Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 33

Disputationes antiquae Hoc est tabularium antiquarum disputationum. Non est recensendum. Sententiae hic collectae inter dies 3 Ianuarii 2023 et 1 Ianuarii 2024 scriptae sunt. ❮ Tabularium 32 Omnia tabularia

glossa

hic nexus non iam valet: http://athirdway.com/glossa/?s=gens Alex1011 (disputatio) 20:50, 3 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)

Bene, @Alex1011: et bonum annum tibi mitto! Sed in qua pagina nexum repperisti? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:36, 4 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)

In mea privata pagina ;-). Sed hac in pagina Vicipaedia:Lexica Latina interretialia multi nexus etiam non iam valent exempli gratia:

• http://archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm
• https://www.latin-dictionary.org/Latin-English-Online-Dictionary/N/1/temporaneus
• http://wredmond.home.texas.net/index.html
• https://upaep.mx//micrositios/glossarium/alittera.html

Et tibi bonum annum exopto! --Alex1011 (disputatio) 23:36, 4 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)

Partim refeci ope IABot Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 00:06, 5 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)

Internet Archive Bot

Hoc robotum, omnibus accessibile, corrigere potest nexus interretiales paginarum nostrarum (aut singularum, aut plurum eodem tempore). Si uti vultis, o amici, videte Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 32#InternetArchiveBot.

Nexus qui hodie deficiuntur, nisi automatice restitui possunt, ab hoc roboto formula {{Nexus deficitur}} rubricantur. Quo facto, quid facere possumus? Vide s.t.p. id quod apud Vicipaedia:Nexus deficitur scripsi. Auge, corrige, rescribe si necesse sit! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 9 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)

Global ban for PlanespotterA320/RespectCE

Per the Global bans policy, I'm informing the project of this request for comment: m:Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2) about banning a member from your community. Thank you.--Lemonaka (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Your wiki will be in read only soon

Brevissime verto, o amici. Legere poteris, sed recensere Vicipaediam non poteris, cras (die Mercurii, kalendis Martii) ab hora 14:00 UTC per unam fere horam. Eo tempore, qui incaute recensere conatur, edita sua perdere periculatur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 28 Februarii 2023 (UTC)

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

All traffic will switch on 1 March. The test will start at 14:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

• You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 1 March 2023.
• If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

• Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
• We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
• GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

Trizek (WMF) (Disputatio) 21:24, 27 Februarii 2023 (UTC)

De nexibus intra paginam ad bibliographiam iunctis

Nexus intra paginas, a notis subiunctis ad citationes bibliographicas, iamdudum in Vicipaedia Anglica fieri possunt. Tales nexus internos ego, adiuvante UV, iam in Vicipaedia Latina feci: denuo methodum perfecimus et aliis -- qui hoc facere volunt -- proponere possum. Vicipaediani liberi sumus: si tales nexus facere nolis, abstine! In paginis brevibus haud utile est; in paginis longis, pluribus fontibus adhibitis et citatis, fortasse temptare vis.

De notis citationibusque huius generis loquor:

Structura duplicis helicis

Watson et Crick structuram duplicis helicis DNA proposuerunt.

Notae

Bibliographia

• J. D. Watson, F. H. C. Crick: Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. In: Nature. 171, pp. 737–738, 25 Aprilis 1953, doi:10.1038/171737a0

Si tales notas eo modo ad bibliographiam iungere vis, nunc potes, gratiá formularum {{qc}} ("quaere citationem") in nota et {{ec}} ("ecce citatio") in bibliographia. Citationem plenam bibliographicam eo modo, quem praefers, scribere potes, si intra formulam {{ec}} includas. Citationem brevem ("id") in nota hoc modo "Watson & Crick (1953)", aut alio modo tibi utili, scribere potes, si eandem "id" in formulas {{qc}} et {{ec}} includas. Exemplum scripturae praebeo: haec scriptura eundem textum, quem in capsam supra positam vidisti, producit:

== Structura duplicis helicis ==
Watson et Crick structuram duplicis helicis DNA proposuerunt.<ref>{{qc|id=Watson & Crick (1953)}}</ref>

== Notae ==
<references />

== Bibliographia ==
* {{ec|id=Watson & Crick (1953)|c=J. D. Watson, F. H. C. Crick: ''Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid.'' In: ''Nature.'' 171, pp. 737–738, 25 Aprilis 1953, [[doi:10.1038/171737a0]]}}

Usque adhuc nexus ita factos oculis non vidimus, sed, quando UV Reference Tooltips apud nos introduxerit (id quod his diebus facere promittit), effectum plenum videbimus, mure super notas summoto ... Paginas longiores, talibus citationibus iam utentes, hic et hic videre potes. Si methodus tibi interest, tempta! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:24, 3 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Id nuper feci. --UV (disputatio) 22:17, 3 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Mutationes Anglice breviter describo: The improvement that UV has installed is visible on every page that has footnotes. Now, when you move the cursor over the footnote number in the text, (1) if the footnote is visible in your window, it will be highlighted; (2) if the footnote is not visible in your window, you will instead see a "tooltip" giving the text of the foonote.

If the link-to-bibliography method, that I mention above, is used on the page, there will be an additional effect. When you move the cursor into the tooltip box, and hover over the link ("Watson & Crick (1953)" in the example above) the full bibliographical reference either (1) will be highlighted, if currently visible in your window, or (2) will appear in a second tooltip box.

Latine: Effectus, quem UV nuper imposuit, videtur in omnibus paginis ubi exstant notae subiunctae. Si murem tuum super numerum notae in textu summoveas, aut (1) nota, si in tua fenestra iam visibilis sit, colore caeruleo sublineatur, aut (2) textus notae in capsam suggestionis monstratur.

Insuper, quando methodus nexuum internorum, quam supra proposui, in pagina adhibetur, mure in eam capsam summoto, citatio bibliographica plena aut (1) si in tua fenestra visibilis sit, sublineabitur; aut (2) in capsa altera monstrabitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 4 Martii 2023 (UTC)

"Latinitas huius rei dubia est"

The grammar of many pages is far from perfect, however I noticed that when pages are marked with "Latinitas huius rei dubia est. Corrige si potes." it feels a bit like a turn-off for me – while pages that don't have that mark invite me to improve them if I can. It might have to do with the broken windows theory in my case, and maybe this is a very subjective thing, but I am curious, does this happen also to other editors? If yes, should we propose to use that template less often, or remove it as soon as the page is somewhat acceptable, even if it still contains mistakes? --Grufo (disputatio) 17:21, 25 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Ideally at this stage of the enterprise (when some articles are excellent and others are poor), to guide editors and warn readers, all pages might bear such indicators, of which the current system has seven levels, -1 being best and -7 being worst. You're complaining about the second level, marked {{Latinitas|-2}}. I've been known to mark my own articles at that level. The associated (verbal) descriptions have never been progressively organized: it's possible to read the description of level 3 (maxime dubia) as being more deprecatory than the description of level 4 (merely corrigenda). Rather than characterize the levels by means of words, leaving them as numbers, with universally added explanatory phrasing like ubi 1 optimus et 7 pessimus est, would be more logical and could be less offputting. ¶ Also, of course, experienced editors may disagree about levels (just as schoolteachers may disagree about grades), but the disagreements are usually slight; someone, for example, has occasionally reduced my estimates of level -5 to level -6. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:24, 25 Martii 2023 (UTC)

I often mark a page {{L-1}}, which is quickly done and produces a modest red spot: for me it means "something not right here". I sometimes mark a page {{Non latine}} (or 7) which means "this will be deleted in a week unless improved": that's a necessity. {{Latinitas|-6}} has the same effect. I very rarely apply the intervening categories from 2 to 5. They were designed nearly 20 years ago, when Vicipaedia looked a bit different! But if Iacobus finds them useful I'm happy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:59, 25 Martii 2023 (UTC)

It's amusing to look back at our history (see Disputatio Vicipaediae:De Latinitate#Levels of latinitas and the rest of that page). When the system was designed, Rolandus proposed levels from -7 to +7 (and even more). He urged that we should mark the quality of pages that had no faults but showed a range of Latin skills. I sometimes wondered which classical authors would have come in at which level. Would Tacitus, Cicero or Caesar have achieved +7? Where would you put Pliny the elder, Pliny the younger? Would Cicero's letters have scored higher or lower than his orations? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:11, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Brevissime in usum Latinistarum recapitulo: an utiles sunt aestimationes Latinitatis, quibus aliqui paginas rubricant? Grufo se abhorrere ab his inscriptionibus confitetur; Iacobus eas saepe imponitur; ego interdum {{L-1}} (si infelicitates video), interdum {{Non latine}} inscribo (si paginam minime Latine scriptam esse censeo: hac formula paginam intra septem dies delendam minitor). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:56, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

My proposal: How about we change the template in order to show a number (rating), a colour, maybe a text that becomes visible after clicking/hovering (but not otherwise), but without occupying so much space on top of a page and making the page look like a broken window? --Grufo (disputatio) 15:13, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Τhere is also {{Formula:Verba Latinizandа}} (example of use), we can replace with it the formulas above. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:30, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

But {{Verba Latinizanda}} can apply only to specific passages. I am very much in favour of using it for what it was designed for (thank you for mentioning it!), but we would still need a way to make {{Latinitas}} look a bit less aggressive, I think. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:52, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Are the red icons at {{Latinitas|-4}} and {{Latinitas|-5}} aggressive? So they report that things are bad, the window is broken. But yes, the design was made 20 years ago, you can update (both these and others). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:58, 28 Martii 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the icons to be less aggressive but retain their original meaning. If anyone does not like it, cancel editing, I will not argue. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 13:48, 1 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Re

I have just created the {{Re}} template. Feel free to try/improve it! --Grufo (disputatio) 15:06, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

@Grufo:: Usum formulae {{Re}} non intellego. An potes exemplum praebere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:39, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Dalby dixit «An potes exemplum praebere?»: You are seeing an example in this very moment! --Grufo (disputatio) 18:53, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

«This very moment»nihil mihi respondisti! Optime! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:13, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: I have edited your comment (I hope you will forgive me) to show you something I just added to the template :-) --Grufo (disputatio) 19:24, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Etiam melius. There's nothing to «forgive»nihil! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:52, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Massae astronomicae

I have created the new {{Massae astronomicae}} template (or alternatively {{Massa astronomica}}) – you can already see it applied at Planeta pulsaris. The name “Massae astronomicae” however is quite verbose, and I was wondering whether it is the case to create a shortcut template as {{MA}} (i.e. a redirect) – unless the “MA” wording is reserved for later uses. What do you think? --Grufo (disputatio) 17:07, 28 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Massa Solis or Massa solaris?

Before I create a dedicated page for all the other units required by the {{Massae astronomicae}} template (I already started), should these be called “Massa Solis”, “Massa Telluris”, “Massa Lunae”, etc., or instead “Massa solaris”, “Massa terrestris”, “Massa lunaris”, etc.? --Grufo (disputatio) 18:53, 28 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Scholium

I have just created the {{Scholium}} template to help improving the grammar or other problematic aspects in pages that require it. As the name suggests, the template allows to annotate problematic words or sentences, like this sentence hereHere you are! You are reading my comment!, for example. Although designed to correct things, I believe the template can find other, more neutral, uses as well. If you have better ideas concerning style and functionality, please feel free to edit the {{Scholium/style.css}} stylesheet or the template itself. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:45, 30 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Multas ago gratias tibi, utilitatis magnae esse videtur ut accuratius errores signentur! - Giorno2 (disputatio) 13:15, 30 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Gratias ago et ego. NB: quando in textu paginarum encyclopaedicarum utimur (id quod saepe faciam!) oportebit commentum nostrum Latine scribere: sermonem enim communem editoribus lectoribusque est Latinum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:49, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Ita profecto! --Grufo (disputatio) 16:26, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Colores

Originally I had chosen rgba(243, 243, 190, .95) as colour for the background, i.e. this colour. But it didn't feel Wikipedian enough, so I switched to this colour, i.e. rgba(239, 231, 216, .95). I still feel a better colour can be found though… --Grufo (disputatio) 16:27, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Pagina delenda

I was putting order to some of our Formulae administrationis Vicipaediae, and so while I was working on Formula:Verba latinizanda I created by mistake the page Verba latinizanda (without “Formula:”), which I blanked afterwards. How can I ask for the deletion of Verba latinizanda? --Grufo (disputatio) 14:28, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Illis verbis postulavi[sti]! Pro tempore non delevi sed redirectionem restitui, quia paginae 47 hoc tempore eam paginam quaerunt. Rationem huius rei nescio: fortasse memoria systematis nostri tardius renovata est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:40, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Quando in dubio sumus, semper melius est redirectiones breviter retinere quam statim delere. Sed, ne timeas, delebo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Whoops! I am really sorry for the mess! Although I believe that what you see as 47 inclusions of the page are actually inclusions of Formula:Verba latinizanda (i.e. if we deleted the page without “Formula:” nothing bad would happen). That is my guess at least. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:43, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Ita, fortasse. Nihil frangitur! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:51, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

The problem was that Formula:Verba Latinizanda was erroneously redirecting to Verba latinizanda. I have now fixed Formula:Verba Latinizanda so that it now redirects to Formula:Verba latinizanda. Thereafter, it was safe to delete Verba latinizanda, and I have now deleted this page. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:47, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! --Grufo (disputatio) 22:07, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Verba prima et Formula:Titulus primus

I have been putting order in some of the administration templates, and I have to say that it took me a while to understand what {{Verba prima}} and {{Titulus primus}} were meant for (I had to read this discussion from 2012 to find out). I would like to rename them to {{Verba barbara desiderata}} and {{Titulus barbarus desideratus}} (including the text displayed) if there are no objections. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:48, 2 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Both were in the articles 1 time, I corrected. I don't know if it's worth renaming, but why not. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 07:53, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Harum formularum omnino oblitus sum! Emendationes propositas laudo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Moved :-) --Grufo (disputatio) 13:41, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Convertimus!

I need help in translating the following three titles:

• Tidal force
• Tidal locking
• Spaghettification

My ideas are:

Latine	Anglice
Vis aestualis Vocabulum “aestualis” haud classicum est, sed vide Short, E.; George, A. (2013). A Primer of Botanical Latin with Vocabulary. Cambridge University Press. p. 313. ISBN 9781107328860 .	Tidal force
Clausura aestualis	Tidal locking
SpagificatioVide disp. Spacellificatio Cfr. spacellos.	Spaghettification

I would really appreciate any suggestion. --Grufo (disputatio) 01:51, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Our greatest difficulty is providing technical terms in Latin in a field that has never been discussed in Latin. We have to write for an expert and also for a Latinist who knows nothing of the field, and we must not make things up.

I would accept aestualis because it is recorded in later Latin, the meaning of the word is obvious and its derivation obvious. (After all, Romans didn't often encounter tides.)

I assume you've invented "spagificatio": if so, we can't do that. It is unwise even to build on "spagelli" for a technical term because there's really no consensus about that term. It's not only whether celestial mechanics have been discussed in Latin: recent forms of pasta have also not been discussed in Latin. Result: the Latinist would not grasp this word. Actually the English speakers are to blame for inventing spaghettification in the first place :) I think we're really talking about a sucking or constraining force, or a bit of both, aren't we? "Vis constringendi" may be a poor initial attempt, but that is the route we have to try to follow, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:31, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Or "filandi"? That term is actually used about cheese, which is as good a thing as pasta in its way. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:32, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Propono "Deformatio gravitatialis cosmica" vel "Deformatio gravitatialis extrema". Non consentio cum "aestualis", qua re effectus cosmicus est, non litoralis. Itaque "tidal force" = "vis gravitatis variabilis". Propono "tidal locking" = "rotatio coordinata". --Dioskorides (disputatio) 10:39, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Certe, effectus cosmicus est. "Gravitatialis", si neologismus sit, accipere non possumus; Aut "gravitatis" aut "gravitationis", casum genetivum verborum iam alibi repertorum, laete acciperim! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback. We definitely need an adjective to stick to vis, tidal forces appear in a lot of phenomena and they are treated as “forces”. Maybe if we are lucky we can find the term in Latin books from the XVII and XVIII centuries, although I am not sure the phenomenon was already treated as a force back then, since it was clear that it was a secondary effect. As for clausura aestualis, I was thinking that a better alternative could be impedimentum aestuale, but I am still hoping to find better solutions (I believe a clausura was actually a lock, a clasp, while we need the action of locking, blocking). Rotatio coordinata sounds possible to me right now, but we will have to make sure that tidal locking always means a coordinated rotation. As for the pasta, spaghettification is not just a deformation (tidal force is already that), it is an extreme deformation, to the point that matter becomes like spaghetti. If we want to make it a bit more classical we could use spacificatio (with -c- instead of -g-), from spacus, which is where spaghetto ultimately comes from (so to Cicero spacificatio could sound more or less like “twinification”). The reason why we should stick to pasta is that our nightmares will not end with spaghettification; we will also have to deal with nuclear pasta at some point. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:13, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Dioskorides dixit «Non consentio cum "aestualis", qua re effectus cosmicus est, non litoralis»: It seems that a reference to the sea is not a problem in Italian, where the tidal forces of a black hole or a neutron star are called forze di marea, or forze mareali (marea means tide, from mare), nor in French, nor in Spanish. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:05, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Scripsit Ioannes Keplerus in "Astronomia Nova" : "tidal force" = "virtus tractoriae, quae [...] prolectat aquas" (fere media in pagina). --Dioskorides (disputatio) 14:51, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Apud Isaacum Newtonum (Principia naturalis, Liber III, Propositio XXIV, Theorema XIX) verbum compositum pro Anglice : "tidal force" reperire non possum. --Dioskorides (disputatio) 15:52, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Dioskorides. The problem is that we might never find tidal forces treated as “forces” (with their own formulas) in texts written in Latin, because it is a modern habit. Ideally we might find something in someone writing at least a century after Kepler (a lot of things were not yet well defined at his time). If I am not wrong Herschel and Gauss wrote in Latin too. But it is quite likely that we will have to find ourselves the adjective to put near vis. Aestualis still looks like the best candidate to me (for a Romance language speaker it will sound even less referring to the sea than the word used in their own language). --Grufo (disputatio) 16:01, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

E citatione Dioscoridis nostri didici vis et virtus hoc contextu fere synonyma esse. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Suadeo "aestum, aestualem" haud reicienda esse. Non de aqua tantum, sed etiam de igne, et in variis metaphoris "aestus" a scriptoribus classicis adhibitus est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:46, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

According to Cassell's, both Cicero and Horace used the adjective aestuosus. Why not prefer a genuine classical word to a later one? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:04, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

"Aestualis" est verbum post-classicum, non fictum, et contextibus utilibus adhibetur (de aestubus e.g. marinis). "Aestuosus" certe classicus est, sed contextibus minus utilibus adhibetur (de agitatione, de calore) ... igitur incertus sum! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:27, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

«E citatione Dioscoridis nostri didici vis et virtus hoc contextu fere synonyma esse»: Yes, I noticed that too. I like virtus, the only problem is that we need a standard nomenclature, and so we will have to decide accordingly for vis/virtus magnetica, vis/virtus electrica, etc. I believe many pages already use vis for all these cases.

«Non de aqua tantum, sed etiam de igne, et in variis metaphoris "aestus" a scriptoribus classicis adhibitus est»: By looking at the miriad of meanings of aestuo (derived from aestus), it seems that the original meaning was “being agitated” (hence to burn, but also to create waves) – so, not necessarily related to water (I like the reference to water in an astronomical context by the way). --Grufo (disputatio) 16:58, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

I have created a first stub of vis aestualis. For “tidal looking” I have used “rotatio synchrona” in the text – but also “rotatio coordinata”, as suggested by Dioskorides, should be fine. We will still need to find a solution concerning spaghettification. For now the page is minimal; please feel free to correct/expand it. --Grufo (disputatio) 22:48, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the article "Monstrum vermiculatum volatile" offers clues. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:04, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the problem with vermiculatus is that it evokes a worm, not pasta (by the way, it does not even mean “filiform”, it means “worm-eaten” – I believe something is wrong in the very latinization pasta vermiculata for meaning spaghetti, spagelli/spacelli would be by far better I think; but this is for another time). Spacus on the other hand means “twine” and sounds close enough to spaghetti. My two cents. --Grufo (disputatio) 23:20, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

«I believe something is wrong in the very latinization pasta vermiculata»: It's an obvious calque from the English vermiculate, itself an obvious reflex of Latin vermiculatus. According to Merriam-Webster, its primary meaning in English is 'vermiform'—so vermiform pasta must be the intended sense. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:13, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

If vermiculatus is a possibility then we should discuss

• whether it must be the preferred possibility (instead of spacelli), especially considering that vermicelli – “little worms” – are another type of pasta with its own traditional recipes
• what word we will use for spaghettification

--Grufo (disputatio) 17:49, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

For spaghettification, try the phrase effectus collyricus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:14, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestion! Note that on the German wiki an alternative lemma is Spaghetti-Effekt. "Spaghetti effect" and "noodle effect" seem to have been used in English too. I suggested effectus spaciformis just below. One could surely begin with a term of this kind. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:38, 5 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

De verbo "vermiculatus" tibi consentio. Gratias tibi ago propter novos fontes de nominibus Latinis spaghettorum repertos :) Utilitatem conceptus spacorum concedo.

Vocabula (etiam composita) creare Vicipaedianis haud permittitur ... sed vocabulum "spaciformis" iam a botanistis adhibitum repperi. Cf. species Brachystegia spaciformis. (Cf. etiam (p. 188 apud Google Books) ubi "spatiformis" pluries legitur ... sed quo sensu?) An hoc nomen adiectivum utile esse potest? "Effectus spaciformis"? "Deformatio spaciformis"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Dalby dixit «Vocabula (etiam composita) creare Vicipaedianis haud permittitur»: I believe there are different degrees of novelty. If a phenomenon is productive in a language, is that a new word? Is using a diminutive creating a new word? Is using a productive suffix derived from facio forbidden? In front of total absence of sources I believe it makes more sense to create a blatantly justified new word (possibly after a discussion) and add {{Convertimus}} to it, rather than using words that do exist but we already know don't capture the sense so well.

En passant, in some Italian dialects (e.g. in Rome) instead of spaghetti they often say spaghi for the pasta (plural of spago, which is the Italian word for twine, Lat. spacus). That just shows how important is to keep the word spacus (spacelli) in Latin as well for the pasta; no other word captures the idea. --Grufo (disputatio) 12:51, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

The question is, if Latin is exclusively a dead language, or if it has the ability to express modern things. In the post-ancient period it had this power, until to the early 19th century, it has been a somehow vivid language at least in science. But what is today, dead language or dead and present language? --Dioskorides (disputatio) 14:36, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

If Latin were a dead language I believe Vicipaedia would not exist. It is however a language whose vitality is strongly controlled by very educated speakers and writers. Yet, linguistic registers must be guaranteed in Latin too.

By the way, going back to spaghettification, currently the page uses spacificatio (i.e. “being made like spacus”). However I believe now, after finding several sources for spacelli, that it should use spacellificatio (i.e. “being made like spacelli”). The reason is simple: if we have to invent a new word, better be as precise and faithful as possible. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:39, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

[Edit conflict:] Sorry, but that's a totally different question. Latin's alive here now. English is alive on the English Wikipedia. But if you make a pagename on the English Wikipedia out of a word you just made up, your pagename won't be accepted by other Wikipedians. It's the same here.

Da veniam: quaestionem aliam ponis. Respondeo: lingua Latina hic vivit. Lingua Anglica vivit apud Vicipaediam Anglicam. At si titulum paginae Anglicae e vocabulo a te ficto creas, titulus tuus ab aliis editoribus non accipietur. Itidem apud nos. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:43, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: But so, what is your proposal for spaghettification? What do you think about spacellificatio? --Grufo (disputatio) 16:47, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

@Grufo: I thought you'd never ask :)

1. What other languages most often do in the first place is not to invent a word but to borrow a foreign word. So I would do that, heading the article Spaghettification (assuming that I borrow from English or French). I would then follow it, in the first sentence, with words such as "vocabulum Anglicum (ut qui Latine diceret spacellificatio)". I thibnk that form is just fine.
2. In writing the text of the article I would quietly begin to use my new Latin word in place of the the English one. If I do it that way readers will understand me and they may not even notice, and, hey presto, I have introduced a new word into our vocabulary, incidentally proving that Latin is a living language.
3. If I really love my new word I would publish it somehow in a source that could just possibly be cited as reliable -- an aside or a footnote in a blog, possibly? whatever might suggest itself -- and then come back to my article and rename it, citing the source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:53, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the overall approach, but concerning «what other languages most often do in the first place is not to invent a word» we must consider that in all languages in which -ficatio(n) is a productive suffix the word “spaghettification” has been automatically naturalized (this is what I meant when I talked about different degrees of novelty). Latin is one of these languages, so the choice would eventually be between spaghettificatio and spacellificatio (I am talking about a page title here)… --Grufo (disputatio) 18:05, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Note the comments by Iacobus and me above: -ificatio is not the only choice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:38, 5 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both. I will come up with some page in a way or another. In the meanwhile I have opened a discussion about the Latin name for spaghetti. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:16, 5 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Fnd

I have created a new template, {{Fnd}} (or alternatively {{Fons nominis desideratur}}), which is the more aggressive version of {{FD ref}}. Rule of thumb:

• You think the Latin name is correct but a source is still needed: use {{FD ref}}
• You have strong doubts about a Latin name unless shown otherwise: use {{Fnd}}

--Grufo (disputatio) 15:55, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

How to connect a page to other languages when the Wikidata is protected

Sometimes I want to connect a page to other languages but the Wikidata is protected. For instance, I just created the page Universale Rerum Locatrum, which I would like to connect to wikidata:Q42253 but I am not allowed to do so. What can I do? --Grufo (disputatio) 16:31, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Nescio cur obstructus es. Ego rem nuper temptavi et sine mora adnectare potui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:34, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! The same problem arises if I try to connect massa Solis to wikidata:Q180892. And maybe there were also other cases I don't remember anymore… --Grufo (disputatio) 17:49, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

De hac re nihil antea audivi. Quando temptas, quid vides? An relationem erroris?

NB: Si ante paginam tuam creatam temptas, certe non potebis. Debes paginam creare, divulgare, deinde ad Vicidata ire.

Sunt varii modi. Ego per paginam barbaram (e.g. Anglicam, Francogallicam) ad Vicidata eo: ibi nomen paginae novae Latinae ad pedem enumerationis iam visibilis addo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:02, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

If you go to wikidata:Q180892 you will see a lock (top-right corner). It means that people cannot edit the wikidata page. I don't know if there is a way to do the same directly from the English page, I searched more than once but I never found it. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:06, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Recte dicis. Tales protectiones nunquam observavi. An es novus usor Vicidatorum? Politiam d:Wikidata:Protection policy hic repperi. Vide etiam d:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Other rights#Requests for the confirmed right. Ergo ... aut (a) per istam paginam statum "usoris confirmati" postula, aut (b) usorem aliquem veterem editiones pro te facere pete (NB: ego certe sum usor vetus Vicidatorum!) aut (c) modo antediluviano nexum interwiki ad paginam barbaram (e.g. Anglicam) pede paginae novae tuae inseris (sic: [[en:Spaghetti]]), unde automata cito reperiunt et in Vicidata inserunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:25, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew. I have submitted a request for permissions now :-) --Grufo (disputatio) 22:42, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Myrias

@Grufo, I see that you've marked the new article "Universale Rerum Locatrum" with the formula {{Myrias|Technologia}}, but I'm not finding that topic among the list of 10,000 topics that all wikis should contain. (After adding a new article drawn from that list, contributors should change the English name there to the Latin name.) If it's not on the list, the Myrias marker is an error, which should be removed from the text. Please add to Vicipaedia as many new pages from that list as you can! Such additions will raise our rank among the wikis! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:46, 7 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Hi IacobusAmor, sorry, my bad. Sometimes I use as a model for the footer of a new page the footer of another related page, and this time I forgot to remove that line. But thank you for explaining what that line means! --Grufo (disputatio) 12:18, 7 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Denuo paginae delendae

Still putting order in the administration templates… Now I managed to give a coherent name to the three templates designed to mark Latin words without a source. Now they are called {{Fnd}}, {{Fndref}} and {{Fndvox}}. However while putting order I have created two pages, Formula:Fontes nominis desiderati and Formula:Fontes nominis desiderati/doc that now I would like to delete. Could anyone do that? They existed for very short, so no page links to them. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:54, 7 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Factum! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:42, 7 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! P.S. I know it looks like I am making a mess, but I do have a plan! :-) --Grufo (disputatio) 20:10, 7 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: Okay, I have put a bit of order now, but along the way I have accumulated some relicts. Could you please erase these pages as well? They are all /doc pages that refer to previous names, and they are all blank pages – but be careful not to erase their parent page without /doc in the name (thank you!).

• Formula:FD ref/doc
• Formula:Fontes desiderati/doc
• Formula:Fons?/doc
• Formula:Citatio desiderata/doc
• Formula:Obscura/doc
• Formula:Titulus primus/doc
• Formula:Verba prima/doc

--Grufo (disputatio) 23:30, 7 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Factumst. Ne timeas: facile est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:23, 8 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you a lot, Andrew! --Grufo (disputatio) 09:22, 8 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Formulae novae aut recensae

Okay, I have done the harder part of renaming and standardizing our “scholiastic” templates (but not only them). In the following list are either new templates or templates that I have tried to improve with new functionalities (you can have a partial preview of them also at Vicipaedia:Index formularum):

• {{Cc}}
• {{Cdref}}
• {{Cdvox}}
• {{Citatio desiderata}}
• {{Convertimus}}
• {{Diff}}
• {{Dubsig}}
• {{Expungo}}
• {{Fndref}}
• {{Fndvox}}
• {{Fons abortus}}
• {{Fons nominis desideratus}}
• {{Fons verificandus}}
• {{Luminositas solaris}}
• {{Massae astronomicae}}
• {{Ndref}}
• {{Ndvox}}
• {{Nexus perpetuus}}
• {{Nomen desideratum}}
• {{Pm}}
• {{Re}}
• {{Recessus}}
• {{Radii astronomici}}
• {{Scholium}}
• {{Titulus barbarus desideratus}}
• {{Verba barbara desiderata}}
• {{Verba latinizanda}}
• {{Verba obscura}}
• {{Verba verificanda}}
• {{Verba vicificanda}}

If you have any feedback, idea, suggestion, please do let me know! --Grufo (disputatio) 09:40, 8 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Persona

I noticed that recently these three categories have been created:

• Categoria:Personae Divinae Comoediae (Inferno)
• Categoria:Personae Divinae Comoediae (Purgatorio)
• Categoria:Personae Divinae Comoediae (Paradiso)

Then I realized that there are many “Personae ...” categories in this project. The problem is that, at least as long as the Roman Empire was alive, the term persona meant “mask, character, personage, role” – not “person”.

The three categories above are even more confusing because the Divine Comedy does have characters (since it is literature), and yet these three categories are obviously not to be interpreted as “characters in the Divine Comedy” but as “characters that were not only characters (i.e. were real humans, persons)”. I believe an ancient Roman would have named these three categories Homines Divinae Comoediae (i.e. “real people”) – but that doesn't mean we would have to do the same – or we can very well have a category for all the characters, independently if they were real or not.

Long story short: How do we deal with the word persona here on Vicipaedia? --Grufo (disputatio) 18:53, 8 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Mea mente, "personae" hoc contextu recte scribitur: eodem modo Xerxes homo fuit, sed persona est Persarum Aeschyli.

NB: Editor anonymus fortasse Tabernam nostram legere non solet, sed melius erit de labore eius in lingua communi nostra Latina, non Anglice, scribere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:01, 8 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Video nunc editorem anonymum etiam pleras fabulas mythologicas in categorias insevisse: Myrrhae (#1), Ulixis (#2), Minotauri (#3), Capanei (#4), Minois (#5), Chironis (#6), Charontis (#7), Cerberi (#8), Luciferi (#9). Et dubia mea dissoluta sunt. --Grufo (disputatio) 22:28, 8 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Good morning,

I just read your message and I would like to say that in the Divine Comedy there are many characters from the Bible and classical mythology along with real-life people: for example, in the first bolgia of Malebolge, Dante encounters Venedico Caccianemico, a Bononian politician who lived at the end of the 13th century, along with Jason, the mythological hero. In the next bolgia, he encounters Alessio Interminelli, another Italian historical character from his time, as well as Thais from the Eunuch, a play written by Publius Terence Afer.

I tried to add the category because many of these characters are well known thanks to the Comedy (the page image for Cerberus, for example, is based on his appearance in the sixth canto of Inferno) Then what should we do? Thank you and happy Easter!

P.S. I added only the major characters from the poem, but other historical figures such as Attila and Sextus Pompey are briefly mentioned to be punished in Hell, and I could not add the category for one major character since his page is protected (he appears in the XXVIIIth canto of Inferno with his chest wide-opened). 2.42.134.240 07:29, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Duae (vel plures) versiones Latinae Divinae Comoediae exstant, quarum una nunc in Vicifonte est, partes poematis in categoriis Latine (non Italiane) indicare possumus: Inferna, Purgatorium, Paradisus. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 07:58, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Optime! 2.42.134.240 08:05, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

2.42.134.240 dixit «I tried to add the category because many of these characters are well known thanks to the Comedy»: Sorry, when I wrote I had seen only your recent edits in which you were adding only real people, so I was wondering whether you were using the word persona meaning “person”. But then I realized that you weren't, since you were in fact adding all kind of characters to the category, both real and fictitious, so there is no issue at all (and thank you for your contributions by the way). --Grufo (disputatio) 16:09, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

UV et UVbot categorias moverunt, gratias eis agimus! Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:38, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page

I just discovered the {{Creanda}} template and I find it very useful. However I noticed that the requests for new pages are added to an unfindable category named Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page. It is unlikely that anyone will ever click on a category with such a name, so I would like to rename it to Categoria:Paginae novas paginas petentes (and update the {{Creanda}} template accordingly). --Grufo (disputatio) 19:35, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

1. Per naturam categoriarum Mediawiki, paginas non iam creatas ad categorias addere non possumus. Sed, si indicem talium paginarum perlegere vis, potes ad Formula:Creanda ire et "Nexus ad paginam" imprimere.
2. Iam exstat pagina specialis "Paginae desideratae".
3. Categoria quam vidisti "errorem" temporarium refert, quam UVbot interdum automatice corrigit. Aliis editoribus re vera non interest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:31, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

1. We can't add pages that don't exist to a category. MediaWiki doesn't allow that. If you want, you can see them all listed at Nexus ad paginam when you go to "Formuila:Creanda".
2. There is already a special page "paginae desideratae" which lists all redlinks including these.
3. The category that you saw is a list of pages that have been created since the "Creanda" template was used. Editors don't need to worry about it: UVbot works through it and replaces the "Creanda" formula with a link, which will be blue. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:40, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

   Many templates automatically add the pages that invoke them to some hidden category (e.g., if you use {{Convertimus}} the page will automatically be added to Categoria:Appellationes conversae). The same does {{Creanda}}, but its category is called Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page. So my question is: Is it OK if I update the template in order to use Categoria:Paginae paginas novas petentes instead, as reference category? All the pages that have included the template in the past will be update automatically. --Grufo (disputatio) 20:46, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

I repeat: MediaWiki does not allow adding pages that don't exist to a category. Since the category you're talking about is for houasekeeping, is temporary, and contains only pages that already do exist, I'll leave the bot controller to comment on whether it needs to be renamed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:52, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

But there will not be pages that don't exist! There will existing pages that asks for new pages (e.g., Cavalcans dei Cavalcanti asks to create Dis, so our category will list Cavalcans dei Cavalcanti, but not Dis). I am basically asking for nothing else than renaming Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page to Categoria:Paginae paginas novas petentes (but wait, don't do it yet, I want to update the template first). --Grufo (disputatio) 20:57, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

{{creanda}} does not add all the pages where it is used to Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page. When {{creanda}} is used as intended to refer to a page that has not yet been created, it does not add any category. If, however, {{creanda}} is used unnecessarily (because the target page does not need to be created any more, as the target page has already been created), then {{creanda}} adds the page where it is used unnecessarily to the error category Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:58, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thank you, UV. So my questions now become two:

1. Would it make sense to rename Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page to something else more understandable? Something like the Latin translation of “Pages asking for the creation of pages that already exist”, i.e. Categoria:Paginae creationem paginarum iam exsistentium petentes.
2. Would it make sense to add the page to Categoria:Paginae novas paginas petentes if the page requested does not exist yet? In this way we can have a filter compared to “Nexus ad paginam” applied to the template.

Addition I will prepare a draft for how I intend to edit the template and I will post it here. --Grufo (disputatio) 21:09, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

As to question 1: Good idea to rename this to Latin, provided that we can find a good Latin name (to me, the name you just proposed seems fine).

As to question 2: I do not see the usefulness of such a category. These pages can be found anytime by going to [1]. Readers might get startled and might ask what kind of problem with the current page this category indicates, while in fact there is no problem at all with the current page. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:22, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

But if people go to Nexus ad paginam they will find also the pages that asks for new pages that in the meanwhile have been already created. Imagine a user feels like in the mood of creating missing pages, Categoria:Paginae novas paginas petentes would provide a useful list of suggestions, while Nexus ad paginam would yield a list mixed with pages asking for already created pages. My two cents. --Grufo (disputatio) 21:34, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand that you would use Categoria:Paginae novas paginas petentes only for occurrences where the target page does not exist (yet). In that case, no objection against creating such a (hidden) category. --UV (disputatio) 21:47, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Exactly! And what do you think about the superscript ^{[formulam {{Creanda}} remove]} that I have added to the code below (if a page already exists)? --Grufo (disputatio) 21:50, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Addition Instead of the superscript I am thinking now that something less aggressive could be found (e.g. dashed underline, tooltip, etc.). I will think a bit about the best solution. --Grufo (disputatio) 22:04, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

@UV: Basically this was my idea for the new template's source code (it is just a draft). The new version also adds ^{[formulam {{Creanda}} remove]} when a page has been already created.

<includeonly>{{#if:{{{lt|{{{4|}}}}}}|[[{{{3|{{{2}}}}}}|{{{lt|{{{4}}}}}}]]|[[{{{3|{{{2}}}}}}]]}}{{#ifexist:{{{3|{{{2}}}}}}|[[Categoria:Paginae creationem paginarum iam exsistentium petentes]]&#8239;<sup>[<span style="font-style: italic; color: teal;">formulam <code><nowiki>{{Creanda}}</nowiki></code> remove</span>]</sup>|[[Categoria:Paginae novas paginas petentes]]&#8239;{{#if:{{{nobold|}}}|<span style="font-weight:normal">}}<sup><small>[[:{{{1}}}:{{{2|{{{3}}}}}}|[<span title="&quot;{{{2|{{{3}}}}}}&quot; ({{#language:{{{1}}}}})">{{{1}}}</span>]]]</small></sup>{{#if:{{{nobold|}}}|</span>}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{documentatio}}</noinclude>

What do you think? If anyone has better suggestions for the two category names Paginae novas paginas petentes and Paginae creationem paginarum iam exsistentium petentes, please do speak. --Grufo 21:42, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the template. In the end I have opted for a simple exclamation mark if the page already exists, accompanied by a tooltip. Here it is how it looks like.

• Asking for the creation of an unexisting page:

  Valeria Trierweiler^(fr)

  ↳ The page (i.e. this page, the Taberna) will be listed in Categoria:Paginae novas paginas petentes

• Asking for the creation of an existing page:

  Gaius Iulius Caesar

  ↳ The page (i.e. this page, the Taberna) will be listed in Categoria:Paginae creationem iam exsistentium paginarum petentes

If you have better/shorter names for the two categories above, or if you don't like the idea of the exclamation mark, please let me know! --Grufo (disputatio) 02:20, 10 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Si pagina iam exsistit (nisi fallor) UVbot formulam removet et eodem tempore nexum internum substituit. Inconsulte ergo lectoribus suadebimus ut formulam removeant, nisi etiam suadeamus ut nexum internum creent. Commutatio autem inter formulam existentem et nexum internum futurum, si editores humani faciunt, errores introducere potest. Incertus igitur sum, an utile erit usores suadere ad laborem, quod UVbot satis rapide et sine errore iam perficit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:26, 25 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know about the incessant work of UVbot. Then I guess the exclamation mark is not needed? @UV: What is your opinion? --Grufo (disputatio) 17:40, 25 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

In my view, we should not show this exclamation mark to readers, but we should show it to those editors who are interested in seeing this exclamation mark. So I would propose to replace this exclamation mark by an empty span with a certain class, e.g. <span class="creata"></span>. This will not be visible to ordinary readers, but editors interested in seeing an exclamation mark (or something else) here could add a line of CSS to their Special:MyPage/common.css or enable a gadget in order to see an exclamation mark (or something else).

Arguments against showing the exclamation mark to ordinary readers: A page containing {{creanda}} unnecessarily (because the target page already exists) is not a big problem and does not need to be urgently fixed. There is no need to alert readers of Vicipaedia to this.

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:13, 25 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea. Done (#1, #2). --Grufo (disputatio) 14:41, 26 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Since I am interested in seeing the exclamation mark, I have added the following line to my Special:MyPage/common.css:

span.iam-creata::after { content:"[!]"; padding-left:1px; font-size:.75em; vertical-align:super; color:red; font-style:italic; font-weight:bold; }

This worked fine for me and looks like this: Gaius Iulius Caesar[!]. Anyone else may of course copy the above line to their Special:MyPage/common.css (or, in doing so, adapt the line to choose a different/less obtrusive styling). If anyone prefers enabling a gadget to editing their Special:MyPage/common.css, I could also create a gadget for this (with any one styling that most of us who would like to enable the gadget are comfortable with). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:13, 26 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, UV. I added your code to the documentation of {{Creanda}}. --Grufo (disputatio) 22:26, 26 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Bene fecistis! Ego etiam hanc rem ad paginam meam common.css addidi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:37, 27 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Auxilium nostrum peto; de "New Latin" aut "Neo-Latin"

Salvete omnes! At en:New Latin I have asked if the page can be moved to en:Neo-Latin, to be consistent with conventional English language academic usage regarding this period of Latin usage (which some of you may say we are still in). Unfortuntely so far I have had little response, I suspect because people don't understand the position. If any of you feel like expressing an opinion, I would be most grateful. JimKillock (disputatio) 11:22, 15 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Hoping some of you can help @Andrew Dalby @Demetrius Talpa @IacobusAmor - the conversation has stalled with not much sensible input, as most people don't really understand the terminology, I suspect. JimKillock (disputatio) 20:04, 21 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Mmm... and I don't know what's better in English. In Russian, I would rather be for "novo-" (i.e. new), and not for "neo". Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:04, 21 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

It isn't about what is best as a new translation, so much as what is the accepted term, I would say. All the recent literature uses the term "Neo-Latin". See en:Neo-Latin studies for instance. The WP policy is to use the most commonly known term, with various caveats. I've never yet found Latin of Petrarch to present referred to as "New Latin" outside of a dictionary, but there are dozens of articles, foundations and books for "Neo-Latin". JimKillock (disputatio) 06:57, 24 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Piermark/House of Yahweh/HoY

Apologies for writing in English. If this is not the proper place to post, please move it somewhere more appropriate. Please help translate to your language There is an on-going discussion about a proposal that Piermark/House of Yahweh/HoY be globally banned from editing all Wikimedia projects. You are invited to participate at Requests for comment/Global ban for Piermark on Meta-Wiki. Thank you! U.T. (disputatio) 12:36, 4 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Inclinatio generalis Vicipaediae

Pars accepta a: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Inclinatio generalis § Inclinatio generalis Vicipaediae – Locus opportunior --Grufo

Inclinatio generalis Vicipaediae (Anglice systemic bias) est inclinatio ad parte latinitate et Romae. Multam historiam Romanam scribunt Vicipaediani, sed non multa de re publica populari Sinarum. (Placita usoris RadioactiveBoulevardier)

Fortasse tibi utile erit paginas Vicipaedicas plures perlegere, aut, si vis, indicem mutationum recentium. Istos Vicipaedianos, qui de historia Romana hoc tempore scribunt, non cognosco! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:53, 4 Maii 2023 (UTC)

In taberna aptius scribi? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:38, 4 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Sic est. Sine dubio, res Romanae et Europaeae hic melius descriptae sunt, quam Sericae et Africanae. Sed: a) huiusmodi vitium in omnibus Vicipaediis inveniri potest b) aliqui participes id corrigere temptabant et aliquae paginae de Sinis iam compositae sunt c) corrigas et ipse, scribas Latine de Sinis. Fontes Latini de Sinis pauciores sunt, sed non absunt (e.g., Martinii libri). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:48, 4 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Interdictio perpetua usoris "Gypsy and Mexican 11"

I believe that [this user's edit] should be a one way ticket to a permanent ban. --Grufo (disputatio) 01:50, 19 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Nomen hora 02:26 obstructum est: vide paginam de conlationibus usoris. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:48, 19 Maii 2023 (UTC)

De Latinitate et exspectationibus

Inter omnes constat, saeculorum decursu varia Latine scripta in lucem edita esse, et quidem diverso gradu Latinitatis. Quot opera, tot genera linguae Latinae adhibitae. Vicipaedia haec, iure et merito, normas praescribit, quibus articuli hic scripti obtemperent. Quae normae ad linguam spectatae, ut censeo, caliginosae, et ita perplexe definitae sunt. Quando notio classica neologismo antehabeatur? Quando circumscribatur? Quando licet, ut terminos fictos aut prius aliter adhibitos pro vocabulis mancis adhibeamus? Quaestiones tantum nonnullae quibus respondere non possumus. Quae cum ita sint, recensiones Latinitatis interdum arbitrariae potius quam obiectivae esse videntur. Martinus Vester (disputatio) 12:55, 21 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Si breviter, duo genera dicendi in Latinitate adsunt: humanisticum et Ciceronianum unum, scholasticum et scientificum alterum. In encyclopaediam ambo includenda sunt, neutrum prohibere possumus, ergo in paginis suis in multis casibus scriptor ipse facultatem eligendi habet. Quoad recensiones Latinitatis ("latinitas|-5 etc.), ipse eas pono, cum non stylisticas variationes, sed grammaticos errores vel verba manifeste fictilia video; denique, et eae recensiones a quodam participe positae, in casu quoque disputari possunt. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 10:22, 22 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Anglice conference

I wanted to create the Latin page of en:conference, but I could not choose which word to use among conferentia_(en), collatio_(en), congressus_(en), concilium_(en), coetus_(en), concursus_(en), contio_(en), conventio_(en), conventus_(en). Any suggestion? --Grufo (disputatio) 16:54, 23 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Ok, just found out that the Vatican uses Conferentia Episcopalis for “Episcopal Conference”. So conferentia be it. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:16, 24 Maii 2023 (UTC)

De genere pumilionis

We might have a problem with the following pages:

• Pumilio fusca
• Pumilio alba
• Pumilio flava
• Pumilio rubra

…Pumilio_(en) is masculine! --Grufo (disputatio) 18:46, 28 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Ok, solved already. It is both masculine and feminine (see Lucretius, De rerum natura, IV, 1162, "parvula, pumilio, chariton mia"). I ought to update the wiktionary page. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:54, 28 Maii 2023 (UTC)

There wasn't really a problem: we already discussed this term, including its gender, at Disputatio:Pumilio alba. As an aside, why anyone would rely on wiktionary I can't imagine, but, of course, it's a good idea to improve it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:09, 4 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I even participated in that discussion, but my memory betrayed me! Wiktionary can be great for the simplicity of clicking on a link in the references (which is exactly what I did to find that reference to Lucretius in Lewis&Short – I know, you had mentioned that quotation too…). --Grufo (disputatio) 17:44, 4 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

If it has some references now, that's a plus! I knew it when it had few or none. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:05, 5 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Most words have at least a link to Lewis&Short and Gaffiot. Sometimes there is also Du Cange. Rarely there are more sources. The typical references of a lemma look like this: mercator § References. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:05, 5 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

"Supermassive black hole"

I wonder what Latin term we can use for “supermassive black hole” (d:Q40392). Some pages already mention “foramen nigrum supermassivum”, but “massivus” is not a Latin adjective. Personally I would opt for “foramen nigrum gravissimum”. --Grufo (disputatio) 02:31, 1 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Either massivum or gravissimum would be ok but gravissimum would be more classical. Regardless it should match the neuter gender of the noun it modifies.-- Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 04:13, 1 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Of course, typo fixed :) --Grufo (disputatio) 04:24, 1 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

I am leaning towards “foramen nigrum supergrave” now. Rationale:

• It is better not to use superlatives in names, because superlatives need to preserve their grammatical function (e.g. “Ex his foramen nigrum gravissimum est Cygnus X-1” must be able to be translated as “The heavieast black hole among these is Cygnus X-1” and not as “The supermassive black hole among these is Cygnus X-1”)
• Massivus is not a Latin adjective, gravis is
• Super is a good prefix for something that has a threshold (> 100 000 M_☉)

--Grufo (disputatio) 00:41, 4 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

For English 'massive', Traupman (2007) gives Latin solidus and ingens. Cassell's (1968) gives "solidus (= dense), magnus (= great), gravis (= heavy)." Ainsworth's (1837) allows only one choice: "Massive, or massy, Solidus." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:36, 4 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

So (if unusually great mass is the point) persolidum foramen nigrum? or foramen nigrum inusitate solidum? or foramen nigrum solidum praeter solitum? Or (if size is the point) permagnum foramen nigrum? or ingens foramen nigrum? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:46, 4 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Size and mass are directly proportional, so they are both big and heavy. But the conventional thresholds are tied to the mass. To be precise:

• 3–100 M_☉: We have a stellar black hole – Lat.: foramen nigrum stellare (?)
• 100–100000 M_☉: We have an intermediate-mass black hole – Lat.: foramen nigrum intermediumVide adiectivum apud Lewis & Short: “that is between, intermediate (ante - class. and late Lat), Varr. R. R. 3, 5, 11; Paul. Nol. Carm. 26, 637.” (?)
• > 100000 M_☉: We have a supermassive black hole – Lat.: ?

As you correctly said, solidus means “dense”. It might apparently look like a good adjective for describing black holes, but the problem is that black holes' density decreases with their mass, and so in theory a very very large black hole could be less dense than thin air (and consequently a very solidum black hole would be the smallest possible one!). So I would say that it is better to exclude this adjective, as it would create a lot of confusion. Magnus and ingens are more related to the size I think – they would picture the object somehow, but would not be rigorous definitions. Another adjective that might possibly fit is potens (i.e. with a lot of gravitational pull), but it would fail at reminding us that the huge gravity is only a consequence of its mass, like English “massive” does. And so we are left only with gravis. Alternatively, there would still be the possibility of using supermassivus as a neologism. Very very rarely we do encounter the adjective massivus in scientific Latin. See pseudoheliodiscus massivus and canis massivus Britannicus (I did not find much else).

I might be reconsidering supermassivum after all; for the ancients mass and weight were basically synonyms, but today we must make a distinction (one is measured in kilograms and the other one in newtons and depends on where you measure it), and I was realizing that we do not have a classical adjective for “massive”. So it might be worth to “invent” one after all. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:38, 4 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Massa and by derivation massivus, etc. are scientific latin. Massa is the scientific latin term for scientific english mass in the sense used in physics which is pertinent here. It is unclear to me how the densities of supermassive blackholes compare. You would also have to know the volume (calculated from the event horizon?) which I think grows with the mass.---Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 00:25, 5 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

The density of a black hole (any black hole) is given by:

$\rho ={\frac {3c^{6}}{32\pi G^{6}M^{2}}}$

So, as the mass ($M$) increases the density ($\rho$) quadratically decreases. As mentioned in en:Schwarzschild radius#Other uses, a black hole with a radius of 2.67 UA would have the density of water. Or, to put it in a different way, a blob of water with a radius of 2.67 UA would become a black hole. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:50, 5 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Latinitas, Categoria:L +1, asteroids

I happened to visit Categoria:L +1 (assigned automatically when {{Latinitas|1}} or {{L1}} are added to the page) and realized that it is full of pages about asteroids. These pages were all created by either Robert.Baruch.Bot or Robert.Baruch with the {{L1}} template from the beginning. It is impossible to check all of them, but a recurring grammar mistake, for example, is that of using distans + space in ablative instead of accusative (e.g. “distans igitur a sole ... unitatibus [astronomicis] 1.89” instead of “distans igitur a sole ... unitates astronomicas 1.89”). Leaving aside the opportunity of ranking the pages that we ourselves create, I was thinking, should we not imagine a mechanism where the ranking of a page is assigned only after at least two or three editors have expressed their vote? We could imagine for instance a {{Latinitas 2.0}} template that uses the following syntax:

{{Latinitas 2.0|Grufo: -1|ExampleUser: -3|OtherUser: 1}}

The templates calculates the average vote given by the three users (i.e. -1) and then calls {{L-1}} accordingly. If only one editor has expressed their vote the template remains silent waiting for at least one more vote (or two more?). --Grufo (disputatio) 19:58, 14 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Ille textus de asteroidibus non a roboto compositus est. A tribus fere Vicipaedianis perlectus, correctus, probatus est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:22, 14 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Non de illis paginis hic dissero, sed eae occasionem meditationis generalis mihi dederunt (etiamsi spatium “distandi” forma accusativi dandum sit); non tantum ad iudicium aptius et a pluribus usoribus moderatum proferendum, sed etiam ad participationem simpliciorem efficiendam (quid facias hodie si cum iudicio alicuius usoris de latinitate non concordes? incipisne disputationem de gradu latinitatis paginae?). At meum est tantummodo propositum. --Grufo (disputatio) 21:09, 14 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Distare cum ablativo esse potest, — Livius maria pari ferme intervallo distantia, apud Forcellini I 1d, vel in allis lexicis. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 18:02, 15 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Demetrius. Apparently you are right, but it seems pretty rare (some dictionaries don't even mention it) and maybe slightly problematic too, because you can express in ablative the place from which something is distant. For instance, “Foro nimium distare Carinas” (Hor. Ep. I, 7, 48), i.e. “the Carinae being too far from the Forum”: if instead of nimium you had tribus pedibus it would not be clear if the Carinae are distant “three feet from the Forum” or instead “a Forum from the three feet”. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:38, 16 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Sed si de asteroidibus, non de Carinis loquimur ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:51, 16 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the bare ablative can almost always serve in the sense of "in/with regard to" (as in the cited example from Horace), but when we want to specify something in numbers (like a distance), the accusative of measure is better; so in the cited formula, not least because the ablative has already been used up (so to speak) for the sun (a sole), a less confusing style might involve changing the wording as recommended by Grufo. ¶ Maybe a better order, more closely connecting the number with the word distans, would be "A sole igitur ... unitates astronomicas 1.89 distans." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:19, 16 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Grufoni Iacoboque gratias ago. Si locutionem in his paginis de asteroidibus (fere 10,000!) mutare formulasque Latinitatis in eisdem paginis emendare consentimus, fortasse apud rectorem roboti quemdam edita automatica postulare possumus.

1. An volumus formulam Latinitatis eo modo, quem Grufo urget, mutare, nominibus iudicum additis?

2. Paginis encyclopaedicis inceptorum Vicimediorum sine editorum nomine a principio divulgatis, an melius erit (iterum per robotum) formulas Latinitatis in paginas disputationis respectivas (ubi nomina editorum dari solent) movere?

If we agree to change the wording in these asteroid pages (about 10,000 of them!), and also to make a change to the Latinitas formula, we could perhaps ask a bot owner to do the two jobs automatically at the same time.

1. Do we want to change the Latinitas formula as Grufo suggests, including the names of the judges?

2. Since encylopedia pages on Wikimedia projects have always been published without editors' names, do we want -- again with a bot's help -- to move the formulae to the talk page in each case, on which editors' names normally appear? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:28, 16 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

1. Formulam Latinitatis immutatam permanere praefero. Non puto rationem a Grufone propositam tantum meliorem quantum difficiliorem fore.
2. Distantiae asteroidum a sole in casu accusativo clariores exprimerentur. Rogemus ergo "rectorem roboti quendam" de hoc desiderio! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:03, 16 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

I'm not against accusative. - In most cases, we can find out from the editing history, who graded the Latin. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:49, 17 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Cum Demetrio bis consentio. Re vera praefero, tamquam iudex Latinitatis, nomen meum ex historia paginae reperiri sinere; "+1", "-3" vel sim. in summarium scribere soleo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:03, 17 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Cum Demetrio bis quoque consentio. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:47, 17 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

---

Prima adumbratio formulae. Novam formulam {{Urna Latinitatis}} scripsi, in paginas disputationum inserendam. Nova formula non est substituenda in locum {{Latinitas}}, sed duae formulae aestimationem Latinitatis meliorem facere possunt: formula {{Latinitas}} (in pagina) responsum formulae disputationis {{Urna Latinitatis}} accipiet. Est tantummmodo adumbratio, at vos peto ut eam exploretis. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:58, 17 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Apud Disputatio:Acidum et Disputatio:Nationale Admonitorium Concilium pro Aëronautica prima experimenta formulae inveniri possunt. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:49, 17 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Formula {{Urna Latinitatis}}, sicut in "Disputatio:Spacellificatio" videtur, nuntium falsum dat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:10, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Sumptio: Formula est adhuc adumbratio. Nihilominus, normam propositam scripseram, secundum quam qui est solus auctor paginae et solus iudex Latinitatis responsum in paginam transcribere non potest. Ergo, etiamsi formula in Disputatio:Spacellificatio petat ut formula {{L1}} paginae addatur, ego eam addere non possum. At tu potes, quia alius iudex es. Si {{L1}} paginae "Spacellificationis" addis meam aestimationem de Latinitate confirmabis. Aliter, tuam discordantem aestimationem in formulam {{Urna Latinitatis}} (apud paginam disputationis) inserere potes. Quid arbitraris de hoc mechanismo? --Grufo (disputatio) 19:41, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Deletiones propositae accumulatae

Apud Categoria:Deletiones propositae sunt plures deletiones propositae deletionem exspectantes. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:24, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Deletiones propositas peregi, una excepta. Categoria:Contributiones Propositae usque adhuc plures categorias continet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:05, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago, Andrew. «Usque adhuc plures categorias continet»: Ignoro cur fiat. Nulla pagina vel formula categoriam "Contributiones Propositae" invocat. Formula {{Unienda}} et eius redirectionem {{Contribuenda}} purgare conatus sum, at nullum effectum obtinui. @UV: Scisne tu?_{Demum solvi (vide infra) --Grufo} --Grufo (disputatio) 16:17, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

• Addendum 1. Cum quamquam paginam in categoria Contributiones Propositae cum “null edit” recenseam, eadem ad categoriam “Uniones paginarum propositae” movetur. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:23, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
• Addendum 2. Categoria:Contributiones Propositae est nunc vacua. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:33, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Auxilium cum Vicidata

Movi paginam Prospectus Montanus (California), sed formula Capsa urbis Vicidata nunc non operat. Censeo paginam https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q486860#sitelinks-wikipedia corrigendam esse. Pagina autem dimidiam protectionem habet, non mihi licet recensere. Quaeso, si possitis, adiuvate. Ornil (disputatio) 04:09, 28 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Nexum rectum in Vicidatis addidi. Nescio, cur hoc automatice non factum sit. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 09:30, 28 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago. Nunc formula operat. Ornil (disputatio) 15:39, 28 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Categorization/terminology of Computer Scientist

We currently have Categoria:Computatores which links to the English category for computer scientists, but has people like Zuckerberg and Jobs in it, who may be reasonably described as computatores (as in people involved in computing), but not computer scientists. Furthermore, it looks like we use informatica for computer science, and some pages use the term informaticus for computer scientists. I am thinking of creating a category Informatici and putting all academic folks there, to match Categoria:Physici, etc. However, what should we do about other "computer people"? Perhaps we can keep computatores as a super-category of informatici to include software engineers, computing execs, and the like, but I am not sure I like the name, since e.g. accountants can also be reasonably described as computatores in Latin. Should we perhaps not even have this category (I think English wikipedia doesn't), or call it something else? What are your thoughts? Ornil (disputatio) 17:37, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the interwiki link is wrong. Humans working as computers have played an important role in society for centuries, and most importantly that is what our Computator page tells us. Categoria:Computatores should therefore be linked to d:Q8527120 (i.e. English Category:Human computers), while English “computer scientist” could be Latin scientista computatralis. I am also noticing now that we have an absurd page named Computatrum humanum, which in my opinion should be merged with Computator (before machines were invented a computer could just be a human). --Grufo (disputatio) 18:26, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

In modern Romance languages this profession is generally called something like "informatici", e.g. es:Categoría:Informáticos or fr:Catégorie:Informaticien, see also wikidata interwiki list. So I am less inclined to use a calque from English. Ornil (disputatio) 18:55, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that in Romance languages Informatici are anything ranging from a computer technician to a computer scientist (more or less like what you could express with English “IT people”), so it depends on what kind of granularity we want to achieve; my take is that if we want to differentiate the role of a scientist from that of a computer technician we need more than one word. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:33, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

I assume we don't want to really create a very different category structure from what all the other wikis use. But we do get to pick which meaning to use for neo-latin terms. So, since "computer scientists" are almost universally translated as "informatici" in other languages, we should go with it, and then deal with corner cases as needed. Zuckerberg in Spanish is listed under "programmadores" and "empresarios", but not "informaticos", so we can do the same. Italian and French do list him in the equivalent of "informatici", but we don't have to. Ornil (disputatio) 20:12, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia is the only one that differentiates using informático teórico for computer scientist, which already rules out a computer technician. And indeed Spanish is the only language that calls Alan Turing – the computer scientist par excellence – an informático teórico. On the other hand you can hardly call Turing an informatico in Italian or an informaticien in French; indeed both Wiki pages say that he laid the foundation of informatique/informatica but they imply that he himself was not an informaticien/informatico. And the reason is that, since he did not have yet a computer, he was not an “IT person” enough for being an informatico/informaticien – because that is what informatique/informatica actually means. So “computer scientist” and informaticien can be quite distant in their meaning. I am still for using scientista computatralis / peritus scientiae computatralis for “computer scientist”, and informaticus for “IT person”. --Grufo (disputatio) 20:31, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

The French wiki is cleverly using fr:Catégorie:Personnalité_de_l'informatique to side-step the issue (and probably to be gender-neutral?), and perhaps we could do something like that, or like the Spanish, informaticus theoreticus (not sure that's good in Latin)? In any case we are in agreement that computatores is bad. I'd like to get feedback from other folks too. Ornil (disputatio) 22:35, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

«In any case we are in agreement that computatores is bad»: Definitely bad for translating Category:Computer scientists, perfect instead for translating Category:Human computers.

«Perhaps we could do something like that, or like the Spanish, informaticus theoreticus (not sure that's good in Latin)?»: While other people answer, can you also explain what does not convince you of scientista computatralis / peritus scientiae computatralis? We already use that nomenclature at our Alanus Mathison Turing page. --Grufo (disputatio) 23:07, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Mostly I don't like privileging English terminology, when it seems an outlier internationally speaking. And scientista computatralis is almost unpronounceable. Also, as a computer scientist myself, I think it's a singularly inapt term for the profession, since computer science isn't a science and does not study computers, so propagating that to other languages seems undesirable to me. The various versions of "informatica", while also imperfect feel more accurate. Ornil (disputatio) 00:19, 1 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

The reason the English wikipedia deserves its place of privilege is that it's the result of far, far, far more human computing power than any other wiki (at one time, than all the other wikis put together, but that situation must have changed by now). Despite its lapses and infelicities, it's the world's best guess of what a wiki-styled encyclopedia should be. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:47, 1 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

This terminology does not only exist in Wikipedia, it's what the field is called in various languages, so I don't think that this principle should apply to the vocabulary we use. If you tell me that the categorization system of enwiki is what we should follow, that I am willing to buy. However, our article on the subject is called informatica (like in most languages) and not scientia computatralis (or similar), so I'd rather be consistent, and call its practitioners something derived from the field. Ornil (disputatio) 02:08, 1 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

«The subject is called informatica»: I do not agree. Something is definitely called informatica but does not completely overlap with what in English is called “computer science” (although for its largest part does). Example: in English en:Theory of computation is a branch of computer science, but in Italian it:Teoria della computazione is not a branch of informatica, but of mathematics instead. “Computer science” is somewhat wider than informatica, or between mathematics and informatica. The way I think about informatica is more or less like “applied computer science” (definitely not “theoretical computer science” – for that Italian might prefer teoria della computazione, or sometimes informatica teorica – so you need to specify that it is theoretical). The terms informatica and computer science have also different histories: the first one is tied to Dreyfus, the second one is tied to Turing and others. --Grufo (disputatio) 03:10, 1 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Our article is called informatica, I am not making a claim about the subject. If you want to rename it, it's fine, but if not, we should be consistent with the name for those who practice it. Ornil (disputatio) 04:08, 1 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Of the two citations I placed on the page in support of the Latin term "informatica", in one it is used as an adjective, in the other it seems to serve as a noun. If we use it as a noun, we can take it either as a feminine singular (scilicet "scientia") or as a neuter plural ("res informaticae" = "informatica").

The practitioners of this science might indeed be "scientistae informatici" (but I think we have not till now found much use for the word "scientista") or they might be "eruditi scientiae informaticae", or various even better terms. In any case, once we have begun to write about them, they can be simply "informatici" (the same adjective used as a masculine plural noun). I look forward to reading the article as it grows.

As an aside, Iacobus may say that the English Wikipedia "deserves its place of privilege", but it hasn't won it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:14, 1 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

E duobus citationibus de usu vocabuli q.e. "informatica", quas in paginam Informatica immisi, una nomen adiectivum monstrat (Acta informatica), altera nomen substantivum ut videtur. Si sicut substantivum adhibemus, aut femininum singulare (scil. "scientia"), aut neutrum plurale ("res informaticae" = "informatica") esse potest.

Qui hac scientia utuntur aut "scientistae informatici" (sed nos usque hodie rarissime vocabulum q.e. "scientista" scripsisse censeo) aut "eruditi scientiae informaticae" aut aliquid melius nuncupare possumus ... Sed, opere nostro incepto, licet deinde "informaticos" appellare, eodem nomine adiectivo in substantivum masculinum plurale converso.

Alia res: Iacobo dicere licet Vicipaediam Anglicam privilegia distincta meruisse ... sed talia privilegia nondum nacta est :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:02, 1 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Nova pagina Scientia computatralis nuper creata, definitionibus in ambas paginas insertis quae synonymitate (mihi) suggerant (si erro, optime!), necesse est de utilitate duarum paginarum statuere. Pro tempore Informatica nexus intervicios habet; ita maneat dum consensum quaerimus. Aut hic aut in "Disputatio:Scientia computatralis" disputare licet. Bonum successum editoribus voveo :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:13, 2 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

To substitute or not to substitute? Formula:Salve

The {{Salve}} template supports substitution. The question is, independently on how it has been used so far, should it always be substituted from now on (i.e. {{subst:salve|...}})? I am asking because the choice is between adding to its documentation {{Formula semper substituenda}} and {{Formula substituibilis}}, and I opted for the former. The reason is that a message posted on someone's talk page with a signature should not change if in the future we happen to modify the {{Salve}} template. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:15, 1 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Dixerim: "Semper substituenda". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 9 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Names for North Californian cities

I am working on some North Californian locations, and I would like feedback on whether these names make sense, before I spend a lot of effort (I can't find any sources for names, unfortunately, not even for Palo Alto):

• Mountain View: Prospectus Montanus (California)
• Palo Alto: hispanice "tall stick": Palus Altus (California)

"Palo" hic "arborem/tree", non "palum/stick" significare mihi videtur, v. en:El Palo Alto. "Arbor Alta"? Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:33, 11 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

• Los Altos: hispanice "the heights": Alti (California)

For 'height'; in a topographical sense, Traupman gives culmen, and that might give you Culmina (n.) here, though (Terrae) Altae (f.) or just plain Alta (n.)—on which see the comment on "Hauts-de-Seine" below—might work; but see Andrew's caution invoking the ancient doctrine of VP:NF. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:25, 11 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

• Sunnyvale: Vallis Aprica (California) - should that be one word in Latin too? Or leave that as Sunnyvale in Latin?
• Redwood City: there doesn't seem to be a common word for "redwood", it's not a botanical genus/family, but one plausible candidate is sequoia, so should it just be Urbs Redwood (California) or something like Sequoiapolis (California)? Ornil (disputatio) 04:01, 11 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Redwoods are literally Sequoioideae, so that might give you Urbs Sequoioidearum (whether the urbanites there would rejoice in the ungainliness of this name is unknown); but again see the caution below. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:32, 11 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Toponyms should ideally appear in Latin sources, and if not, then better

• Sunnyvale (vel Latine "Vallis Aprica") est... etc.

or, if the page title is your own translation, it should be marked {{Convertimus}} vel {{FD ref}} Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 08:05, 11 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Cum Demetrio consentio. Per regulam nostram (vide VP:NF) licet nomina illa perpauca, quae e vocabulis communibus tantum conficiuntur et sensum litteralem suum retinent, Latine eodem sensu convertere. Hac ratione, mea mente, "Prospectus Montanus"{{Convertimus}} accipere possumus (quid dicis, Demetri?). His casibus necesse est rationem, cur toponymum a principio datum sit, e fontibus monstrare, quia plurima toponyma sensum nobis obvium re vera non habent. Ergo Saeptum Collegii (Terra Mariae){{Convertimus}} loco "College Park" pro tempore accepimus, si recte memini, quia hoc contextu "park" (toponymum agrorum ruralium) "saeptum" vel "pratum moeniis cinctum, latifundio adiacens" certe dicit. ("Alti" scribere licet? Nomen Francogallicum novum "Hauts-de-Seine" in "Alta Sequanae" iamdudum dubitanter converti, quia "les hauts" non sunt viri sed loca alta vel excelsa.) Hae toponyma perpauca a nobis ficta, dubitanter conversa, statim reici necesse est quando fontem fidelem denuo reperimus.

Vocabula composita Anglica fere nunquam convertere possumus; vocabula composita Latina fingere non licet. "Sequoiapolis", si scriptores Vaticani sive alii fidei digni iam fingunt, laete accipi potest, sed "Sequoiapolis" a Vicipaediano ficta reici debemus. Multo melius est nomen barbarum a principio scribere. "Los Altos" et "Sunnyvale" in aliis Vicipaediis non convertuntur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:11, 11 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

I am convinced that we should probably leave Sunnyvale alone. It feels a bit awkward to me not to translate Spanish-derived names with transparent Latin cognates, such as Palo Alto and Los Altos, but you are saying that unlike Mountain View, because the compositional meaning is not transparent in the local language, which is now English and not Spanish, we shouldn't translate? Ornil (disputatio) 15:28, 11 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything final! I am uncertain. Spanish is a highly important minority language of the US ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:09, 11 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

My sense is that, as a non-speaker of Spanish, I didn't know what "Palo Alto" meant, but I think I can recognize in "Palus Altus" that it is the same place. If the Latin translation was dramatically different and non-cognate, then I would feel like translation is unhelpful. Ornil (disputatio) 17:22, 11 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the possible translation is always not the only one — so it's better to either find that the Latin name has already been used, or write the name as it is. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 18:15, 11 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Demetrius. Our purpose here is definitely not to create names (that's for a Neo-Latin lexicon perhaps). Wikipedia is a encyclopedia in progress, and our real purpose is to write pages based on sources. This is exactly what I have done with my recent pages on foods and dishes: I write the page, I write other related pages, and as a later step I consider whether the name can be translated into Latin or not. Often, meanwhile, I encounter a source in which the name has already been translated! Less time is wasted that way, and pagenames are easily changed. Go ahead, Ornil, write those pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 06:36, 12 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Dum scribis, quaere verbum adiectivum q.e. "Palaltensis" a zoologo quodam (Stanfordiensi?) olim usitatum, nisi fallor. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 12 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

De nomine Dominici Theotocopuli

Nomen "El Greco", quo nunc utimur, vix mihi Latinum videtur. E pagina Anglica: "Theotokópoulos acquired the name El Greco in Italy, where the custom of identifying a man by designating a country or city of origin was a common practice. The curious form of the article (El) may be from the Venetian language or more likely from the Spanish, though in Spanish his name would be El Griego. The Cretan master was generally known in Italy and Spain as Dominico Greco, and was called only after his death El Greco)."

Propono, igitur, Dominicum Graecum vel Dominicum Theotocopulum secundum ipsum pictorem (qui litteris Graecis utebatur); fontem tamen aequalem illis temporibus nequeo reperire. Quid faciamus? Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 01:33, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Salve, Aristippe! «Vix mihi Latinum videtur»: Nam non est Latinum, sicut non Anglicum (en:El Greco loco The Greek) neque Italianum (it:El Greco loco Il Greco); est agnomen (origine ignota), et propterea, ut opinor, verbatim servandum est. --Grufo (disputatio) 01:54, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Salve! Dissentio: mea sententia, si Latinae fontes desunt, nomine proprio et primigenio est utendum neque communi in linguis vulgaribus. Quare puto Dominicum Theotocopulum esse scribendum. Tamen Dominicus Graecus nomen mihi accipiendum videatur, si "Dominico Greco" undique dicebatur ipse florens, cum hoc nomen facilius in linguam Latinam convertere possumus. Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 02:04, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Sed, cum nomen notum sit El Greco, fontes Latinos qui nomine Dominici Graeci vel Dominici Theotocopuli utuntur nondum habemus. --Grufo (disputatio) 02:48, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Hic habetis "Greche, delle, or El Greco, Dornenico Theotocopuli," ubi "Dornenico" recte "Domenico" legi, sed melius Dominico scribi, puto. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:19, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Ita vero scribendum Δομήνικος Θεοτοκόπουλος, sed plerique nostrum consentimus, Graeca nomina converti posse in linguam Latinam more Romanorum scriptorum. Ceterum Iacobus fontem quandam praebuit. Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 03:32, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

«Graeca nomina converti posse in linguam Latinam more Romanorum scriptorum»: Quaestio non est num nomen Graecum convertere possimus: certe possumus; quaestio est num nomen cuiusdam paginae ex quodam nomine an ex quodam agnomine dandum sit.

The problem is not whether we can translate a Greek name: of course we can; the problem is wheter a given page name should be based on a name or a nickname. --Grufo (disputatio) 03:48, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Non intellego quod dicis. De nomine paginae disserimus; nomen permultarum paginarum e Graeco conversum exemplo expresso carente (ut, exempli gratia, Cyriaci Metsotacis). Si vulgo "El Greco" dicere placet, quid nostrum interest? Praeterea Gallice "Le Greco" habetur; quid ni? Dico igitur nobis Dominicus Theotocopulus nomen est scribendum. Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 03:58, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Si Vicipaedia Francogallica Le Greco scribit non est quia omnia nomina apud eos Francogallice scribenda sunt, sed est quia pictor hoc nomine in Francia notus est. Sed num “Graecus” quoque nomen est per quod Latinitas pictorem El Greco noscit? Rogo, sed nescio, fontes sequor. --Grufo (disputatio) 04:17, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Ecce de quo quaeritur! Si agnomen in vulgus notum est scribendum, nescio qua lingua sit utendum, cum aliud agnomen apud alios dicatur. Ex hoc dico, si Latinae fontes re vera carent, agnomen in vulgus notum non esse paginae in titulo inscribendum, sed nomen proprium, quod ipse sese vocabat, de quo pagina agit. Praeterea, puto, de "Dominico Theotocopulo" nomine ipso Latino non est disputandum, ut dicis, sed modo nomen proprium an agnomen in vulgus notum sit nominandum. Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 17:28, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

«Greche, delle, or El Greco, Dornenico Theotocopuli»: Hic (p. xliii) melius legitur (“Domenico”, haud “Dornenico”). Sed ille est fons Anglicus, non Latinus. --Grufo (disputatio) 03:48, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

OK, hic habetis fontem Checicum, et fontes Hispanicos hic et hic, et fontem Nederlandicum, et fontes Theodiscos hic et hic et hic et hic. Certe fons Latinus inveni potest? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:04, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Conatus sum, sed nullum fontem Latinum inveni. Theodisce hic (p. 99) appellatus est “Dom. Theotocopuli”. Notanda est pagina Disputatio:El Greco, ubi de nomine pictoris iam dissertatum est. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:36, 16 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Vicipaedia:Structura paginae obsolevit

I just reviewed (only graphically) the page Vicipaedia:Structura paginae and I moved the example scheleton of new pages to Vicipaedia:Exemplaria communia/Pagina Vicipaediana. This comes in handy especially now that we have the {{Creetur}} template: right before creating a new page an editor can add to their user page {{Creetur|NOVA PAGINA XXX|Crea!|Vicipaedia:Exemplaria communia/Pagina Vicipaediana}} and the following link will appear: Crea!.

However, while creating Vicipaedia:Exemplaria communia/Pagina Vicipaediana, I could not help but noticing that the example structure displayed is quite outdated. Anyone willing to give a new look to Vicipaedia:Exemplaria communia/Pagina Vicipaediana? --Grufo (disputatio) 13:46, 17 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Paginam consiliariam "Vicipaedia:Structura paginae" ad interim restitui. An usum huius paginae et paginae novae "Vicipaedia:Exemplaria communia/Pagina Vicipaediana" eundem esse debent, nescio: rationem mutationum, quas in paginam "Vicipaedia:Structura paginae" introduxisti, non bene intellego. Possumus de hac re in paginis disputationum ... disputare :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 18 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Nova substitutio: {{subst:petitio}}

I have created a metatemplate for those templates that ask users to write a message in the talk page (e.g. {{Delenda}}, {{Movenda}}, etc.). Its main purposes are that of encouraging editors to leave a message in the talk page when they use certain templates, and that of automatically creating a link to the right discussion and assisting the editor in the process. For now I have only configured {{Delenda}} to be used with {{subst:petitio}} (the template can still be used like it was always used though – i.e. directly invoked), and nothing is documented yet. To try it, go to our harenarium, write {{subst:petitio|delenda}}, and publish the page, then follow the instructions. Let me know what you think! --Grufo (disputatio) 15:39, 26 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

I have now configured the following templates to be usable with {{subst:petitio}}:

• {{Delenda}}
• {{Movenda}}
• {{Movenda ad Scriptorium}}
• {{Movenda ad Vicicitationem}}
• {{Movenda ad Vicifontem}}
• {{Movenda ad Victionarium}}
• {{Unienda}}

--Grufo (disputatio) 13:48, 27 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Nescio an bene intellexi: an necesse erit, omnibus occasionibus, {{subst:petitio|delenda}} loco {{delenda}} scribere? Si ita sit, contra hanc mutationem suadeo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:16, 31 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Haud semper haec substitutio adhibenda est, sed tantummodo cum usor velit. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:42, 31 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Bene. Gratias tibi ago. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:29, 31 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

De malefico pervicaci

Maleficus adest apud nos: Usor:Con ch cái Nhac Ny qui iam aliis nominibus nostram Vicipaediam disturbavit. Porro quidem Usorem:AmandaNP calumniatus est hac in redactione. Suadeo vobis huius modi redactiones penitus abradere, si vultis. Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 06:23, 3 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Obstruxi. Tibi omnibusque gratias ago propter vigilias. Ne desinatis! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:27, 3 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

De interpuncto adhibendo ad partem decimalem a parte integra separandam

Apud Vicipaedia:De orthographia § Quantitates hanc regulam addidi:

Ambo punctum (.) et virgula (,) adhiberi possunt ad partem decimalem a parte integra separandam, at multi auctores Vicipaediani puncto in loco virgulae favent

Sed non sum certus num regula a me scripta consensum habeat, et egomet saepe incertus fuit utrum punctum an virgula adhibendi essent. Attamen credo quandam regulam nobis scribendam esse de interpuncto adhibendo ad partem decimalem a parte integra separandam. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:46, 5 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Quid dicit ISO? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:03, 5 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Transcribo a Vicipaedia Anglica (ISO 31-0 § Numbers):

ISO 31-0 (after Amendment 2) specifies that "the decimal sign is either the comma on the line or the point on the line". This follows resolution 10 of the 22nd CGPM, 2003.
For example, one divided by two (one half) may be written as 0.5 or 0,5.

--Grufo (disputatio) 20:55, 5 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Nova. Etiamsi ISO 31-0 ambo virgulam et punctum scribere sinat, ignorabam disputationem ubi usus puncti factus est regula Vicipaediana. Itaque paginam denuo mutavi. --Grufo (disputatio) 05:06, 28 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Auxilium barbarum quaero

Novam formulam {{Subpagina translatoria}} habemus ad lectores de subpaginis translatoriis monendos, sed quinque inscriptiones barbaras tantum in Vicipaedia inveni (de, en, es, it, tl). Auxilium quaero ut tabella sequens (demum in formulam transcribenda) augeatur corrigaturque. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:06, 6 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Tessera linguae	Inscriptio
de	Das ist die deutsche Übersetzung der übergeordneten Seite (Überarbeitung XXXX). Allgemeine Informationen zur Bearbeitung von Wikipedia finden Sie auf der Seite Vicipaedia:De recensendo.
en	This is the English translation of the parent page (revision XXXX). You can find general information about editing Wikipedia in the page Vicipaedia:De recensendo.
es	Ésta es la traducción al Español de esta página (revisión XXXX). Puede encontrar información general sobre como editar en Wikipedia en la página Vicipaedia:De recensendo.
it	Questa è la traduzione italiana della pagina superiore (revisione XXXX). Puoi trovare informazioni generali su come contribuire a Wikipedia presso Vicipaedia:De recensendo.
tl	Ito ang salinwikang Tagalog ng pinagkuhanang pahina (id XXXX). Maaari mong mahanap ang mga pagkalahatang katanungan sa pag-edit sa Wikipedia sa Vicipaedia:De recensendo.
(lingua ignota)	Haec est versio barbara paginae superioris (secundum recensionem XXXX). Instructiones generales de Vicipaedia recensenda apud paginam Vicipaedia:De recensendo inveni potes.

Solentne subtilia spatia longam lineam interpositam circumdare?

Novam formulam {{Linea interposita longa}} vel {{---}} habemus ad characterem U+2014 scribendum (i.e. — vel —). Eam programmavi ut spatia subtilia ( ) lineam circumdent nisi argumentum |iuxta detur. At, revera, ignoro normam typographicam, utrum spatia subtilia lineam interpositam longam soleant circumdare an talis linea iuxta verba ponenda sit. Quomodo creditis formulae sine argumentis se gerendum esse? Formula Anglica nullum spatium addit (neque tamen ullam optionem spatii subtilis habet). Apud paginam "Mechanismus" effectum formulae (nunc cum spatiis subtilibus) observari potest.

We have the new template {{Linea interposita longa}}, or {{---}}, to type the U+2014 character (i.e. —, or —). I programmed it so that thin spaces ( ) surround the dash unless the |iuxta parameter is given. To be honest, however, I do not know the typographical rule, whether thin spaces normally surround an “Em Dash” or instead this is written straight between words. What do you believe the template's default behavior should be when called without parameters? The English version does not add spaces (though does not offer an option to add spaces either). You can see the an example of this template (at the moment with thin spaces) at the "Mechanismus" page.

--Grufo (disputatio) 14:09, 7 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

On English Wikipedia, at Dash § Spacing and substitution, a complex picture emerges:

According to most American sources (such as The Chicago Manual of Style) and some British sources (such as The Oxford Guide to Style), an em dash should always be set closed, meaning it should not be surrounded by spaces. But the practice in some parts of the English-speaking world, including the style recommended by The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage for printed newspapers and the AP Stylebook, sets it open, separating it from its surrounding words by using spaces or hair spaces (U+200A) when it is being used parenthetically. The AP Stylebook rejects the use of the open em dash to set off introductory items in lists. However, the "space, en dash, space" sequence is the predominant style in German and French typography. (See En dash versus em dash below.)

In Canada, The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing, The Oxford Canadian A to Z of Grammar, Spelling & Punctuation: Guide to Canadian English Usage (2nd ed.), Editing Canadian English, and the Canadian Oxford Dictionary all specify that an em dash should be set closed when used between words, a word and numeral, or two numerals.

The Australian government's Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers (6th ed.), also specifies that em dashes inserted between words, a word and numeral, or two numerals, should be set closed. A section on the 2-em rule (⸺) also explains that the 2-em can be used to mark an abrupt break in direct or reported speech, but a space is used before the 2-em if a complete word is missing, while no space is used if part of a word exists before the sudden break. Two examples of this are as follows:

• I distinctly heard him say, "Go away or I'll ⸺".
• It was alleged that D⸺ had been threatened with blackmail.

How should Latin Wikipedia behave then? --Grufo (disputatio) 02:48, 28 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Is an m-dash used in writing Latin text? Let's have an example or two.

An scriptores hanc lineam longam in textu Latino inserunt? Da exempla s.t.p., @Grufo: Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 28 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Demum argumentum |1=iuxta removi, et tres formulas differentes sic creavi – {{---}}, {{.---.}}, et {{..---..}} – ut usor seriem characterum idoneam eligere possit:

• A{{---}}B

  ↳ A—B

  ↳ A—B

• A{{.---.}}B

  ↳ A — B

  ↳ A — B

• A{{..---..}}B

  ↳ A — B

  ↳ A — B

--Grufo (disputatio) 17:27, 31 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Appendicula de hac pagina

I just created a new template, {{Appendicula de hac pagina}}, which I think requires consensus. I just tested it in the Lucia Salani page (you can see it at the very end of the page). Two are the main points that need to be discussed, I believe:

1. Whether having such a small “appendicula”, specifically about the page in Vicipaedia, is a desired feature (in the pages that require it)
2. If yes, whether “De hac pagina” must appear in the Table of Contents (currently it does).

In case no consensus is reached on at least one point I will restore the previous version of that page and open a deletion request for the template. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:08, 15 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Incertus sum. Nonne tales notationes in pagina disputationis inscribere possumus? De paginis menstruas id iam facimus. Dic, @Grufo: de quibus rebus appendix paginae, a pagina disputationis differens, utilis erit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:14, 15 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Salve, Andrew. Certe possumus, sed, exempli gratia, {{TransHebd}}, quae in paginam disputationis inseritur, categoriam Translatio Hebdomadalis supplet, et hodie haec categoria igitur multas disputationes (in loco paginarum) numerat. Idem fit cum Categoria:Paginae mensis. Haec est ratio quae ad creandum formulam me duxit. Aliquae formulae de paginis honoratis iam paginas principales afficiunt (e.g. {{FA stella}}). Alia solutio est mentionem categoriarum in paginis manu scribere (et a formulis disputatoriis eam removere). --Grufo (disputatio) 16:35, 15 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago. Rationem bonam proposuisti! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:53, 15 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Andrew, quam rationem putas bonam? Formulam {{Appendicula de hac pagina}} inserere an categorias “Categoria:Paginae mensis” et “Categoria:Translatio Hebdomadalis” in paginas manu scribere (i.e. nulla formula utendo)? --Grufo (disputatio) 19:52, 15 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Videbimus quid dicunt alii, sed, mea mente, utile erit has informationes (e.g. paginae mensis, translationis hebdomadalis, etiam fortasse paginae cottidianae) quoquomodo in pagina ipsa includere (e.g. per appendiculam) quia, hoc modo, categorias respectivas in paginam ipsam, non in pagina disputationis, ponimus.

We'll see what others say, but I think it would be useful to put this information on the page itself (e.g. in an appendix) because, that way, the categories will lead to the page itself, not to the talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:35, 16 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

@UV: De tua opinione quoque quaero. --Grufo (disputatio) 12:55, 18 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

---

Nova. Nunc paginae quas Categoria:Translationes hebdomadales numerat fomulis {{Appendicula de hac pagina|{{TranslHebd}}}} utuntur. Aliquid simile cum Categoria:Paginae mensis fieri potest. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:42, 12 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Pagina Ianus primum exemplum formulae {{Appendicula de hac pagina}} + novae formulae {{PagMens}} exhibet. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:46, 14 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Annales

I have created a new template, {{Annales}}, which collects monthly statistics about Vicipaedia (see Specialis:Census). The first “census” is programmed to be collected in September (in two days). I will be back at that point with more information. Until then the template is not yet usable. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:33, 30 Augusti 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so, long story short. At the moment the {{Annales}} “suite” is made of four templates:

• {{annales}}, which allows to get a single historical information about Vicipaedia – e.g. {{Annales|2023|9|commentationes}} gives the number of pages in the “main” namespace collected in September 2023, which is equal to 138140 pages.
• {{annales/omnia mensis}} prints a table of the month similar to Specialis:Census (see below)
• {{annales/omnia anni}} prints 12 tables of the type {{annales/omnia mensis}} (currently only one month is available)
• {{annales/capsa status}} is only a “capsa” template that tells the state of the archive (i.e. up-to-date or not up-to-date), useful for administration pages.

Here is an example of how {{Annales/omnia mensis|2023|9}} looks like:

Census Septembris 2023

Census paginarum
Paginae in spatio nominali principali	138 140
Paginae (Omnes paginae. Hic numerus includit paginas disputationum, redirectiones, etc.)	279 698
Fasciculi impositi	0
Census recensionum
Recensiones paginarum factae ab initio Vicipaediae	3 779 344
Recensiones per paginam	13.51
Census usorum
Usores relati (index rationum)	171 349
Usores activi (index rationum)	161
Automata (index rationum)	8
Magistratus (index rationum)	17
Interface administrators (index rationum)	1
Grapheocrates (index rationum)	1
Censurae (index rationum)	0
Stewards (index rationum)	0
Account creators (index rationum)	0
Importers (index rationum)	0
Transwiki importers (index rationum)	0
IP block exemptions (index rationum)	0
Check users (index rationum)	0
Push subscription managers (index rationum)	0
Users blocked from the IP Information tool (index rationum)	0
Confirmed users (index rationum)	0
Census huius censūs
Dies et hora censūs	1 Septembris 2023, 00:01:12

---

Vicipaedia semel in mense censetur. Census nimis antiqui absunt.

Data collection has just started, so at the moment there are only statistics concerning September 2023. We might be able to appreciate this template only after some months.

Now about data collection… This is another template that requires repetitive actions from editors. But:

• Only once a month an action is required (preferably on the first day of the month)
• It is probably the easiest repetitive action in the entire Vicipaedia! All we will have to do on the 1st of October will be editing Formula:Annales/tabulae and saving the page without touching anything! The template will self-update after a null edit (but at the condition that the data for the current month is missing, and that condition will not be true until 1st October 2023).

As you can see, Specialis:Census prints more data compared to what this template is able to collect. However I have no idea how to extract some data such as the number of stewards or the number of account creators (any help will be appreciated). Furthermore, if continuous monthly data older than September 2023 is available somewhere I will be happy to transcribe it into the archive.

This is all for now. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:59, 1 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Here is how to extract more data (see the source code for details):

Automata (index rationum)	8
Interface administrators (index rationum)	1
Grapheocrates (index rationum)	1
Censurae (index rationum)	0
Stewards (index rationum)	0
Account creators (index rationum)	0
Importers (index rationum)	0
Transwiki importers (index rationum)	0
IP block exemptions (index rationum)	0
Check users (index rationum)	0
Push subscription managers (index rationum)	0
Users blocked from the IP Information tool (index rationum)	0
Confirmed users (index rationum)	0

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:05, 9 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, UV! I will definitely add these to {{Annales}}! --Grufo (disputatio) 03:56, 11 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

Update. Done :) --Grufo (disputatio) 08:00, 13 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

Some statistics are available at Stats, but I don't know how these compare with your Annales.

Statistica aliqua apud Stats reperiri soleo, sed an hae cum statisticis tuis comparari possunt nescio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:40, 1 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew. That website would be perfect for transcribing old data into the archive! But unfortunately somehow some things look different over there. For instance, according to that website the “active users” on Vicipaedia are always around 40, however if I write {{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} – which is what {{Annales}} collects once a month – I get 157 active users at the moment of writing. Also the number of pages according to that website in July was 212056, but if I write right now {{NUMBEROFPAGES}} I get 279701, which is 67645 more pages. So if I used that data for reconstructing the previous missing months in our {{Annales}}, we would see a sudden change in magnitude in most fields between August 2023 and September 2023. Our page Specialis:Census agrees with our {{Annales}}. It would be interesting to discover why this discrepancy exists… --Grufo (disputatio) 13:44, 1 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Macrons

Why doesn’t Latin Wikipedia use macrons to indicate long vowels? -Futurama forever (disputatio) 06:08, 8 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

We do use them when we want to indicate long vowels. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:57, 8 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Our usage follows the usual modern style for Latin. In general only schoolbooks and dictionaries use macrons on every long vowel. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:11, 8 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

---

Interestingly, recently I happened to watch a video by Luke Ranieri that shows through epigraphy that Romans did use macrons more than I thought (apices to be exact). I had got to know this Latin speaker while writing the page spatiplanum (the source for the word comes indeed from his blog). The name of the video is: Romans *did* write with macrons! Video essay on Latin Apices & Hidden Quantity. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:36, 16 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Gaia Zucchi

Browsing the Wikidata page of Gaia Zucchi, I could not help but notice that there are a lot of translations of this biography, and all of them were created this month – which obviously shows a big coordinated effort. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it makes me wonder if we should also have a template like {{en:Connected contributor (paid)}}, or simply like the more generic one {{en:Connected contributor}}, (to be added to talk pages in similar cases). The only one we currently have, {{Pagina infeste propagata}}, covers only malicious cases and is not added to the talk page but to the page itself. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:06, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Rationem, qua scribis, intellego, sed diagnosis contributionum interdum difficilis est. Magnam partem mutationum apud Vicidata editor noster @Rex Momo: fecit. Postulare ergo possumus an stipendium quaesiverit necne! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Verum est. Hoc est insolitum phaenomenon. Nuntia recentia de actrice absunt – nulla evenit hoc mense – atque ea est actrix relative ignota. Nihilominus auctores Vicipaediani simul paginam in pluribus linguis creaverunt. Eos spero hunc venituros esse ad aenigma explicandum. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:42, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Utilitatem autem propositionis tuae non nego. De tali re @Billinghurst: recenter mihi locutus est (vide Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby#Ioannes Teresi). Aliquot paginas longissimas habemus de scriptoribus parvi momenti, sed Latinis, ab ipsis fortasse semper auctas (e.g. Ioannes Teresi, Alaenus Divutius: sunt et aliae). An nobis oportet tales paginas ad infinitum accipere, aut ad brevitatem cogere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:49, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Certus sum paginam Ioannes Teresi ab ipso auctore curatam esse. Sed non credo hanc notionem tam notabilem esse, quam quod libros in pagina memoratos ipsum auctorem edidisse. Absentia nominis impositi loqui facit non facile. Criterion meum non est utrum pagina a ipso auctore an alio Vicipaediano creata sit, sed num fontes tertii de re loquantur (nihilominus ipse auctor paginam curans solet esse malum signum). Et mihi videtur illa pagina non facile esse defendenda. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:03, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Suspicatur aliquis me aliquem reddere ut paginam pro me aperire? Hoc me tristem facit. Rei Momo (disputatio) 17:23, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Rei Momo. I apologize if I have created any kind of discomfort. We had more than one case of promotional page creations, and so I am assuming it is an existing marketing strategy. I saw that the Gaia Zucchi page was born out of nowhere in several languages and I thought it was a coordinated effort. However, differently than other times, I never thought that this specific page was not encyclopedic or was at all problematic. It just reminded me that earlier I had seen the {{en:Connected contributor}} template on English Wikipedia (it's a template for talk pages) and I wondered if we should have it too; not because paid/interested contributions are inherently bad (in fact, they can be excellent), but because they have a higher likelihood of pushing an agenda (not necessarily an extreme one). However, in this specific case I should have checked also the usernames of who created those pages, and not just when those pages were created. So please, accept my apologies. Out of curiosity, why did you create so many pages of such a minor actress? I am Italian too, but I had never heard of her! (You don't have to answer this question if you don't feel like.) --Grufo (disputatio) 18:02, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Comment: There is a WMF Foundation requirement in the terms and conditions that paid editing is clearly defined with last update at m:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment. So I would say that this community is be bound by this requirement and holding editors to that standard as a minimum, and after that it is your local prerogative to have more specific requirements, eg. enWP's w:en:Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Often those editors undertaking that sort of work are doing it crosswiki and they utilise unreliable/biased sources, and translation bots, so the whole action can be problematic. The global sysops (GS) have a general awareness of some of this, especially when it is crosswiki, and do take some actions, though ultimately it is our task to alert a community, and its administrators, of the issue, or the crosswiki nature that we are seeing, and to allow a community to do what they best see fit and to hold that accountability. [GS can have their personal opinions to guide us, however, in the end it is not ours to repeatably act when you have admins.]

At the same time, there are multi-lingual Wikipedians who do take an interest in a person and look to expand the information on a single topic across the span of WMF wikipedias. As looks to be the case with this article. So it is difficult. The best thing that I have found is to specifically ask people, who seem to be editing on those margins, to read the paid editing and conflict of interest editing guidance, and to ensure that they are complying with editor declarations, and processes. Billinghurst (disputatio) 22:38, 27 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

@ Grufo: accept apologizes.

@ Billinghurst: very good!!!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 05:55, 28 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Eversor

administratores: P Licinii Crassi paginam tueri debes et obsistere, [2] Fresh Blood (disputatio) 19:10, 28 Septembris 2023 (UTC)

Capsa mendosa?

In capsa scholae Vicidata in commentario de Collegio Beatae Mariae Magdalenae, cur bis datur heraldicum collegii insigne? Similiter in commentariis de collegiis Magnae Aulae, Keblensi, Mertonensi, Novo, Omnium Animarum, sanctarum Annae et Catharinae, atque Vigorniensi. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:02, 2 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Fortasse Tacsipacsi adiuvare potest. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:01, 2 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

CommuniaCat mendosum?

In commentario de Francisco Crispi, cur legimus "Vicimedia Communia plura habent quae ad Franciscus Crispi spectant" pro "Vicimedia Communia plura habent quae ad Franciscum Crispi spectant"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:07, 2 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Duo argumenta sunt scribenda. Paginam correxi. --Grufo (disputatio) 11:45, 2 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Formula {{subst:salve}} in suo capite collocanda est

I have edited {{subst:Salve}} in order to make it generate its own heading ({{en:Welcome}} and many other interwiki similar templates do the same). I.e.

== Salve, UstrixExemplaris! ==

...

instead of

'''Salve, UstrixExemplaris!'''

...

This reminds more than ever that the template must be substituted (i.e. {{subst:salve}} instead of {{salve}}), or otherwise the “[ fontem recensere ]” button will not appear.

In the documentation page I have left instructions on how to convert an old transclusion of this template into a substitution. There is no hurry to do so, but we might start wondering how to do it. The problem is that there are 3417 transclusions, and it is definitely a kind of job for a bot (but I would not know how to program one, and @UV has not been active in the last months). This is not however an urgent task. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:32, 3 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Ecce robotum novum: Grufobot

I have created a new bot, Grufobot, with the only purpose of making a null edit of Formula:Annales/tabulae once per month. This is however my first attempt at creating a bot, so I can only hope it will work. Moreover, I have no clue of what Wikipedia's bot policy says – e.g. if I have to ask permission to create a bot, and similar issues (any help will be appreciated). --Grufo (disputatio) 23:32, 6 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

There is a policy but I'm not too clear on the details :) I did this once before, so I will remind myself what I did last time and then I'll be ready to do it again. The main thing is that you ask for a bot flag, and if no one objects, you get it. Let's take it that you asking.

I'm very glad, by the way, that you are learning to operate a bot. This could be very useful to Vicipaedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:07, 7 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Andrew. The first thing I would need to know is if I can have the scripts hosted online (so that they can run also when I am not connected) or if they have to be launched from my computer. I see for example that the MetaWiki bot Millbot has a subpage named translations.py; however it is not a Python script, but contains only Wikitext (so I suppose the bot instructions are located elsewhere?). I think I would need to know all the basics. Once I have those I think I can manage the programming part. --Grufo (disputatio) 11:02, 7 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Since @UV: is perhaps busy elsewhere, would it help to ask the advice of @Amahoney:? She runs a bot and must have faced some of the same questions. Or perhaps @Klein Muçi:, not currently active here but maybe on other Wikipedias. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:39, 7 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure you understand, if you get the bot flag you have to promise to clear up the mess if the bot misbehaves. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 7 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Of course! But I won't make anything else for now other than null-editing Formula:Annales/tabulae once a month. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:51, 7 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Grufo! You can run a bot program without having the bot flag, and I think it's useful to do that for the first couple of times, just so you know everything's OK. If you don't have the bot flag, then the program will be slowed down and may also be stopped if you try to edit too many pages too rapidly; a program logged in to a bot user doesn't have those limits. Otherwise there's no difference. I haven't tried running a bot on the server, though: I run all my programs on my local machine, as a background batch job while I am logged in. If all you want to do (so far!) is a single edit to a single page, that should work fine. My programs are in Perl rather than Python, and you can use any language you like. I assume you've seen the API, documented here. I realize I haven't answered your main question, but feel free to ask more if you want -- I'm no expert on MediaWiki or on bots, but I do know some of the basics. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:46, 7 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, now I understand what the bot flag does. I might as well run the bot without the bot flag then, for what it has to do it will be more than fine. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:32, 8 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

renovatio.js

Recently I created Usor:Grufo/scripts/renovatio.js copying it from en:User:Ahecht/Scripts/refresh.js. It adds a “Null edit category members” button on the right side of the page when you visit a category, which is very useful every time we move a category used by a template. For instance Categoria:Nexus ad Vicidata usque adhuc absunt, although not used anymore, still contained more than 1000 zombie pages; this script solved the problem.

To use the script, add the following line to your common.js file:

{{subst:+js|Usor:Grufo/scripts/renovatio.js}}

(If it tells you that there is an error, just publish the page anyway – the error is caused by the fact that {{subst:+js|...}} is not recognized as valid JavaScript; but it is a substitution, so it will be replaced with valid JavaScript).

P.S. How do we say “(programming) script” in Latin? --Grufo (disputatio) 16:27, 8 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

I'd just use programma computatrale, myself: I've never thought the distinction between "scripts" and "programs" was useful. Whether it's a compiled language or an interpreted one, you still have to debug it! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:50, 9 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

I find the possibility of using codicillus for a script worth exploring, as the word already means (esp. in the plural) “cabinet order, a brief testamentary order, usually as an addition or appendix to a will, a codicil”. But I agree that the distinction is not so important. --Grufo (disputatio) 22:50, 9 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Computator

The page "Computator" is the result of the union of this old version of the same page and this old version of the page "Computatrum humanum". Unfortunately both pages were badly written, so I corrected what I could, I added a new incipit, and then I added {{Latinitas dolet}} to the remaining problematic Latin. The problem though is that some passages were so badly written that I am not sure I can understand their exact meaning. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:10, 18 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Quinque linguae in formula {{Creanda}}

Linguae dumtaxat quinque in formula {{Creanda}} nunc tolerantur. Exempli gratia:

• {{Creanda|d|Q435925|en|Julie Gayet|fr|Julie Gayet|Iulia Gayet}}

  ↳ Iulia Gayet^(d)(en)(fr)

--Grufo (disputatio) 15:00, 20 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Si pagina in aliis linguis non iam exstat (id quod rarius accidit), utile esse censeo nexum ad Vicidata per hanc formulam monstrare. Si autem pagina iam apud alias Vicipaedias exstat, nexum ad Vicidata usoribus normalibus minus utile est: sunt usores plures qui paginas Vicidata usumque Vicidatorum non bene intellegunt, aut editiones apud Vicidata facere nolunt seu non possunt. Sunt certe lectores nonnulli qui abbreviationem "(d)" non intellegunt. Ergo multo utilius est nexum ad Vicipaediam aliquam monstrare, aut, gratia mutationis tuae, ad duas Vicipaedias! Usor, qui ad Vicidatas ire velit, ab illa Vicipaedia barbara faciliter ad Vicidata ire potest. Hac ratione melius erit hoc modo formulam uti:

↳ Iulia Gayet^(en)(fr)

Qui ad Vicidata, aut ad alias Vicipaedias ire vult, per Vicipaediam Anglicam seu Francogallicam potest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:01, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Sunt quoque paginae quarum tituli multum inter linguas differunt. Exempli gratia: Anglice Humanities, Francogallice Lettres, Italice Discipline umanistiche, et cetera. Credo in his casibus utiliorem esse aliquam rosam titulorum ostendere (per Vicidata, i.e. |1=d) quam particularem linguam eligere… Sed nunc sive Vicidata sive paginas interviciales simul ostendere possumus! --Grufo (disputatio) 10:52, 23 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Richiesta di aiuto per trascrizione e/o traduzione latino-italiano

Segnalo. Patafisik (disputatio) 14:09, 26 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Quotation marks

I think Vicipaedia:De orthographia should contain a paragraph about our quotation style. Such paragraph should contain at least our preference about which characters to use by default and also what to use in front of nested quotes. Here it is possible to find all combinations used in the European Union. I think our possibilities are three (I would esclude all the others).

Quotation mark used with two levels of nesting

	External	Nested	Doubly-nested
Romance languages	«…»	“…”	‘…’
British English	‘…’	“…”	‘…’
American English	“…”	‘…’	“…”

Different levels of nesting

	One level is present	Two levels are present	Three levels are present
Romance languages	«…» or “…”	«… “…” …» or “… ‘…’ …”	«… “… ‘…’ …” …»
British English	‘…’	‘… “…” …’	‘… “… ‘…’ …” …’
American English	“…”	“… ‘…’ …”	“… ‘… “…” …’ …”

Which one do we use? The Romance, the British or the American one? I would go with the Romance one, with a slight preference for “…” when only one level is present.

En passant. We have two five new substituted templates dedicated to quotation marks:

• {{subst:Virgulis curvis}}
• {{subst:Virgulis directis}}
• {{subst:Verba relata}}
• {{subst:"(}}
• {{subst:)"}}

--Grufo (disputatio) 01:19, 28 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

• I'm used to the first one, « " " », but this is not an argument, and all or almost all the quotation marks that Wikipedia already has are “American”. I'm not sure there's any point in redoing everything, it's not important. In addition, they are easiest to enter using the keyboard. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:01, 28 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Demetrius. I am not proposing to change what we already did so far, I am proposing to write it down explicitly in Vicipaedia:De orthographia. It seems to me that Vicipaedia favours the Romance style quotation marks. In fact, when only one level of nesting is present what you call the American style can also be read as the Romance one; a newspaper in Italy might write indifferently

  Il nipote di Oriana Fallaci contro Salvini: “Non potete usare il suo nome per la manifestazione del 4 novembre” ([3])

  or

  [Boris Johnson] esalterà le «immense opportunità» della Brexit ([4])

  (usually the same newspaper sticks to one rule and applies it everywhere)

  However, what you use for two levels of nesting («… “…” …») is unequivocally the Romance style. --Grufo (disputatio) 21:04, 28 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

  Bear in mind that in what you're calling American usage, glossing (especially by linguists) is done with single quotes, with no intervening punctuation and any punctuation to the right of the second one, thus: annus horribilis 'frightful year'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:10, 29 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Iacobus. I think we can write that down too, if that is what we did so far. I simply think that we should write it down. What I like of the Romance style is that it gives quite some freedom to publishers, and often it is possible to encounter slightly different approaches (although they are usually coherent within the same work). One differentiation often encountered is that within the same book «…» is used for direct speech / verbatim quotations, while “…” is used for scare quotes. Like in the following sentence:

  The European Union gives us the «use of quotation marks in the different languages», but maybe Vicipaedia's quotation style could just be “the best of” different traditions.

  After all we do not have a country of reference, so we can be free… The only thing that slightly annoys me is using the apostrophe ('...') instead of the single quotes (‘...’) – while I can better tolerate the straight double quotes ("...") instead of the curved ones (“...”). That is however a different, purely-graphical issue, and I understand the difficulty of typing ‘...’ and “...” unless you use Linux – btw, that is why I have just created {{subst:virgulis curvis}}: Carthage must be destroyed 'Carthago delenda'st' just doesn't work for me. --Grufo (disputatio) 01:38, 29 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

«while “…” is used for scare quotes»: Scare quotes are generally deprecated and will be removed by many publishers and their copyeditors. If the scariness needs to be kept, it's indicated by words that distance the author from it, like so-called and supposed(ly). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:14, 29 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Debemus aliquid praescribere quod per omnia claviaria (keyboards) abecedarii Latini accessibile sit. ' " " ' et " ' ' " omnibus editoribus facile est (nisi fallor). Aliquibus claviaribus (meo per exemplum) « » scribere difficile est. Eodem modo “ ” ‘ ’ aut difficile aut impossibile est. Insuper addo: qui mihi praescribit formulas polycharacteristicas uti (e.g. {{subst:Virgulis curvis}} loco ' ') me a Vicipaedia expellere potest: mihi necesse est, id quod scribere volo, simplicius scribere. Sed an hoc proponatur nescio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:51, 29 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Variationem (parvam) quam in paginis Vicipaedicis videmus, haud molestam esse censeo. Omnes Latinistae hodiernae multilingues sunt: textus variis linguis barbaris, variis regulis orthographicis scriptos legimus. Si paginam cum « » scriptam leviter augere volo, characteres « » (si mihi necesse sit) intra illam paginam per copy + paste rursus scribere possum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 29 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

En passant: :) An inter nos solus sum, qui Latinam tanquam linguam secundam incepi? Anglicam a matre et patre [didici], deinde annum decimum agens Latinam, annum undecimum Francogallicam, annum duodecimum Graecam adquirere coepi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:19, 29 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Andrew, tecum concordo de scriptura ad modum faciliorem accommodanda: si virgulas duplas suademus, credo scriptiones “...” et "..." nobis putandas esse aequales. Sed etiam credo nobis esse dicendum utrum virgulas simplices an virgulas duplas, an autem “guillhelmitta”, in quodam casu praeferamus. Ad hoc, sequentem regulam Vicipaedianam propono:

Una nidificatione

«…» vel “…” vel "…" (ad libitum)

Duabus nidificationibus

«… “…” …» vel «… "…" …» vel “… ‘…’ …” vel "… ‘…’ …" (ad libitum)

Nota bene: "… '…' …" abest!

Tribus nidificationibus

«… “… ‘…’ …” …» vel «… "… ‘…’ …" …» (ad libitum)

His Iacobi regulam de glossing ‘glossando’ addere possumus. Substitutio {{subst:verba relata|...}} scriptionem «…» facit facilem. Sunt quoque notae HTML « et »… (En passant: Annus mihi fuit quartus decimus, sed erravi longitudines vocalium ignorando, ergo hodie Latine scribere possum, at loqui non possum). --Grufo (disputatio) 10:49, 29 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Nonnullis autem linguis hodiernis sunt litterae vocales aut breves aut longae. Auris mea (ut dicam), linguae Samoanae diu perita, vocales breves longasque subtilissime distinguere solet; etenim ut haec lingua bene intellegatur, sic facere necesse est. Vide, exempli gratia, haec verba Samoana: matua 'parens', mātua 'parentes'; namu 'Culicidae', nāmu 'odor'; Tuna (nomen hominis), Sā Tunā 'Domus Tunae'; tama 'puer', tamā 'pater'. Longitudines quidem vocalium ubique in linguis vivis observandae sunt. Nihilominus, paene omnes qui pelliculas Latinas in YouTube proferunt longitudines vocalium ignorant—atque adeo trucidant! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:30, 29 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Gratias, Iacobe. Mihi videtur (at peritus non sum) in lingua Samoana accentus ire ubi mora sit. At in lingua Latina mihi est magnopere difficile vocalem brevem in syllaba aperta cum accento et vocalem longam in syllaba aperta cum accento diverse articulare. Ergo mei ănus et ānus pares sonabunt, et quaedam aequivocatio incommoda sententiam comitabit. Sed, altera parte, non mihi est difficile annum et ănum/ānum diverse articulare. Porro, cum non sit accentus, mihi est facile quoque discernere et mei fàcilĕ et fàcilē non confundentor. Hoc fit quia in lingua mea syllaba cum accentu est semper longa, ergo simplicillimum vocabulum, sicut mănus, mihi est difficillimum. Cetera difficultas est quarum meminisse vocalium sint longae et quarum sint breves (e.g. făctus, sed āctus, et cetera). In YouTube Lucas Ranieri vocales longas exaggerat, sed fortasse in meo casu audire abundare magis prodest quam audire deficiere. --Grufo (disputatio) 20:29, 29 Octobris 2023 (UTC)

Typographia mathematica

In order to properly display some of our mathematical templates ({{math}}, {{var}}, {{vect}}), we would need to add the following code to our common.css file, like English Wikipedia does:

/* texhtml class for inline math (based on generic times-serif class) */
.texhtml {
	font-family: "Latin Modern Math", "Nimbus Roman No9 L", "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
	font-size: 118%;
	line-height: 1;
	white-space: nowrap;
	/* Force tabular and lining display for texhtml */
	font-variant-numeric: lining-nums tabular-nums;
	font-kerning: none;
}

.texhtml .texhtml {
	font-size: 100%;
}

(Compared to the English version I have added the Latin Modern Math font, which is the one used by LaTeX)

I do not have the permissions to edit our common.css file, and I would normally ask UV, but he has been AWOL for a while. Could someone do it? --Grufo (disputatio) 09:54, 7 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

I have found a way to properly display those templates (in particular {{math}}) using TemplateStyles, without the need to edit common.css. Thus, no need for an interface administrator ;-) Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:46, 9 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

Hi UV. First of all welcome back, I was starting to worry! Thank you for the update on the {{math}} template. I will update the other templates ({{vect}}, {{scal}}) now. There is only one thing that makes me wonder if editing our common.css is still preferable, and it is the use of these templates as substitutions. For example, I would imagine that calling {{subst:scal}} could produce something as simple as this:

<var class="texhtml">...</var>

Adding <templatestyles> to the template, on the other hand, would descourage substitutions. We could still advertise the template as {{formula numquam substituenda}}, but usually I would like giving choice to the users. What do you think? --Grufo (disputatio) 03:53, 11 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that subst:ing a template that uses TemplateStyles has the disadvantage of producing somewhat cluttered wikitext, I believe that using TemplateStyles here (and perhaps discouraging editors from subst:ing {{math}}) still has other advantages over using common.css:

• common.css has to be loaded and interpreted by users' browsers on every page load, although the vast majority of our wikipedia pages do not contain class="texhtml" at all. It is thus preferable to keep common.css short. Template:Math/styles.css will only be loaded on those pages that contain the corresponding templatestyles tag.
• Template:Math/styles.css can be edited by any user, while common.css can only be edited by interface administrators. The reason for this restriction is that common.css may contain arbitrary CSS rules (including possibly malicious CSS rules), while the CSS called by TemplateStyles is restricted in scope by the MediaWiki software so that it should not be possible to include malicious CSS rules via TemplateStyles. It is thus preferable to keep the CSS rules for {{math}} where any user can edit them and where they cannot do harm.

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:11, 13 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

It makes sense after all. The good thing of leaving the CSS in the template is that it allows a long time of testing and improvements, and eventually the code can be moved to common.css after a long time of stability. --Grufo (disputatio) 06:01, 14 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

Addition. @UV: Uh right! Now I remember why I would have preferred to move the text inside common.css! Currently {{Vect}} – which should basically produce a mathematical character in bold font – does not use the same fonts of {{Math}}, although my plan was to make the template use them. The problem is that {{Vect}} must be able to be shown inside {{Math}} as well as outside. For example we could have the following two scenarios coexisting in the same page:

1. … ubi {{vect|a}} est acceleratio …

   ↳ … ubi a est acceleratio …

2. {{math|{{vect|a}} {{=}} {{sfrac|{{vect|v}}<sup>2</sup>|R}}}}

   ↳ a = v²/R

As you can see, in the first case {{vect}} is placed outside {{math}}, in the second case it is placed inside, with the result that two different fonts are used. We cannot add <templatestyles src="Formula:Math/styles.css" /> to {{vect}} to solve the problem, because that would produce a duplication of the included CSS in case of nesting (and that would be bad, right?). We could tell still people always to write {{math|{{vect|a}}}}, but that would be terribly annoying:

… ubi {{math|{{vect|a}}}} est acceleratio …

↳ … ubi a est acceleratio …

So I wonder if after all using common.css might still be the best solution. The fact that I copied the code from English Wikipedia should guarantee that it has been well tested. What do you think? --Grufo (disputatio) 06:25, 14 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply. Actually, it would, in my view, be a good idea to add <templatestyles src="Formula:Math/styles.css" /> to {{Vect}} to solve the problem you describe above. According to the documentation at mw:Help:TemplateStyles#In which order do CSS styles override?, CSS rules inserted via TemplateStyles are “deduplicated”: if the same stylesheet (e.g. <templatestyles src="Formula:Math/styles.css" />) is referenced multiple times on the page (e.g. a number of times via {{Math}} and a number of times via {{Vect}}, regardless of whether these instandes of {{Vect}} are nested within {{Math}} or not), the stylesheet is nevertheless only inserted into the page once. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:01, 26 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

Hi UV. «CSS rules inserted via TemplateStyles are ‘deduplicated’»: Perfect, that solves the problem :) I will update the mathematical templates accordingly. --Grufo (disputatio) 01:44, 28 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

Permultae novae autotranslationes

Usor נתנאל_שטרן [conlationes] permultas commentationes autotranstulit. Formulam {{Pagina autotranslata}} addidi ubi potui, sed talis usor adhuc non desistit. --Grufo (disputatio) 07:08, 30 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago, Grufo. Paginas ab aliis iam partim correctas, sed haud iam legibiles, in spatium auctoris removi notitiamque in paginam diputationis huius auctoris scripsi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:34, 30 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

Gratias, Andrew. Paginas (non vandalicas, sed non idoneas quoque) movere in spatium nominale usoris est optima cogitatio. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:57, 30 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

Nos omnes, qui primi paginam novam autotranslatam (et aegre legendam) reperiunt, imponere possumus formulam a Grufone creatam {{Pagina autotranslata}}: qua imposita, pagina post septem dies delenda erit. Etiam melius erit paginam corrigere! Sed tempus fugit ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:47, 30 Novembris 2023 (UTC)

Mea opinione Vicipaedia nostra istis barbarismis pullulantibus iam nunc in summo periculo est. Quis nostrum multitudinem falsae Latinitatis corripere poterit? Lectores in omnibus Vicipaediae versionibus bonam linguam exspectant et - habeant. Non possumus simulare Latinitatem in Vicipaedia Latina! - Giorno2 (disputatio) 09:12, 23 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

Recte dicis. Si formula {{Pagina autotranslata}} ad caput paginae imposita sit, si nemo post septem dies tetigerit, paginam delere soleo. Die 20 Decembris duodecim paginas recentes, non re vera Latine scriptas, delevi. Alii magistratus etiam delere possunt! Hic labor non mihi magnopere placet ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 23 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

Vicipaedia:Census

Pagina Vicipaedia:Census a notionibus nimis antiquis (anni 2006!) purganda est. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:00, 1 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis

Addite, o amici, propositiones vestras ad pedem illius paginae! Dicite quid censetis de propositionibus iam ibi inscriptis! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:58, 16 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

Die 24 Decembris 2023 ...

.. gaudium bonamque salutem amicis Vicipaedianis opto! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:47, 24 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

..eadem atque plura tibi, Andrea, nostri chori sapiens moderator--Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 14:56, 24 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

…Et dies tibi sint laeti, care Andrew! --Grufo (disputatio) 16:06, 24 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

Chronogramma

Habeo quaestionem. Haec crux anno 1795 erecta est.

Cur tantum numerum 1785 possides?

CrVCeM eXaLtabat BarDenheVer Vt VeneretVr = MDCCLXVVVVV = 1785

Num littera "B" significat significationem habet? Nescio quid sit.

Num quis ideam seu explicationem habet?

Gratias Qwertzu111111 (disputatio) 12:18, 28 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, quomodo scis crucem anno 1795 (non 1785) erectam esse?

How do you know the cross was erected in 1795, not in 1785? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:49, 28 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

Gratiae pro responso. Ita certe sum. Inscriptum est iuxta crucem. in lingua germanica:

„Erbericher Kreuz

Ehemaliger Standort im abgebaggerten Ortsteil Erberich gegenüber der Ortseinfahrt vor dem Haus Savelsberg. Heutiger Standort: Einfahrt zum Blausteinsee in Fronhoven. Errichtung 1988

Im Jahre 1792 fielen die Franzosen in Erberich ein. Anfang 1793, in der Schlacht bei Aldenhoven, zwischen französischen und österreichischen Truppen mussten die Bewohner damals schwerste Not und Drangsalen erdulden.

Diese schwere Zeit gab der Familie Bardenheuer (Pächter des Erbericher Hofs) Anlass zur Errichtung des stattlichen Blausteinkreuzes, im Jahre 1795.

Erkennbar ist die Inschrift:

CRUCEM EXALTABAT BARDENHEUER UT VENERETUR“

In Anglico:

„Erberich cross

Former location in the excavated district of Erberich opposite the entrance to the village in front of the Savelsberg house. Current location: entrance to the Blausteinsee lake in Fronhoven. Erected in 1988.

In 1792, the French invaded Erberich. At the beginning of 1793, during the Battle of Aldenhoven between French and Austrian troops, the inhabitants had to endure extreme hardship and tribulations.

This difficult time prompted the Bardenheuer family (tenants of the Erberich farm) to erect the stately blue stone cross in 1795.

The inscription is recognizable: CRUCEM EXALTABAT BARDENHEUER UT VENERETUR“

Librum habeo, qui de erectione crucis anno 1795 narrat.

Bellum intelligitur: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aldenhoven_(1793)

Cum villa non iam exstat, crux huc anno 1988 allata est.

Qwertzu111111 (disputatio) 17:05, 28 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

Superman

Why such confusion? Georgius Reeves^(en) (1914–1959) and Christophorus Reeve (1962–2004) were different people. Both played the role of Superman, and both died in middle age. That's about it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:58, 31 Decembris 2023 (UTC)

De interlocutore inurbano nostro vide en:Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Projects. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 1 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Mysteria abundant! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:09, 1 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)