mundi]] [[annus|anno]] [[2000]]" (vel sim.). Mendare volens, scripsi "[[domicella mundi]] anno [[2000]] coronata est". Vide e.g. Priyanka Chopra. Sed quid dicunt alii? Verbum "domicella", quod e Latinitate mediaevali dempsi, certe = Fr. demoiselle, fortasse = Angl. miss. An melius exprimere possumus? An verbo classico uti possumus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:02, 29 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Traupman: "miss (term of respect) domina -ae f." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:17, 29 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, gratias tibi (sicut saepissime) ago, mi Iacobe. Aliquid autem de locutione "domina mundi" in hoc contextu me displicet! Miss World, si domina mundi proclamatur, cum deis deabusque nonnullis certatura est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:35, 29 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Verbum mediaevale Latinum "domicella" est aut origo verbi Francogallici demoiselle et Anglici damsel, aut derivatum reversum (back-formation). Formae Latinae stellatae *"dominicella" et *"domnicella" ab etymologis postulantur, sed non reperiuntur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Sed si 'mister' = dominus, nonne 'mistress' ('miss') = domina? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:56, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Circumcursas ... Mistress, Missus, Mrs, Miss, Missie, Ms omnes, variis contextibus, possumus fortasse Latine Dominam reddere, sed Miss World non ad Dominam Mundi correspondet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:37, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

If it's a trademark (and it may well be), it should be in whichever language it's registered. ¶ But to my ears, she's not the mistress of the world: she's a mistress whose name is World, as with Miss America and of course, for the men, Mr. America and Captain America. I suppose one could call her Domina Munda, with something of a pun on the noun mundus and the adjective mundus, -a, -um. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:38, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

That's not so bad (if I may say so). They like their winner to be shiny-clean, I gather.

Not exactly a trade mark: at least, other languages translate. In French it's Miss Monde. Note that the Francophones were stuck, as I was, on translating Miss, and they gave up. One might easily assume that Mademoiselle would hit the spot, but not so. In Hindi it's a Sanskrit coinage, Viśvasundarī, approx. "beautiful woman of the whole world". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Domicella mundi in hoc loco (Priyanka Chopra) mihi non displicet, quamquam de syntaxi huius locutionis aliquantum dubito, namque, ut iam indicavit Iacobus noster, "Miss World", si de persona loquimur, eandem syntaxin attributivam exhibere videtur ac "Captain America" aut "Ms. Marvel". At "Miss World" (etiam) certamen vel pompam certabundam (pageant) significat, quae paene cum nota mercatoria comparari possit. Itaque haesito ego, utrum praeferendum sit nomen Anglicum, ut in nonnullis aliis wikipediis, an exemplo linguarum Romanicarum dicendum "Miss Mundus". Mihi non liquet, cur nos totam phrasin latinizare oporteat, cum multae aliae linguae in Anglico termino technico acquiescant. Neander (disputatio) 18:07, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

"Pompa certabunda" optime dixisti! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:09, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

I propose we adopt Viśvasundarī! :-) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:06, 31 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Digitus (pars corporis)

Bardidate quadam feci paginam Digitus (pars corporis) (discretiva). Quam quaeso deleatis. --Bavarese (disputatio) 09:58, 2 Augusti 2017 (UTC)

De capsis mutandis

Capsam factionis (velut Factio operaria socialistarum nationalium Germanica) invenire non possum, in qua verba 'conditus est' (nota: conditus_est) et 'solvitus est' (nota: solvitus_est) cum Latino more non conveniunt: debent esse 'condita est' (quoniam ad 'factionem' refertur) et 'soluta est' (quoniam forma 'solvitus' non recte dicitur). Ubi haec capsa mutari potest? Nigidiolus (disputatio) 20:31, 27 Augusti 2017 (UTC)

Hic! Paginae capsarum formularumque omnis generis voce «Formula:» semper incipiunt. — Anedia (disputatio) 07:50, 28 Augusti 2017 (UTC)

Optime! Multae tales formulae ab editoribus Latine haud bene loquentibus factae sunt. NB: Verbis in formula mutatis, memento paginas aliquas quae hac formula utuntur rursus inspicere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:34, 28 Augusti 2017 (UTC)

de voce praesidatus, us

Haec vox in vicipaedia nostra saepius legitur, munus, ut videtur, praesidentis significans. Sed formationi - ne dicam: sono - huius vocabuli haud mediocriter diffido. Nam nomina de sedEre/sidEre declinata quo modo sillaba suffixa -Atus ficta esse possint, non intellego neque exempla mihi nota sunt. Illa nonne sillabis -sessio et -sessus formata sunt? (Si meum esset, vocem aliquam munus praesidentis significantem reperire, quin etiam praesidentiam (exemplum sequens mediolatinum residentia) proponerem. Sed meum non est.) Si testimonia istius a me in dubium vocatae vocis mi soli ignota sunt, contentus ero, tacebo. Sed vos, o sodales, me faciatis quaeso certiorem. --Bavarese (disputatio) 14:59, 29 Augusti 2017 (UTC)

Te suadente, mi Bavarese, apud glossarium Du Cange quaesivi. Praesidentia e duobus auctoribus mediaevalibus, Praesidatus (vide et hic) e pluribus citatur. "Praesidatus" etiam in lexicis auctorum post-classicorum reperitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:44, 29 Augusti 2017 (UTC)

Et hic, ex Aurelii Victoris historia anno 361 edita. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:00, 29 Augusti 2017 (UTC)

Puto nomen praesidatus non a verbo praesidere, sed a nomine praeses deducendum esse. Confer senatus (a senex, senis), episcopatus, ducatus, etc. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:37, 29 Augusti 2017 (UTC)

Gratiam vobis habeo maximam. --Bavarese (disputatio) 09:04, 1 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

Brachium // Oberarm

Die beiden Begriffe "Brachium" (lateinisch) und "Oberarm" (deutsch) bedeuten das gleiche, ihre Wikipedia-Artikel sind aber jeweils mit unterschiedlichen Sprachen verlinkt. Ersterer Begriff mit Portugiesisch, Rumänisch, Bulgarisch, zweiterer mit Spanisch, Katalanisch, Italienisch, Finnisch und anderen. Wie kann man die beiden Gruppen zusammenführen?Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 21:59, 2 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

Bei dem unter d:Q24517852 beschriebenen Begriff (wo fälschlicherweise auch unser Brachium (anatomia) dabei war) sollte es sich um die gesamte Armgliedmaße (also Oberarm + Unterarm + Hand) handeln. Der unter d:Q379859 beschriebene Begriff umfasst nur den Oberarm, hier habe ich nun auch unseren Artikel Brachium (anatomia) ergänzt. --UV (disputatio) 22:33, 2 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

translating a short article

Hi everyone, i created an article, it's short and biography, Layal Abboud, can anyone translate first sentences of it from english to latin? --Chyah (disputatio) 10:01, 3 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

HIV Drug Resistance Database

Hi everyone. I have created the article HIV Drug Resistance Database but my Latin is not good as required. Please would you be so kind to help me? Many thanks in advance. Regards. 188.27.86.175 16:58, 13 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

Vobis adiuvare volo et contribuire si potest

Practica mea linguae latinae vetusta est et eam mihi excercere urget, utor vicipediae alias linguas sum tunc ibi laborare rectus modus excercendi sidero fuerit. Utores multi ex alias linguas mihi rident et non credent quam (quasi) facultatus sum in loquentiam latinae Vere nescio ubi iacuit meum discens et ullam notionem ab ubi retornare in studium careo. Quisque modum sapientiam ad excercitium accipere placentior reperio. Si ibi mihi accipent potesse adiuvare mihi licitus est. --Neurorebel (disputatio) 20:28, 23 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

The format of internet citations

Is everyone happy with the variability in formats in how the wikis give internet citations? Take, for example, a text that might be a physical object (such as a chapter in a book): the citation would go in a "Bibliographia" section (howsoever named), and look something like this (author-date method, Chicago Manual of Style):

• Eklund, Matti. 2015. Fictionalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Stanfordiae Californiae: Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. ISBN 0123456789.
  

or this (a more German style):

• Matti Eklund, Fictionalism. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, Stanfordiae Californiae, 2015.
  

In the real world, the English wikipedia actually cites the online version in a "References" section as merely:

• "Fictionalism" at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  

I've cited it here in Vicipaedia in a "Nexus externi" section as:

• Eklund, Matti. 2015. Fictionalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta.
  

The website itself suggests citing the item thus:

Eklund, Matti, "Fictionalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/fictionalism/>.

This is a mess! The English wiki would cite the physical object by author, date, chapter title, book title, editor, place, and publisher (and often ISBN), but it would cite the same text on the internet by cutting most of this information. (And the website's preference has its own problems; for example, why not italicize the name of the whole project? why capitalize "Winter" and "Edition"? why parenthesize "ed."? and why separate all items with commas?) One wonders what the future of citations is going to be!

Then consider this item, which I'd prefer to put under "Nexus externi" as:

• Wrenn, Chase B. Naturalistic Epistemology. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 2161-0002.
  

(Some would omit the ISSN.) The source, however, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, would like to have its articles cited thus:

• "Naturalistic Epistemology," by Chase B. Wrenn, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, http://www.iep.utm.edu/, today's date.
  

But this is unsatisfactory because no date is given (intentionally suppressed, according to the site), and though it has general editors and field-specific editors, which one or ones of them edited any text in question is or are unknown. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:19, 24 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

I'm very glad you have raised this subject. To answer your first question (which is an easy one), no, I'm not happy! But what do we do about it?

I think that we cannot be ruled by what the sites themselves suggest. No properly copy-edited bibliography would do that, so why should we? There was no "Winter 2015 Edition" of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; the articles on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy must have been published at some date, even if they try to conceal it; the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is not a serial, so it does not deserve an ISSN; and anyway ISSNs were never any use to anybody (I speak as a former serials librarian).

I did not know that (about the uselessness of ISSNs); certainly in contrast, items can be looked up merely by their ISBNs in the online catalogue of the Library of Congress. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:40, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, ISBNs are useful in many ways. I should perhaps say more circumspectly that I could never see what is the use of ISSNs -- someone else perhaps can :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:48, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

Nor can we be ruled by what English Wikipedians have filled out in their templates. Most English Wikipedians, like most other people, do not know what information is needed in a bibliography, and they just fill out any box they can. (This is in fact the principal reason why Google Books is an unreliable bibliographical source: there, too, the information is added by people whose only aim is to fill out boxes and get on with something interesting.)

So far I have said only negative things. I will now try to have some positive thoughts! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:59, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it would help to clarify that we have two issues here: (1) the facts that are to be listed in references (at the moment, most facts that would be presented in bibliographies are suppressed in internet citations of the identical texts); (2) the format, the order & style by which those facts are to be listed. I'm more worried about the first. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:38, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that helps.

I don't think the distinction was ever made in these terms on en:wiki, but when I'm citing sources/further reading I try to distinguish peer-reviewed publications and the like, which I try to cite properly and put under "Bibliographia", from other useful material on the web, which I list simply under "Nexus externi". I have a broad mental picture of peer-reviewed publications, not just scientific journals both printed and on-line, but also newspapers (which are supposed to do fact-checking, aren't they?) and almost any published books. Quite a lot of what I put under "Bibliographia" is findable on the Web (so these are literally external links also). For me, the important thing is that someone independent took responsibility for the material. For this stuff that I put under "Bibliographia", I would always aim to have an author, a date, and -- if it's not a whole book -- the title of a book or encyclopaedia or journal, printed or on line, in which it appears. I haven't urged this distinction on others, but I continue to find it useful, especially as ever more of the material we cite is available on line without ever having been printed.

I count the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as peer-reviewed. Articles have authors and are individually dated, and I think they are peer-reviewed. Similarly Encyclopaedia Iranica, which started out in print but has now gone over to online publication: authored, dated, peer-reviewed. Similarly some other online encyclopedias and many major scientific journals. I don't find the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to be of the same level (though still a handy source), and I think I have put references to it under "Nexus externi" without troubling to find an author or date.

Whether the distinction I make could still be made ten years hence, who knows? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

I may have been wrong about the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It says it's peer-reviewed, and the article on Wang Yangming that I just consulted looks at least as reliable and useful as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:08, 19 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

O amice 87.223.129.162 et 87.223.93.175

Amice ignote, Latinitatem in variis commentariis hodie collatis notavimus. (Vide disputationem in commentario de Beneharo.) Quid exempli gratia significat haec locutio?

Et accepit Hispani insula expugnaverant.

Anglice fortasse significat "And the island received [something]; the Spaniards captured [something]." This makes little or no sense, and you've used similarly strange formulas in other recent articles, exempli gratia "Et accepit conquestu Hispani insula expugnaverant" et "Eratque adversarius Hispani insula expugnaverant." The last one is exceptionally awkward: "And there was a rival; an island; Spaniards captured [something]" or "And there was a Spaniard's rival; an island; they captured [something]." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:42, 24 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

---

What it means is: That Beneharo accepted the Spanish conquest of the island. In all the Latin articles of these Guanche kings he speaks of this, of the kings who fought against the Spanish conquerors and the kings who peacefully accepted the conquest.

Adjoña, Añaterve, Beneharo and Pelinor accepted the conquest peacefully.

Acaimo, Bencomo, Pelicar, Romen and Tegueste II did not accept it and war with the Spaniards.

Greetings.--87.223.177.29 08:21, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, except that's not what it says. Latin, unlike Spanish, use different noun forms for different grammatical uses. If you want to say that "Beneharo accepted the Spanish conquest," you need something like

Et accepit Hispanorum insulae expugnationem.

Hispanorum -- genitive plural, possession, or call it subjective genitive: it's the Spaniards' conquest.

insulae -- genitive singular, objective: it's a conquest of the island.

expugnationem -- accusative singular, direct object, what he accepted. Note that "expugnaverant" is a verb, not a noun, and in Latin you can't have two main verbs together with no conjunction.

The Wikipedia versions in some languages don't care all that much about grammar. Here, we do. Latin is a second language for all of us, but we've learned to write it accurately. When I ask my advanced students to write in Vicipaedia Latina, I tell them to put {{tiro}} at the head of their pages to indicate that they're not yet good at writing Latin. When we see that on a page we expect there may be some grammatical errors, and we're willing to work with the author. I never ask my beginning or intermediate students to contribute, because they cannot write Latin well enough. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:47, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

Re "What it means is": A. Mahoney has said more or less what I was going to say: that I've indicated above what it means (or doesn't mean), but you want it to mean something else. The thought (now that we know what it's supposed to be) can be expressed grammatically in several ways, one of which A. Mahoney has given above. Or we could try:

Et accepit Hispanos insulam expugnavisse.

Or

Et accepit insulam ab Hispanis expugnatam.

Or maybe:

Et accepit quod Hispani insulam expugnaverant.

But "accepted" could be weak, even in English, so maybe try different verb, like probare. And for verbs of conquering, we have (de)vincere and superare and capere and excipere and comprehendere. Or maybe even occupare, with an obvious English meaning. ¶ I've marked most of the texts on this subject with Latinity of minus three, but that's of course a subjective decision, and it's based on whole texts, not just one sentence. Every fairly well-versed Latinist, however, would agree that the syntax of Et accepit Hispani insula expugnaverant is "{{Non Latine}}." Rather than add all those articles at once, it might have been better to try out one or two of them and wait for a reaction, perhaps eliciting helpful nudges, such as A. Mahoney has given. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:40, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

---

Thank you. now how would the negative be? ie did not accept it and war with the Spaniards.--87.223.177.29 17:27, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

The most usual way of negating a verb is to put non to its left. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:21, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

There's something not clear in that sentence. Do you mean "... and fought the Spaniards"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:23, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

By the way, if you're more comfortable in some other language than in English, you can ask questions here in the Taberna in other languages -- while the articles have to be in (good) Latin, the Taberna and talk pages ("Disputatio") can be in any language, from Spanish to Sanskrit to Swahili. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:59, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

True ... though English is by far the most common. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:55, 16 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I've taken the liberty to translate into 'invasionem pace acceperunt' (accepted peacefully the invasion) at the Beneharo articles. Is this OK?--Jondel (disputatio) 13:40, 19 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

Nuper mutata

What's all this mess at the top of the Nuper Mutata screen? We now have a line for "Ecce mutationes recentes" and a line for "Other review tools" and a line for "Active filters" and a line for the actual filters ("Human (not bot) X" and so forth) and a line for "Filter recent changes" and a line for "Show last 500 changes" and a blankline and a line for today's date. This information, with associated blankspace, takes up HALF the screen, and it's nothing I want to look at every time I open the page. It's atrocious design. Dear magistrates, please get rid of it, or enable users to get rid of it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:51, 5 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

These things that take up half the screen replace the things that took up half the screen there before. --UV (disputatio) 22:55, 5 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

But we now have more whitespace and less text. We've lost the only thing I tended to read up there: the total number of pages in the project. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:49, 6 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

You can read about the changes here:

• mw:Edit Review Improvements/New filters for edit review
• mw:Help:New filters for edit review/Quick tour
• mw:Help:New filters for edit review/Filtering

Why not give the new interface a try for two or three weeks? But if, after trying it out, you really dislike it, you can return to the old system here: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rc, look for “⧼prefs-opt-out⧽ – Use non-JavaScript interface – Loads recent changes and related changes without the filtered search or the highlighting functionality.”

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:55, 5 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

Ego quoque primo aspectu videre velim numerum paginarum, qui mumc sub "Other review tools" celatus est. Cum quidem nihil aliud sub hoc "electorio" eligi possit, Schlimmbesserung — sit venia verbo! — mihi quidem videtur haec optio. Num nimis arduum est ita mutare, ut numerus paginarum "by default" sive ultro in hac pagina appareat? Ceteroqui de versione b hic agi videtur. Neander (disputatio) 11:29, 6 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

PS. "Ecce mutationes recentes" supervacare videtur. Quin dematur? Neander (disputatio) 11:39, 6 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

I have now moved the number of articles to where we will see it directly. Better? --UV (disputatio) 20:45, 6 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

Yes! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:48, 6 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

Est Est Est! ;–) Neander (disputatio) 22:06, 6 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

Requests for articles?

Where do I place any requests for articles? I found en:Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum doesn't yet have a Latin article, and I think this would be a good candidate for one. Thanks, WhisperToMe (disputatio) 01:24, 10 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good choice. Many images from this source appear as portraits in articles across the Wikipedias. Readers might well want to understand their origin. I guess there's nowhere better to ask than here. Who wants to respond? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:59, 10 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

That subject has vastly less importance than the 10,000 paginae quas omnibus Wikipediis contineri oportet, but anybody who wishes to contribute an article about it is welcome to do so! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:12, 10 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

I fear most of the things I write, and even a few of the things you write, have "vastly less importance than the 10,000 paginae". Ah well. In favour of this requested page, a fair few links will point to it when illustrations are helpfully captioned. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:17, 10 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Rem intra proximum mensem suscipiam. Bene novi illum librum Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 07:35, 12 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

presenting the project Wikipedia Cultural Diversity Observatory and asking for a vounteer in Latin Wikipedia

Hello everyone, My name is Marc Miquel and I am a researcher from Barcelona (Universitat Pompeu Fabra). While I was doing my PhD I studied whether an identity-based motivation could be important for editor participation and I analyzed content representing the editors' cultural context in 40 Wikipedia language editions. Few months later, I propose creating the Wikipedia Cultural Diversity Observatory in order to raise awareness on Wikipedia’s current state of cultural diversity, providing datasets, visualizations and statistics, and pointing out solutions to improve intercultural coverage.

I am presenting this project to a grant and I expect that the site becomes a useful tool to help communities create more multicultural encyclopaedias and bridge the content culture gap that exists across language editions (one particular type of systemic bias). For instance, this would help spreading cultural content local to Latin Wikipedia into the rest of Wikipedia language editions, and viceversa, make Latin Wikipedia much more multicultural. Here is the link of the project proposal: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Wikipedia_Cultural_Diversity_Observatory_(WCDO)

I am searching for a volunteer in each language community: I still need one for the Latin Wikipedia. If you feel like it, you can contact me at: marcmiquel *at* gmail.com I need a contact in your every community who can (1) check the quality of the cultural context article list I generate to be imported-exported to other language editions, (2) test the interface/data visualizations in their language, and (3) communicate the existance of the tool/site when ready to the language community and especially to those editors involved in projects which could use it or be aligned with it. Communicating it might not be a lot of work, but it will surely have a greater impact if done in native language! :). If you like the project, I'd ask you to endorse it in the page I provided. In any case, I will appreciate any feedback, comments,... Thanks in advance for your time! Best regards, --Marcmiquel (disputatio) 07:42, 11 Octobris 2017 (UTC) Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona

Ad quaestionem de nomine vocis Cilium Peucetium

Hanc rem ad Disputatio:Cilium Peucetium movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:47, 12 Octobris 2017 (UTC)

Vicipaedia - *LIBERA* vel *GRATUITA* encyclopaedia???

Quaeso, statim titulum mutemus : haec encyclopaedia est gratuita, non libera. Maxime nos pudere hic error debet. Pernimius (disputatio) 17:41, 21 Novembris 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that in English (and many other languages) it's really a play on both senses of the word. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:45, 21 Novembris 2017 (UTC)

... and for what it's worth, fr:, es:, pt: and it: all use words derived from libera, not from gratuita. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:50, 21 Novembris 2017 (UTC)

Cur dicis, Pernimi, hanc encyclopaediam non liberam esse? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:34, 21 Novembris 2017 (UTC)

Usu antiquo liber non est vox pecuniaria. Quando lego "Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia" de libertate non penso. Non est encyclopedia "sine regulis, sine restrictionibus" sed encyclopedia quae pecuniam non requirit. Pernimius (disputatio) 19:00, 21 Novembris 2017 (UTC)

Libertatem "sine regulis, sine restrictionibus" requirere potes sed nusquam in nostro mundo reperies :)

Vicipaedia Latina est libera hoc sensu modestiori: omnibus, qui volunt, eadem lege apud nos scribere licet. Non iam temptavisti, nisi fallor. Tempta! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:10, 21 Novembris 2017 (UTC)

Haec res est res prudentiae. Quid in mentem cujuscumque venerit quando "free encyclopedia" legatur? Non "possum scribere" sed "possum capere." Pernimius (disputatio) 20:23, 21 Novembris 2017 (UTC)

Mihi saltem in mentem sensus ambo veniunt. Observa etiam ad quam paginam free in enwiki nectitur: en:Free content (et similiter in aliis linguis: fr:Œuvre libre, de:Freie Inhalte, etc.; apud nobis haec pagina deest). Lesgles (disputatio) 23:55, 21 Novembris 2017 (UTC)

Equidem Francogallice numquam "encyclopédie libre" ut gratuitam intellexi sed ut encyclopaediam quae non a magistris per civitates designatis scribebatur, sed ab onibus qui aliquid scire putabant et cum aliis communicare volebant. Ita nulla encyclopaedia nisi Vicipaedia vere democratica dici potest. Praeterea sunt multae encyclopaediae gratuitae (fortasse non semper optimae et saepe obsoletae, fateor...) in Interretiali. Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 11:31, 22 Novembris 2017 (UTC)

Putabam etiam ego vocabulum libera hic Anglice imprimis significare 'independent' (sui potens), non 'gratuitous' (nullius pretii). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:07, 22 Novembris 2017 (UTC)

Videte en:Gratis versus libre et en:Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia. --UV (disputatio) 22:02, 23 Novembris 2017 (UTC)

Adsentior quod, in hoc contextu (Vicipaediali), contra sermonem cottidianum, huius verbi usus mutatus esse videtur. Terminus technicus fere factus est. Hic sensus in paginis encyclopaedialibus sufficienter explanatus est, saltem quibus quaesitus fuerit. Pernimius (disputatio) 14:19, 26 Novembris 2017 (UTC)