Disputationes antiquae

Hoc est tabularium antiquarum disputationum. Non est recensendum.

Sententiae hic collectae inter dies et scriptae sunt.

Pagina mensis display query

Why is the prima pagina displaying an old version of the article Cuba, instead of the current version? Should somebody fix the software? IacobusAmor 01:35, 3 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

When I'm looking at it anonymously it is still displaying aspectus. My computer's been doing this for a while now (see Disputatio Usoris:Massimo Macconi#Pagina Mensis). I think something will need tweaking in the software. UV? Harrissimo 02:07, 3 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
Maybe I should clarify: what the pagina prima is displaying on my screen is the correct pagina mensis, but the wrong version of it. Something is amiss! IacobusAmor 02:14, 3 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
You need to force a refresh of the buffer on your browser. Most browsers store stuff/pages in a buffer for a certain amount of time. --Rafaelgarcia 02:23, 3 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
How do you do that (with firefox)? Harrissimo 02:25, 3 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
If I press control-shift and click reload, it reloads all of the page elements.--Rafaelgarcia 02:51, 3 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Harrissimo 03:00, 3 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
For some reason it doesn't always work however. I think this may be a bug in firefox. --Rafaelgarcia 15:41, 3 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Improbi imaginum tituli!

In tribus commentariis—Aana (Samoa), Aiga-i-le-Tai, Tuamasaga—tabula (mota e vicipaedia Anglica) recte apparet, sed titulus (Anglice: 'caption') se celat. Ubi sunt tituli? IacobusAmor 02:31, 3 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Scribatur sic:
[[Imago:Samoa-Tuamasaga.png|right|thumb|Tabula Samoana, Tuamasagam pagum monstrans]]. Harrissimo 02:39, 3 Februarii 2008 (UTC).


I added some too-brief biographies last night -- didn't get round to filling them out. I promise I will! Meanwhile, if anyone is troubled by them, please add {{In progressu}}Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo {{In usu}} (as I intended to do) rather than {{Non-stipula}}. Thanks! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 3 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Break out

How can I say "the war broke out" in Latin? Thx in advance!!--Le K-li 01:06, 4 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Bellum incepit?--Rafaelgarcia 01:21, 4 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Bellum exortum est. Harrissimo 01:33, 4 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
Or: Bellum exstitit, ortum est, natum est, exarsit (the best I think), incidit. If it is clear who started the war, however, a personal construction would be preferable: bellum concitare, excitare, suscitare, concire, movere, commovere, conflare, moliri, inferre alicui, etc. --Ceylon 07:17, 4 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
There is an idiom "pugnatum est" (literally "it was fought", but really "there is fighting/battle/war"), so "pugnatum erat" could also work. Adam Episcopus 14:06, 4 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I thought you wanted to write about the video game, and I was very excited . . . --Ioscius (disp) 14:27, 4 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Rogelio Lopez, Heroes and Viris Fortissimus

Apparently Rogelio Lopez is unable to read or has some personal issues. We moved his page to the Scriptorium but he ignores it and ignores messages sent to him. What should be done?--Rafaelgarcia 14:47, 4 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Maybe his classmates will explain. They are all from the same school. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:51, 4 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Maybe he doesn't know how to read his messages. He's just gone and created that same page again. I think if he doesn't get the hang of it, we'll have to get one of his classmates to show him how. Harrissimo 02:51, 10 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

Subjunctive 2

Would I just use a normal subjunctive for "were to"? For example would si curras, me videas mean "if you were to run, you would see me" and does latin use a 2nd person to represent the gender inspecific 'one' ('man' in German)? Harrissimo 17:58, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

That's right. It gets a little messier if you are using indirect speech and you are speaking of events in the imperfect and pluperfect. (Personally I find the Latin sequence of tenses impossibly nuanced.) For impersonal "one", the passive is more likely ("curritur" = "there is running" = "one runs"). In medieval Latin they lazily began to use "quidam" and even "unus" as an indefinite article. Adam Episcopus 21:17, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Harrissimo 21:26, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

e praeferentiis ...

in praeferentiis, servavi gadgetem (!) "Vertere omnes 'j' in 'i'". errorem habet: quoque vertit omnes 'J' in 'i', non in 'I'. potest aliquis ferre auxilium mihi? a mense Iacobi Recensoris (disputare)
18:42, die 5 mensis Februarii a.d. 2008

Errorem correxi. Thanks for reporting! (You might need to force-refresh the page or clear your browser's cache for the fix to take effect.) --UV 20:56, 5 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Nova pagina gregis musici


I'd like to write an article on Mudhoney, but I'm not sure about several things:

- It seems from the other Rock pages, that the band names aren't declined. But what, if I want to use an AcI with Mudhoney as accusative subject? Isn't it confusing not to decline it? Or else, what is the accusative? Shall I make one up? Is it Mudhoneium or Mudhoneiam (considering that the source of the name is a movie about a woman...)?

- I've seen that the article on Green Day has the band's name latinized. Is that recommended. Or wouldn't it be nicer to have both, English and Latin names, as title of the article?

That's because the then-publisher of the band's CDs (and longtime bandsmen's friend, who has been known to read Latin authors) said he liked it when I tried it out on him, about ten years ago. The principle ordinarily cited is that Vicipaedia doesn't Latinize surnames, brand names, logos, trademarks, and such, unless the owner of them also Latinizes them; or if it does Latinize them, it treats the Latinization as a secondary form, and features the original as the standard form. ¶ There's one band whose name egregiously invites the dreaded & condescending "sic": Rudimentary Peni [sic] (recte Rudimentary Penes). And likewise there's Procul Harum [sic] (recte Procul His, if anything). IacobusAmor 18:06, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
This one had me literally laugh out loud ('recte Procul His, if anything'). Too bad they are actually called ProcOl Harum.--Ceylon 19:37, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I moved the page. If you cite who that guy was, you can move it back. Apologiae, Harrissimo 18:42, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
Vide: Laurentius Livermore. IacobusAmor 19:47, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

- Is there a list of words that are suitable for writing about bands? I don't own a dictionary for contemporary latin yet, but I don't want to make unnecessary mistakes - and I don't want to end my article up as "written in latina dubia :-) Till now, I had some orientation by looking at the other band pages.

- The singer of Mudhoney has the artist's name Arm, and it referes to the body part. Should I translate it although it's kind of a familiy name? Or should I explain it at the beginning of the article? Are there any rules for that? (I just found something about the "official" family names.)

Thanks for answering!

--Passera 17:49, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

    • The relevant rule as to the naming is Vicipaedia:Translatio nominum propriorum#Societates, which basically says don't decline it. For a lot of the latin bible and in a lot of works, people have used indeclinables in latin. BUT I'm not about how to handle them. One of my teachers once recommended putting ille or iste in front of an indeclinable if it is completely necessary to change. And he is a doctor of classics so I take his word for it. If you want to translate, as in Dies Viridis, you should do so after the bold lemma in Italics. So yes, there are both english and latin titles. Don't follow the Dies Viridis example - I'll move it shortly.
    • There is not a specific list of band related words that I know of. VP:LLI has some good links which I imagine will include some band-related vocabulary. This site may help too (you'll probably need to use ctrl +f - it is a very large document).
    • If you want to buy a dictionary, see Lexica Neolatina
    • At Vicipaedia:Translatio nominum propriorum#Nomina hominum you will see that there is no need to translate Arm either (call him iste Arm if you must). Harrissimo 18:25, 6 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

Aménŏphis, Amenōphis

Ait Iustinus: "Everyone I know pronounces this Aménŏphis, but all the loci antiqui I can find show Amenōphis."—Something like anémone, which turns out actually to be anĕmōnē? IacobusAmor 22:43, 7 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Iustinus recte dicit. Apud auctores Graecos antiquos (Flavium Iosephum, Manethonem, etc.) nomen scribitur Ἀμένωφις, i.e. cum O longa. Regulam Erasmianam secuti, ut plerumque Germani, accentum Graecum respectantes, qualitatem tamen vocalium saepissime neglegentes, hoc pronuntiant Aménŏfis, sed regula Henniniana usi, ut plerique Anglice et Batave loquentium, accentum Graecum omnino praetereuntes, regulas tamen accentūs Latini adhibentes, pronuntiare debeant Amenófis, quod - cuius rei Iustinus noster testis est - non semper faciunt. Quod attinet ad nomen 'anemone' [ἀνεμώνη, ănĕmōnē]: hoc secundum utramque regulam pronuntiandum sit anemóne; quod docet nos numquam accentum anglicum adhibendum esse pro latino! ;-) --Fabullus 09:37, 8 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Haec disputatio nescioquomodo me fugit! Gaudeo vos rem meam aliquanto disquisivisse ;) --Iustinus 07:54, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Wise is he who studies history

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to translate Wise is he who studies history but my problem is I have never studied latin.

Based on the structure of Felix qui potuit rerum cognescere causas and after a few hours online I've come up with something like Sapiens qui studet antiquitates... which might be totally wrong.

Could someone help, please, keeping in mind that the idea is not to say that the study of history makes you wise but that you are wise to undertake it.

Thanks. Denis. 23:25, 8 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Qui historia studet sapiens est.Qui historiae studet sapiens est.--Rafaelgarcia 23:51, 8 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I think studere takes the dative. Harrissimo 00:12, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
Yep you're right. fixed above.--Rafaelgarcia 00:15, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Or, following the (Vergilian) pattern suggested by Denis: Sapiens qui antiquitati studet or Sapiens qui antiquitatibus studet. --Neander 00:25, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't think "history" is necessarily the same as "antiquity/the ancients"...also I would think est is necessary to complete the thought?--Rafaelgarcia 00:43, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
The classical languages sometimes omit the verb to be (especially in sayings). E.g. Dominus illuminatio mea and Respice post te! Te hominem memento!. Harrissimo 01:00, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

Thanks to all,

From what I could gather—and understand of it— historia means 'inquiry' (as in Herodotus), not 'history'. For the Romans antiquita (time past) would not have meant 'antiquity' but would indeed have been closer to our modern 'history'. That's if I'm not mistaken, of course...

You're not mistaken (except in that the nominative is 'antiquitas') but Herodotus was writing in an entirely different language three or four hundred years before the age of classical Latin; ιστορία is not necessarily the same as historia (which, for that matter, is not necessarily the same as history, but the meaning, AIUI, has been narrowing over time, so apparently a history is normally a sort of historia and an historia is a sort of ιστορία). —Mucius Tever 05:13, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, if I understand correctly, the difference between Sapiens qui antiquitati studet and Sapiens qui antiquitatibus studet is one of singular/plural. But aren't antiquitati and antiquitatibus datives [1] and shouldn't the accusative be used?

They are indeed datives. Studeo is one of the few verbs that take a dative rather than an accusative. Harrissimo 02:02, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

Thanks again. Denis. 01:52, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

I really wouldn't use the word studere to mean "study", although you are certainly right in that studere takes the dative. Operam dare is much neater... and what's wrong with historia? Cicero certainly uses both...
On Caesar's commentaries
  • Valde quidem, inquam, probandos; nudi enim sunt, recti et venusti, omni ornatu orationis tamquam veste detracta. sed dum voluit alios habere parata, unde sumerent qui vellent scribere historiam -- Brut 262
  • 'Neque tamen, haec cum scribebam, eram nescius, quantis oneribus premerere susceptarum rerum et iam institutarum; sed, quia videbam Italici belli et civilis historiam iam a te paene esse perfectam, dixeras autem mihi te reliquas res ordiri, deesse mihi nolui, quin te admonerem, ut cogitares, coniunctene malles cum reliquis rebus nostra contexere an, ut multi Graeci fecerunt, Callisthenes Phocium bellum, Timaeus Pyrrhi, Polybius Numantinum, qui omnes a perpetuis suis historiis ea, quae dixi, bella separaverunt, tu quoque item civilem coniurationem ab hostilibus externisque bellis seiungeres. -- Ad Fam V.12 Lucceio
  • quare qui eloquentiae verae dat operam, dat prudentiae, qua ne maxumis quidem in bellis aequo animo carere quisquam potest. -- Brut 23
etc... --Ioscius (disp) 01:58, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Please, notice the difference Denis was already pointing at: You can write a history (scribere historiam) but you can't write those ancient events and happenings (antiquitas) that historians write about. In Cicero, historia means 'historical narrative' (as he himself testifies to by characterising Herodotus as pater historiae). And what's wrong with studere antiquitati? Cicero has studere artibus, disciplinae, iuri, litteris. If Cicero said, as he did, studium antiquitatis, it'd be strange to bar him from saying studeo antiquitati. --Neander 03:02, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Sapiens qui antiquitatibus studet seems to translate best what I had in mind. Thanks to Neander and to everyone else. Denis. 08:32, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Or, attending to the connotations in Cassell's*: Sapiens qui antiquitatis memoriam cognoscit.—*Which says studere, incumbere, and operam dare are 'to pay attention to a thing', but 'to inquire systematically into a subject' is rem cognoscere and in rem inquirere. But of course antiquitas and antiquitatis memoria are 'ancient history' and shouldn't include the history of the twentieth century, or the nineteenth, or the eighteenth, or perhaps even the sixth; for just plain 'history', Cassell's suggests historia, rerum gestarum memoria, res (gestae), and annales. IacobusAmor 12:45, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it...

...and since you guys seem to be real pros, how would you render in latin the following sentence by Bertrand Russell : The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time ?
Thanks in advance. Denis. 12:30, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Tempus iucunde perditum non est perditum ? --Ceylon 12:43, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Perfect and gnomically striking! Neander 14:17, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Traupman dat "absumere" et "terere" pro sensu temporali. Fortasse: "Tempus quod absumere frueris non est tempus absumptum." (ita est verbosior sententia quam illam Ceylon scripsit) Perdere non mi placet quia potius significat rem contra libidinem vel voluntatem amissam, at fortasse absumere non est verbum aptissimum...--Ioscius (disp) 13:47, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Nonne "tempus quo frueris", quia "frui" ablativus requirit? Adam Episcopus 15:17, 10 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
At quid requirit ipsum requirit?--Ceylon 06:49, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Mea culpa, "ablativum"! Adam Episcopus 08:33, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
No... because "quod" is the object of "absumere" which is the object of "frueris" . . . --Ioscius (disp) 17:31, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. Shouldn't then the object of frueris, absumere, be in the ablative? Hence Tempus quod absumendo frueris non est tempus absumptum? (By the way, Traupman Conv. Lat. suggests also perdere and 'conterere for waste in the sense of wasting time, so there seems to be wide lattitude in usages to convey this meaning.)--Rafaelgarcia 12:33, 12 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
No... infinitives don't need to decline, no matter what governs them... And I like conterere, Sallust uses it.--Ioscius (disp) 20:05, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
In Bradley's Arnold it states "95) But the infinitive may be used as a noun in two cases only: nominative and accusative." and later "99) The infinitive cannot be used as a genitive, dative or ablative; nor can it be used as an accusative governed by a preposition. These cases and prepositional uses are supplied by nanother verbal noun, the Gerund." --Rafaelgarcia 01:50, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Peter Abelard used "vacare" in the sense of wasting time, but perhaps that is a medievalism. Adam Episcopus 16:50, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah...nevermind. Adam Episcopus 08:48, 12 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I go with Ceylon. If it be true that perdere means something 'amittere contra libidinem vel voluntatem', then 'iucunde perditum' becomes a perfect oxymoron, worthy of Russell. --Fabullus 14:42, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Certainly the second wasted means perdere (and at the very least Tempus iucunde absumptum non est perditum would be literal), but it is more poetic to keep both as perdere as Ceylon has done and I like his version better. --Rafaelgarcia 17:03, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Compressing Ceylon's version further: Gaudium perditum non est perditum. IacobusAmor 18:10, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious?!  :–)   --Neander 19:47, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Gaudium pro Vicipaedia augenda perditum (imprimisque die Saturni vergente) non est perditum!--Ceylon 20:33, 9 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Emery Molyneux: Translation of non-English terms

Help would be much appreciated in translating the following book titles, passages and terms appearing in the article "Emery Molyneux" that are not in English:

  • "Thomas Cavendish 18 Dec. 1587 hæc terra sub nostris oculis primum obtulit sub latitud 47 cujus seu odnodum salubris Incolæ maturi ex parte proceri sunt gigantes et vasti magnitudinis".
  • "Emerius Mulleneux Angl.' / sumptibus Gulielmi— / Sandersoni Londinē: / sis descripsit" – "Emerius Mulleneux" is Emery Molyneux, "Angl." probably refers to the fact that he is English, "Gulielmi— Sandersoni" is the name of Molyneux's patron William Sanderson who was a Londoner ("Londinē:/sis"), but what do "sumpibus" and "descripsit" mean?
  • "Iodocus Hon: / dius Flan. Sc." – "Iodocus Hondius" is Jodocus Hondius and "Flan." probably refers to the fact that he was from Flanders. Any idea what "Sc." is? Hondius was a cartographer and engraver.
  • "Theatrum orbis terrarum, opus nunc denuó ab ipso auctore recognitum mustisqué locis castigatum, & quamplurimis nouis, tabilis atqué commentarijs auctum".
  • "Tractatus de globis et eorum usu: accommodatus iis qui Londini editi sunt anno 1593, sumptibus Gulielmi Sandersoni civis Londinensis, conscriptus à Roberto Hues".
  • "Tractatus de globis coelesti et terrestri ac eorum usu, conscriptus a Roberto Hues, denuo auctior & emendatior editus".
  • "Tractatvs de globis, coelesti et terrestri eorvmqve vsv. Primum conscriptus & editus a Roberto Hues. Anglo semelque atque iterum a Iudoco Hondio excusus, & nunc elegantibus iconibus & figuris locupletatus: ac de novo recognitus multisque observationibus oportunè illustratus as passim auctus opera ac studio Iohannis Isacii Pontani... Excudebat H. Hondius".
  • "Tractatvs de globis, coelesti et terrestri, ac eorvm vsv. ... Francofvrti ad Moenvm: Typis & sumptibus VVechelianorum, apud Danielem & Dauidem Aubrios & Clementem Schleichium".
  • "Tractatus de globis coelesti et terrestri eorumque usu ac de novo recognitus multisq[ue] observationibus opportunè illustratus ac passim auctus, opera et studio Johannis Isacii Pontani...; adjicitur Breviarium totius orbis terrarum Petri Bertii... Excudebat W.H., impensis Ed. Forrest".

Do respond on the article's talk page. Thanks very much! — Cheers, JackLee 04:10, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all those who helped with the translation. Most of the above phrases have now been dealt with, but I still need help with "Thomas Caundish 18 Dec. 1587 hæc terra sub nostris oculis primum obtulit sub latitud 47 cujus seu admodum salubris Incolæ maturi ex parte proceri sunt gigantes et vasti magnitudinis". Do respond on the article's talk page. Thanks. — JackLee 15:41, 28 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Carmen Bavarorum

I intend to insert the following rhyming conversio sensum reddens (by myself) into Viki under an Article "Carmen Bavarorum" which should be linked to by the "Bavaria" article:

Deus tecum, Bavarorum
tellus, cara patria!
Tuos pagos, cor tuorum
benedicat dextera.
Servet agros ruris tui,
urbes, omnem viculum,
et colores caeli Sui,
candidum, caeruleum.
Deus nobis, Bavarorum
genti dignae patribus,
praestet pacis Suae lorum,
quo salutem struimus.
Cum Germanicis germanis
hoc sit propugnaculum
firmum ut vexillum fanis,
candidum, caeruleum.

lorum = Germanice: Riemen; and in English: lace, laces, belt or similar, a strong band

propugnaculum = Schutzweihr, defence, can be meant spiritually, e.g. there exists a catholic book about the church entitled by "propugnaculum ecclesiae".

My questions are related to the last verse:

1. Should we say "album" or "candidum" for "white"? In other words: Should "candidum, caeruleum" be replaced by "album et caeruleum", as I earler had? In the Vulgata bible I found "nubem candidam" because it is related to God sun coming on a cloud. Now it is God's heaven. On the other hand, the heaven most looks "album and candidum".

Albus is 'dead-white, flat white' (shading into merely 'pale'), the opposite of ater; candidus is 'shining white', the opposite of niger. Whichever the original implies, the potential alliteration in /k/ (candidum, caeruleum) makes it a no-brainer here. IacobusAmor 22:05, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, JoacobusAmor, from literary and poetic point of view, I also think that candidum is better, in particular because of the rhyme. The tune gives a strong tone on the third and seventh syllable, and these are rhyming.-- 14:54, 12 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

2. Is it clear that the last verse of strophe 2 "candidum, caeruleum" means that the flag (vexillum) is white and blue, i.e. white-blue. Or is it possible that two flags could be meant, a white one and a blue one or even that the propugnaculum is white and blue. Should we omit the comma after fanis? Can we write candidum-caeruleum (i.e. hyphenated writing) after having omitted the comma after "fanis"?--Bachmai 21:32, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Vandals to be blocked

  1. usor:A A A A A A A A A A A
  2. usor:Wiki must die
  3. usor:Deletionist shit holes
  4. usor:Norman Rogers bites himself
  5. usor:I am Norman Rogers on wheels
  6. usor:We hate wikis
Harrissimo 00:35, 12 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
All willy's accounts are blocked now, thanks--Nick1915 00:39, 12 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
You are the one who needs thanking - well done! Harrissimo 00:41, 12 Februarii 2008 (UTC).


I would just like to clarify something. Are we to use the rules listed on Vicipaedia:Translatio nominum propriorum? Because if so, there is a lot of work to be done with names of famous people (I am referring to latinized surnames, such as Washingtonius for George Washington). Obviously, this is a very controversial subject (for some reason that I do not understand), but I believe that unless Vicipaedia is going to have a certain select class of contributors (id est, people who have studied Latin for the past decade or so), the rules of this simple translation process must be determined and prominently displayed somewhere most new or inexperienced can find them and understand them. Otherwise, I fear that Latin's popularity runs the risk of continuing to be unpopular. -Sapiens23 13:47, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Yes we go by those rules. Washingtonius is attested in the 17th cent. literature so no change is required. Just google and you will see.--Rafaelgarcia 15:21, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what's so complicated about looking up names in the sources listed. The link is on our front page, thus I don't ee how much more accessible can we possibly make it.When in doubt just use the unlatined names and treat as indeclinable.--Rafaelgarcia 15:32, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Gratias tibi ago. -Sapiens23

"Taberna vetera" vel "Taberna vetus" (Title changed)

In the lexicon I find "taberna, -ae, femininum". So the old tabernas should be called "Tabernae veteres" or in the singular "Taberna vetus". But perhaps there really exists the terminus "tabernum"? -- 19:01, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Now I have an idea: It seems this means: Taberna "vetera", i.e. Taberna with the topic "vetera". Is this correct?-- 19:01, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Ah I get your question; vetera is the feminine version of the adjective veter/vetera/veterum. This adjective is an alternative version of vetus, which doesn't change with grammatical gender. Thus Taberna vetera = Taberna vetus or plural Tabernae veterae = Tabernae veteres. --Rafaelgarcia 19:26, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Rafaelgarcia; there are often the same adjectiva with different endings, e.g. caeles instead of caelestis,-e or perpes instead of perpetuus,-a,-um. But I did not find "veter,-a,-um" instead of vetus in my online lexica, so I did not think of this idea. I will, when I have time, look in better lexica. I think the redaction chose "vetera" instead of "vetus" because of a better iambic sound of "Taberna vetera".-- 20:52, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC) (User Bachmai)
As far as I can see, there is a total of two attestations for veter:
(i) Ennius Ann. 1.14: Quom veter occubuit Priamus sub morte Pelasgo
(ii) Accius fr. 481 (Hecuba): Veter fatorum terminus sic iusserat
Both are simultaneously poetic and archaic, so not really a model for prose. Shouldn't we own up to Taberna vetera having been a careless mistake for Taberna vetus and proceed to rename it?--Ceylon 21:36, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Ceylon was a bit ahead of me, but anyways: "Veter" is attested only in archaic Latin epic poetry. It died out in classical Latin, where "vetus" and "vetustus" are in use. "Veter" is clearly a back-formation from the archaic comparative form "veterior", which isn't favoured by classical authors either, who prefer "vetustior". In the nominative singular, "vetus" exhibits the same form in all genders, because it's originally a noun denoting a long time (its etymological cognate being Greek "étos" 'year' < "wetos"). I don't think a feminine ?"vetera" is attested at all. Re "taberna vetera", the question raised by Bachmai is a good one. I'm not sure what it's supposed to be. Taberna with the topic "vetera" mercifully suggested by Bachmai makes sense (and I do hope "vetera" isn't supposed to be a feminine form; if it is, it'd better be corrected). --Neander 22:10, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I'd be OK with changing the name, I suppose the original intention doesn't matter that much. All you want to say is that this is an archive of old Taberna discussions: archivum disptuationum veterum Tabernalum? Disputationes veteres Tabernales?--Rafaelgarcia 22:17, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
It is not the poetry that made "veter" necessary, "vetus" would be suited as well, as far as the measure is concerned. Both vowels "e" and "e" or "e" and "u" are short. So it simply seems that "veter" is the archaic form of "vetus".
Ennius writes Hexameter. What is Accius' measure? --Bachmai 22:21, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, metrically "vetus" and "veter" seem interchangeable. But poetry favours impromptu formations; "veter", I take it, is of that ilk. Accius wrote Saturnian verses, the structure of which is a matter of much controversy. --Neander 22:59, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Actually Accius didn't write Saturnian verses. The line quoted by Ceylon is a clear example of a Senarius, the Latin variant of the Greek Iambic trimeter. However, here too, like in the hexameter example 'veter' is metrically equivalent to 'vetus', so the reason for its use must be other than metrical. --Fabullus 12:07, 14 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Ääsh! You're right, Fabulle, for some curious reason I always mix up Accius and Livius Andronicus. Pudore rubens Neander 19:37, 14 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Noli pudore affici, equidem iam saepius maiora peccavi. Ceterum, Finnicumne est illud Ääsh?
Potius Svecicum [äsh!], nam Finnice proprie [äh!] vel [ääh!] dicitur. Interiectionaliter salutans Neander 18:39, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Fabulle, I also though of the Iambic trimeter
| x – υ – | x – υ – | x – υ – | (where the last syllable can always be used as a long one),
but I have problems with the syllable "fa" of "fatorum". The metrization of "Veter fatorum terminus sic iusserat" gives
| υ – – – | – – υ – | – – υ – |,
which differs at the third syllable, "fa", which is clearly long (cf. Aeneis(1,262): longius et volvens fator[um] arcana movebo). --Bachmai 14:15, 14 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
This is quite a different subject, but you are right about the metrization of the line. This is why I didn't call it an iambic trimeter, but a senarius. The archaic Latin dramatists (Plautus, Terence, Ennius, Pacuvius and Accius) did not observe all the rules of the Greek trimeter, but used a somewhat freer form, the senarius (from seni (pedes): each line having six feet), which can be schematized as follows (leaving aside as you did, the possibility of substituting two short syllables for each long one):
| x – | x – | x – | x – | x – | υ – |
You will see that Accius' line fits this pattern perfectly well. --Fabullus 14:38, 14 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, now much becomes clear to me. The Romans count the feet (sex pedes), not the metra. The metrum can actually be described by one foot only (except for the last foot), so a Latin metrum actually consists of one foot, but, to be in accordance with the Greec metrum, they do not define a single foot as a metrum. So I think that Quaternarii that only follow the free measure | x – | x – | x – | υ – | but not the strong measure | x – υ – | x – υ – | should also exist. I do not know any. Many famous church hymns are quaternarii in the strong sense of a jambic dimeter (e.g. Veni Creator, Vexilla regis). Would be interesting if you knew an example of a quaternarius that is not a strong jambic dimeter.--Bachmai 15:12, 14 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I don't know of any archaic Latin author writing quaternarii, and from the classical period onwards the Romans tend to use the stricter Greek metre. (Only Phaedrus still uses the old Roman-type senarius.) The quaternarii that I have come across are all classical and post-classical and all appear to conform to the rules of the Greek iambic dimeter. --Fabullus 14:59, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Neander. I looked in the Georges lexicon. The adjective form "veter, -eris" shows that it follows the consonantic declination, so it seems that the female form is either again "veter" or perhaps "veteris" (following celer, celeris, celere), but not "vetera". Concerning the name, I would suggest not to change too much. Since Neander favorites my interpretation Taberna with the topic "vetera", I think the title Taberna vetera continens would be clear without any changing, having only an addition that makes of the alleged femininum singular nominative a neutrum plural accussative. --Bachmai 11:42, 14 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Arguably vetus would not be the most suitable equivalent of previous anyway, since it places more emphasis on the contents being old or ancient than just past. What about Tabernae tomi priores or pristini (or conceivably Tabernae acta priora / pristina if the imagery of a tavern is to be kept)?--Ceylon 13:35, 14 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Tabernae acta priora sounds the nicest of all the choices offered thus far.--Rafaelgarcia 14:03, 14 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, all the latter name suggestions are better.--Bachmai 14:15, 14 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Time to change that category? Harrissimo 14:29, 14 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
If everyone agrees to the change, I am willing to do it.--Rafaelgarcia 14:44, 14 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the sound, I would prefer the adjective (as earlier mentioned by Rafaelgarcia) instead of the substantive in the genitive, ergo: Tabernalia acta priora might still sound a little better since every word ends with "a".--Bachmai 12:30, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
(One hour later): No. Let "Tabernae acta priora" unchanged. It is shorter and has a jambic rhythm. It is indeed a good choice. --Bachmai 12:30, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
How does "Tabernae acta priora" (v-(-)-vv-v) make an iambic rhythm? --Fabullus 14:59, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Sorry: Yes, the "o" in "priora" is long. Sorry. We would have gotten anapaistoi in metrico tonorum when writing "Tabernalia...". without elidating vowels as usual in that metrics. An important point I want to mention is that I thought of the metrum tonorum, respecting accents instead of short and long. This way of poetry has been written in the medium aevum, e.g. Thomas of Aquin. And it should not be considered as a stupid one, as has been done during the time of humanistic Latin. These people wanted to completely get back to the classical Latin and its complicated use, many ACI instead of "quod" and many ablativi absoluti and so on. The consequence was that people ceased to write in Latin - Latin died out. Therefore both ways of poetry have their dignity. The antique one because of its nice language and its (in our ears) curious way of poetry, but also the Latin in the metrics of accents, in which we really recitate the poems. We are no longer able to speak the Latin 2000 years ago. Do you know the pronounciation of "-am, -em, -im, -um" at the end of a word? Is it necessary to apply the elimination rules also in prosa texts? Can you recitate a Latin poem so that you feel the rhythm. To emphasize in hexameters every first syllable, as we use to do it, might sound funny in the ears of people who spoke this Latin 2000 years ago. --Bachmai ca. 17:45, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Why should that matter for a category name anyway!? Harrissimo 15:36, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
Mute|mus vete|ris nunc |nomen, a|mice, Ta|bernae!--Ceylon 16:42, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Nice hexameter! "veteris", which ends the first part of the verse, is completed at the end of the second part.--Bachmai 17:51, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Muta|tum (e)st vete|ris nunc |nomen, a|mice, Ta|bernae!--Bachmai 18:11, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

For the record: The problem was pointed out quite some time ago. --UV 19:31, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

copied from Disputatio Categoriae:Taberna vetera:

Aut taberna vetus aut tabernae veterae. --Alex1011 07:01, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)

Mihi quoque haec verba molesta erant: aut taberna vetus aut tabernae veteres! Montivagus 07:11, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)
Ita vetus --Alex1011 07:32, 11 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)



Now we have Vicipaedia redirecting to Wikipedia and Wiki redirecting to Vici...

I suggest:

Thoughts? Emendations? --Ioscius (disp) 17:32, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. We don't even have a page yet about Vicipaedia Latina (just Historia Vicipaediae Latinae) which is quite shocking. Harrissimo 17:57, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
It would probably be sensible to move Vicimedia to Wikimedia too. Harrissimo 18:07, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
Isn't the case that Vicipaedia = Wikipaedia Latina? Or alternatively, for consistency's sake, shouldn't Wikipaedia and Vicipaedia be provided as synonyms to Wikipedia?--Rafaelgarcia 21:00, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
When have we ever used Wikipaedia? Harrissimo 21:11, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
Credidi Vicipaediam esse Vicipaediam et Wikipediam esse Wikipediam! IacobusAmor 21:16, 15 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Ergo habemusne:
Vicipaedia = versio latina Wikipediae
Wikipedia = versio anglica Wikpediae
Wikipedia = omnes versiones Wikipediae ?

National park

I have wanted to write this many a time on Vicipaedia but no dictionaries I look in have it. I avoided the obvious and horrible parcus nationalis, settling with tellus conservanda as a coining but sadly fingere malum est. Does anybody know of a better way to say it? Maybe Traupman? Harrissimo 18:36, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

If a (city) park is a hortus (urbanus), we might take a state park to be a hortus civitatis ~ reipublicae and a U.S. national park to be a hortus foederalis, except of course that hortus is probably more like a 'pleasure-garden' than the kind of wilderness included in many state & national parks. Cassell's says Pliny used vivarium for 'preserve'. For 'park', Ainsworth gives only vivarium. IacobusAmor 18:48, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I just came across consaeptum in Morgan. That looks good too. Which adjective would best fit 'national'? (I understand nationalis is very late latin). Harrissimo 18:55, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
Saltus publicus or saltus custoditus or saltus publicae custodiae commissus?--Ceylon 18:56, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
That might work for parks that are essentially mountain defiles, with associated plains, waterfalls, and other such wildernessy terrain (like Yellowstone National Park), but what about national parks that are small islands (Alcatraz National Park) or are under water (Buck Island Reef National Monument)? Oh well. IacobusAmor 19:08, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
L&S says "Saeptum venationis, a park, warren, preserve, enclosed hunting-ground, Varr. R. R. 3, 12, 2; cf. the context.--". Varro's exact words were: "in Gallia vero transalpina T. Pompeius tantum saeptum venationis, ut circiter passum locum inclusum habeat." Harrissimo 19:01, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
I'm sure most of the national parks discourage venatio but that's still got to have some standing (at least the saeptum bit). Harrissimo 19:03, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
A saeptum is apparently a barrier or a wall, hence an enclosure, and in the plural was a voting booth. I suppose national parks count as enclosures of some sort. Certainly forms of venatio can be omitted! IacobusAmor 19:12, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
= Saeptum publicum then, I guess. Thank you, Harrissimo 19:17, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
Hortus (sing) means garden, while horti (pl) and viridarium are given by Traupman for park in the usual sense of tree-garden. For a national park like Yellowstone Saltus sounds nice. Vivarium means a game or wild preserve. There is also Ager meaning field, land, estate, park, territory...which is more neutral in meaning and may describe many city parks more aptly: in New York Battery Park (the central attraction being trees and views) may be rendered as Viridarium Battery, Central Park (having many athletic fields and paths in addition to trees) may be rendered Ager Centralis; and Yellowstone National Park (having many animals, being wild and also being extensive) as Saltus Nationalis Yellowstone. Nationalis though later latin is used nowadays to mean national which here is not the same as publicus but closer to publicae custodiae.--Rafaelgarcia 19:20, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that a state park or a national park wants to have the same term in Latin, whether it's a desert, a lush valley, a treeless mountain, or a coral reef. Saeptum or consaeptum could be close, since most of these parks are enclosures of some sort. Saltus doesn't fit small islands, beaches, and reefs; nor does ager. A viridarium is a green place, hence a pleasure-garden; applying it to the desert of Death Valley National Park would be a stretch. ¶ For 'national', Ceylon's publicus could be apt. IacobusAmor 22:26, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I agree with either Saeptum or Consaeptum as OK as a general term for all kinds of "park" but I am concerned about losing the distinction between state and national park. Why the need to avoid nationalis? foederalis? urbanus? privatus? if we have the terms why not use them?--Rafaelgarcia 23:36, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Saeptum seems nice enough for park, the only slight concern being that saepta used to be rather small enclosures (more the size of a public garden or a zoo than of an average national park). That's why I thought saltus might suit, although I agree that it bears the connotation of trees, and to a lesser extent, hills. I wonder, however, whether national parks without some proportion of woodland would be a negligible quantity. Buck Island Reef is termed a natural monument, so doesn't really need to be included. I wouldn't have qualms about calling the surface of an island either saltus or saeptum.
The usual urban park should remain hortus (Hortus Centralis, Hortus Luxemburgi &c.).--Ceylon 23:49, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Re: "Buck Island Reef is termed a natural monument, so doesn't really need to be included."—Except that it's managed by the National Park Service, which lists it among the U.S. national parks. ¶ For an undoubted underwater park, consider the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, managed by Australia. A marine park further challenges our attempt to find a single word for these parks! ¶ As for "losing the distinction between state and national park," Vicipaedia is pretty much committed to using civitas for 'state', and that word can suffice for any of several kinds of state, including U.S. states and national states (like France & Nauru); for a more complex entity (as with the USA and the old USSR), perhaps foedus 'federation' works. So then we'll have X civitatis and X foederis, where X is the word for 'park'. Some people might argue that necessity requires Vicipaedia to accept natio in the latter sense, Caesar's spinning in his grave notwithstanding. IacobusAmor 02:32, 17 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but the use of park for the Great Barrier Reef doesn't come natural to the English term either, but works by way of metaphor. What we are looking for is a way of saying a bounded area of land, usually in its natural or semi-natural (landscaped) state and set aside for some purpose, usually to do with recreation, and then transfer it by analogy to national parks and the like. Since the English Wikipedia continues: The first parks were land set aside for hunting by the aristocracy in medieval times. They would have walls or thick hedges around them to keep game in and other people out., saeptum looks like a good choice. ¶ As for the national bit, I take it to denote that the park is administered by a public authority (whether municipality, state, federation, or otherwise), rather than being associated with the nation as such (as in national anthem). Nationalis is so late that it might be a good idea to limit it to the latter case.--Ceylon 08:23, 17 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Though I'm coming into this discussion a month late, this actually has implications for me because I have used (or tried to use) the term "national park" in my additions to the article on Tennessee. The term I decided to use in the end was area nationalis; I'm using Traupman as a reference too, and one of the definitions he gives for area is "park." Of course, it also lists "playground" as a possible translation, and the definition that I learned for the word when I studied Latin in highschool was "threshing floor" (I don't even know what that is), so that's probably not the best choice for a translation.
Saeptum doesn't work for me either, as it seems to have more a connotation of a pen (as in a pig pen) or a cubicle of some kind. One of the definitions Traupman gives is "voting booth"; clearly, the term is meant to refer to an enclosure far smaller than what we think of when we hear the term "park" (I would argue that no park is actually an "enclosure" anyway, since by definition they are in fact open to the public). Saltus meanwhile seems to connote an area of wilderness rather than a natural area controlled and managed by a government such as a national or state park. Any way you look at it we're going to either have to severely stretch the meaning of an already existing Latin word, or make up a new one which I know is not allowed.
Horti (plural) in hindsight seems to me at least to be the best translation, since it connotes both a pristine area with wild vegetation and animal life and a purpose of recreation. Still, the word also implies an area smaller than the average national park, more like, as was previously stated, a city park or possibly a botanical garden. I know that there are suffixes in Latin that can be attached to the end of a word to connote "smallness" (e.g., hortulus = "little garden"). I don't know however of any such suffix that connotes "bigness". Then again, the use of civitas, foedus, or even natio in the genitive to modify horti may in and of itself connote the size that we're looking for. Therefore we could say that horti civitatis is "state park" and horti foederis is "national park." That would be the best translation, to me at least; I reckon that's what I'm going to use.--Antodav 18:42, 27 Martii 2008 (UTC)


In translating the names of various awards into Latin I have seen three different methods in the Vikipaedia. The first has the name of the award following praemium in the genitive (e.g. Praemium Academiae); the second has the name of the award as a neuter adjective (e.g. Praemium Nobelianum); the third leaves the name of the award unchanged and indeclinable (e.g. Praemium Grammy). Now of the relevant pages those for the Academy Awards and the Grammys are flagged for their poor Latin and I don't much like the third construction anyway. So to put it to the Taberna at large: which of these constructions are preferred? Dsprag 23:09, 16 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

On the basis of "Populus Romanus (never Romae). The people of Rome" (Bradley's Arnold, #58) and "Sullani milites . . . the soldiers of Sulla" (#289), one might favor the second listed form, Praemium Nobelianum. Maybe Grammy could be considered an indeclinable adjective, but since it's slang (presumably from the gram of gramophone or phonogram), maybe it could generate a regular adjective, to produce the phrase Praemium Grammium. IacobusAmor 02:47, 17 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, type 1 is un-idiomatic, therefore deprecated. Type 2 is perfect, but will not always be possible if we have no source for a suitable Latin adjective. Type 3 would be our fall-back position: it is what we have to do (I guess) if there is no suitable Latin adjective.
For Academy Awards, maybe we ought to consider Praemium Academicum? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:54, 17 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Tibi gratias ago. I was asking for the sake of a translation of the article for Ivana Baquero. I have some further translations in the works, but in the mean time do check out that translation and leave some comments. Dsprag 06:34, 23 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Locally uploaded images: status report and question

You may have noticed that my activities in the last days mostly dealt with (locally uploaded) images. Let me give you a brief status report on locally uploaded images in Vicipaedia.

According to the data available at [2], 13810 distinct images (or sound files – I will use the term "images" throughout) were in use on the Latin vicipaedia as of the beginning of February this year (images that were used on more than one page were counted only once). Of these 13810 images, only 192 (or 1.39%) were locally uploaded images (= images uploaded to la.wikipedia), the huge rest came from commons. In addition to these 192 local images in use, there were 21 unused local images, which made the total of 213 locally uploaded images. (Commons:, as of this writing, has 2 473 579 media files.)

The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit charitable organization that hosts and operates the wikipedias, commons and some other projects, is concerned about creating free content as in the Definition of Free Cultural Works (http://freedomdefined.org/Definition). This means, inter alia, that everyone may use, modify and redistribute wikipedia content. This, in turn, requires that wikipedia (ideally) contains no copyright-restricted content, or at least contains only a very limited and easily identifiable amount of copyright-restricted content. This specially affects uploaded images.

For these reasons, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees passed its wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy some time ago. This resolution requires that by March 23, 2008, all wikimedia projects must contain only free content such as is eligible for commons (so why not store such content on commons anyway?) or a very restricted amount of nonfree but "exempted" content pursuant to the terms of this resolution.

As March 23, 2008 is approaching, I looked through the 213 locally uploaded images. In roughly half of the cases I was able to locate the same image on commons or to identify it as "free" and move it to commons. In the other about half of the cases, permission to use the image was doubtful or (in quite a number of cases) it was quite obvious that there was no such permission and I deleted these images.

The wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy gives us the limited possibility to draw up an "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)" for nonfree images that are so important to us that we want to use them nevertheless. Taking into account that we are working an encyclopedia in the Latin language (not a Roman encyclopedia, Ancient Topics encyclopedia or Catholic encyclopedia, but an encyclopedia written in Latin) I found (and temporarily spared from deletion) five images that we might want to keep although they are not free content:

Do we want to develop an EDP to cover these images? If yes, I would propose the following:

Nonfree content may be used on the Latin vicipaedia where such content satisfies both of the following conditions:
  • The content satisfies all requirements for non-free content as set (and subsequently amended) by the English wikipedia, including but not limited to the requirements stated on the page en:Wikipedia:Non-free content.
  • The content has special value for an encyclopedia written in the Latin language (compared to encyclopedias written in any other language).

Note that I do not encourage uploading nonfree images, and note that the requirements of wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy and of the English wikipedia are very strict (writing a good "fair use rationale" isn't fun). Do we want to open up this way (which means more housekeeping work) or shall we stick to free content only?

--UV 00:37, 18 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Given that we don't want any images uploaded to Vicipaedia, we should get rid of those upload links on the left hand pane. That alone will save the Magistrati a lot of work, deleting images and/or moving them to the commons.--Rafaelgarcia 02:49, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it sucks, but I'm for deleting them, too. Let's stick to our guns. When we say we don't want locally uploaded images, let's mean it.--Ioscius (disp) 04:53, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
If we decide to get rid of locally uploaded images (and I personally would favor this way), then it would be logical to remove the local upload link (technically: to restrict local uploading to administrators only). Any objections? --UV 00:16, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I requested the configuration change: bugzilla:13190. --UV 22:30, 28 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Three months later, the configuration has been changed. The "Fasciculum imponere" link in the toolbox (below the sidebar) now directly points to commons. Specialis:Upload presents an error message to users (while sysops can still use it). --UV 23:14, 23 Maii 2008 (UTC)


Quomodo possum verbum anglicum Governorate - vel verbum hispanicum Gobernación - ad Latinitatem traducere? (How can I translate Governorate (english) or Gubernación (spanish) to Latin?)--Le K-li 01:51, 18 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Governorate is an english word. In the dictionary I find the following synonyms: Gubernatio (steering, governing/gobernacion, direccion) Rectio (ruling/gobernacion) Administratio (management/administracion) Regimen (regime/regimen); looking at the RAE definitions for
  • "Gobernacion: Acción y efecto de gobernar o gobernarse." I would think that you would want "gubernatio" but
but if it is in the sense of
  • "Ministerio de la Gobernación" at the RAE, "El que tenía a su cargo los ramos de administración local, y demás concernientes al orden interior del Estado." then I think you want "administratio publica".--Rafaelgarcia 04:20, 18 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Usores Novi

It seems there are a lot of new users, but the vast majority don't contribute anything as far as I can tell. Is that usual among the Wikipedias or is it peculiar to ours?--Rafaelgarcia 01:17, 19 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is not too unusual. Quite a number of users just want to register their username so to avoid that there are two different users using apparently the same name on different wikis. --UV 11:19, 19 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
And others, like myself, are here to learn Latin, rather than fully contribute (at least yet). 13:45, 3 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Bot Status for Purbo T

Salve. Requesto bot flag for Purbo T (contributiones)

Gracie! --Purodha Blissenbach 02:04, 19 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

I requested our grapheocrates to give bot status to Usor:Idioma-bot and Usor:Purbo T. --UV 11:17, 19 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much! --Purodha Blissenbach 16:26, 19 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Termini statistici (statistical terms)

The main questions are from Bachmai 13:34, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC): I am a statistician. A word for statistics does not even exist in classical Latin and in Latin medii aevi. There are only (partly stupid) synomyms or circumlocutions. However, there exists a Taiwanian-Chinese statistical magazine, named Statistica Sinica.

So I suggest

  • statistica = statistics (the corresponding scientific area in mathematics)
  • statisticus, -a, -um = statistical (adjective)
  • statisticus = statistician

What is a mathematician in Latin? The word pattern of statistics should be analogous to it. Statistica should also be a category name.

'Mathematician' = mathematicus. IacobusAmor 12:48, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
O.k., then statisticus for statistician is clear.--Bachmai 14:33, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

The next most important word is the mean (average) (Germanice: Mittelwert, Durchschnitt), hard to find in a lexicon, the most famous German-Latin Lexicon Georges writes: "plurimus minimusque numerus", which is not useful. A word that is similar to medium is not possible as we need it for the median. I suggest to view the picture of the symbol   which has a bar over the x. A latin word for bar could be linea or tignum although this corresponds more to timber (Balken, Bauholz). I suggest

  • tignarius sive tignarius numerus = mean, average,

where tignarius numerus means that number that belongs to the tignum (timber). The term tignarius is also adequate because the mean is indeed the most important or at least one of the most important timbers in statistics. Besides, the mean can also be interpreted as the x-balance point of equal weights put down on the x-achses, which of course looks like a small bar or timber (tignum). So the tignarius numerus could be interpreted as the balance point of the tignum; it belongs as an important part of the tignum, where the x-values are located, to the tignum itself; belonging to the tignum means "tignarius,-a,-um". In Germany we also say "x quer", the Englishmen or Americans perhaps "bar x". So, do you agree with the term "tignarius" for "mean"? Another suggestion I have is

  • aequans sive aequans numerus = mean, average, i.e. the compensating (equalizing) number

I would suggest both, tignarius as a technical term, whereas aequare could be used more for verbs like averaging. linea aequans for compensating line, the regression line.--Bachmai 13:34, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

To understand the difference between the mean and the median, have a look at the five numbers: 8, 6, 2, 4, 100. The mean of these values is (8 + 6 + 2 + 4 + 100) / 5 = 24, but the median is 6, the "middlest" number after having ordered them. The term "medium" for the latter number only means the mid, but the value in the mid, the middlest value, should simply be called "medius numerus" or in abbreviated form medius, ergo:

  • medius sive medius numerus = median
Secundum Cassell's Latin Dictionary, 'mean' is mediocritas, and 'golden mean' (as used by Horace) is aurea mediocritas. IacobusAmor 12:48, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
The problem of mediocritas is that it is a word ending with -as, which seems more like an abstract or an ethic word. The english word mean has much more meaning than the German word Mittelwert which is indeed unique. I still look in Georges Latin-German what he writes about mediocritas. Further, the mediocritas contains the medi in medius which I use for median. --Bachmai 13:34, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Would 'modicus (numerus)' serve your purpose better? --Fabullus 14:10, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Following Jacobus Amor, it seems that mensura is what i want: medius, medius geometricus, medianus etc. mensurae statisticae sunt, sed quae mensurae? They are location measures (in Latin?), contrary to digressio normalis, if called so, which is a dispersion measure.--Bachmai 14:52, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
A "median" is not a "medius", "arithmetic mean" is numerus medius imO or numerus medius arithmeticus, medius geometricus, medius harmonicus. The specially defined median is numerus medianus. And: numerus decilis, numerus quintilis, numerus quartilis, numerus centilis.--Alex1011 14:19, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
These are exactly the terms I need. Where are they from? Instead of numerus centilis I need it a little more exact: e.g. the 90% quantile, perhaps nonagintesimus centilis (nonagintilis is wrong, means 1/90)? What are upper and lower quantiles? superior and inferior or summus and imus? But these questions are not yet important for now. --Bachmai 14:52, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

The standard deviation is very important in statistics. What means standard in Latin? I ask for suggestions to the following terms:

  • ??? deviatio = standard deviation
If normalis is acceptable (though not Classical), I'd suggest digressio normalis. IacobusAmor 12:48, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
This could be acceptable, the word normal also appears in the normal distribution, but this is also a kind of standard distribution, so the word normal could be justified for standard. Further, the standard deviation is closely related to the normal distribution; it is the most efficient dispersion measure at this distribution. Concerning digressio: I found in Google 130 hits for deviatio eius (eius to select Latin pages), 458 for dispersio eius and indeed 1130 for digressio eius. Is one or more of these words classical Latin? I still have a problem with digressio. The "regression analysis" is a technical term, so digressio, which is something else, could be a bit too similar to it.--Bachmai 13:34, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Cassell's implies that digressio is indeed Classical, though of course any statistical sense for it must be recent. There's apparently no Classical word regressio, but that would be a regular formation in parallel with digressio. IacobusAmor 13:42, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Digressio vel deviatio: I even find "di(s)" better than "de" for a dispersion meaure. (To all: To understand a dispersion measure: The numbers 100.1, 100.2, 100.3 have a much smaller dispersion than the numbers 10, 20, 30.) Since we have no Latin word for standard directly, we anyway have to use a name that sounds different from the English one; we have to use normalis, so we can also use digressio instead of deviatio, which is not classical:
Current Favorite:
digressio normalis = standard deviation --Bachmai 14:33, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Furhter problem. There also existes the standard normal distribution. We could use the word normalis in 'standard deviation, but we still need a word for standardization or for "to standardize". Would the word "normare" work (at least "denormare' exists, i.e.
  • distributio normalis normata = standard normal distribution?

--Bachmai 13:34, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

standard = normalis, normal = normatus ? Too difficult and confusing! Use 'normalis' for 'normal' and find something else for 'standard'. Perhaps 'regula' (subst.) and 'regularis' (adj.) might do the trick. --Fabullus 15:04, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

  • ??? = variance (variation would be a more abstract word as variance, which is a defined measure)
  • ??? = sample (Germanice: Stichprobe)
Fortasse series fortuita 'a random set'. Vel catena fortuita, vel congeries fortuita, vel conlatio fortuita. IacobusAmor 13:50, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps 'temere' (adv.) and 'temerarius' (adj.) grasp the meaning of 'random' better. --Fabullus 14:12, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
  • mensura, (vel modus?, modulus?) = (Germanice: Maßzahl), measure in sense of "the median is another measure as the mean"

--, Usor Bachmai, 12:35, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with mensura, which can mean 'that by which anything is measured'. So: modus, medius, et mediocritas sunt statisticae rerum mensurae. IacobusAmor
mensura = Maßzahl (measure, kind of measure)

We have a category: Categoria:Res statisticae. I would suggest the neolatin terms statisticus, -a, -um, numerus medius, numerus medianus, sample is ad litteram exemplum. Etc. I think there are a lot of mathematical treatises on statistics, Gauss for instance. --Alex1011 14:05, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

So I shall look at Gauss first before we decide on the names.
Thanks for the category name: Categoria:Res statisticae, whcih I did not know--Bachmai 14:33, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
When I was researching the article mathematica I found sources for the various statistical terms in Euler, Gauss, etc..
mean = valor medius or perhaps medium statisticum?
median = valor medianus
deviation = deviatio
standard deviation = deviatio canonica
distribution = distributio
I added 'canonica' for standard because it is used in this sense throughout science meaning accepted and embraced by the community. Variance and standard deviation are synonyms, referring to the same thing in statistics, so that I don't see the need to invent a new term. I did not look for equivalents of sample; perhaps exemplum or specimen?--Rafaelgarcia 15:06, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Rafael, although the variance is only the square of the deviatio canonica, it is an often used term.--Bachmai 15:23, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I guess you're right, especially since there are pages on the the various wikipedia describing variance and standard deviation separately. I don't know if gauss or euler used variantia for that, but this latin word means variety and is the obvious source of the term variance in the various romance languages.--Rafaelgarcia 15:50, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Variantia seems o.k. I now have the digitalized Disqisitiones Arithmeticae on my computer (from Uni Goettingen). But the search function does not work. It seems that pdf does not recognize this scanned fonts. What I still need is a word for "location parameter" and one for "dispersion parameter" or at least a general word for "location" and "dispersion". "mensura situs" can be found by google, but I have not studied its use. Is the word parameter also used in Latin (parametrum?). Otherwise mensura should stand for parameter. I would still need a word for density. I think densitas should be o.k. (There exists the Vici article densitas et spissitudo.) And how should a density function be called "functio densitatis"? Is radix the root and radix quadratica the square-root?--Bachmai 17:06, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Radix quadrata, Dispersionis parametrum and Positionis parametrum would be, I think, what you are looking for.--Rafaelgarcia 18:02, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

We have the page Vicipaedia:Census ... should the title be changed or is "census" ok? --Rolandus 20:45, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

There are several senses of the term statistics: mathematical statistics (both descriptive and theoretical) describe data relative to a central tendency; i.e. things characterized by an uncertainty or error. There is also separately statistics in the sense of lists of data such as baseball player statistics, country statistics or sports statistics which are only intented as a summary of data. Statistica in latin would only refer to the mathematical subject describing error and central tendency. For the other aspect, rationarium is suggested by Egger (according to Morgan), but Census would be appropriate for periodic collations of usage data and the like as in Vicipaedia Census.--Rafaelgarcia 21:00, 21 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
For sample I think series fortuita is not a bad choice, however, is this really a random set. The row order in a set is not essential: {1,2,3} = {3,1,2}, series sounds more like a row or tuple where (1,2,3) not equal to (3,1,2) ; sample only appears in English (German: Stichprobe). In Spanish it is called Muestra estadística; I looked for muestra, it is similar to the German Probe. I shall take selectio fortuita or perhaps selectio statistica. Random selection is also used in English. But what is a set, really: series?
Normally we differ between descriptive statistics (res statisticae descriptivae?, that could be equivalent to rationarium, in any case if the statistics is only the list) and statistical inference, what you call theoretical statistics or mathematical statistics. The mathematical statistics differs from the usual statistical inference by treating more the mathematical foundations, e.g. theory of meausre (probability). Census could be a synonym for statistical inference, but I am not sure. I shall differ between descriptive statistics (res statisticae descriptivae) and statistical inference (res statisticae inferrentes sive inferrentia (?) statistica?), as I have learnt it. Res statisticae mathematicae are the mathematical foundations that belong to mathematics; it is closely related to probability theory.
I am no longer sure that statistica should be used for the science statistics. Maybe that the statistica in the journal Statistica Sinica is only neutrum plural of the adjective. So I shall use res statisticae, which cannot be wrong.
For to standardize I use canonicare, canonicatus for the ppp; I found canonicata and canonicavit on Google.
Is variabilis the name for a variable?
Besides, in found in an online lexicon variantia and variatio (German: Verschiedenheit, corresponding to "differentness"), so I use variantia for variance and variatio for variation.
I need a word for reciprocal.
I shall begin with the res distributio normalis = distributio Gaussiana. Have a look at the first articles to correct first problems that always arise.
As often happens, we have here a contrast between the Latinity of the Golden Age and the Latinity invited by latter-day invention. (I reiterate my prediction that someday Vicipaedia will split into a modern Latin encyclopedia and a purely Classical one.) Cicero wouldn't have recognized canonicare, though he'd presumably recognize that it's a verb. According to Cassell's, the Classical noun for 'canon' is lex, regula, norma; the first leads to the Classical adjective legitimus, but the latter two lead to forms (regularis, normalis) apparently not attested until more modern times. Statisticus would likewise have been opaque in Classical times; to translate the English word, Cassell's says: "render by census (ūs) or numerus (= number)." Variabilis isn't in Cassell's, though variantia and variatio and of course varius are. Selectio fortuita is a pair of Classical words, a combination probably intelligible across the ages. The adjective 'reciprocal' is Classically mutuus; a noun for it seems to be wanting, but maybe the Classical solution would be res mutua or numerus mutuus; the attested noun, mutuum, means 'reciprocity, equal return' ('reciprocally' is mutuo and invicem). 'Inference' is "as a logical process, argumentatio, coniectura and as a "conclusion drawn, conclusio, coniectura." Descriptivus seems not to be Classical, though descriptio is. Inferentes (with one R) is a participle, 'inferring, concluding'. ¶ Naturally, if Gauss and other Latin-speaking mathematicians used a term, it's welcome here, no matter how strange it might appear to the ancients, but even those worthies wouldn't understand convenientiae gradus (the goodness of fit), Discipuli t (Student's t), Experimentum U Mann-Whitney (the Mann-Whitney U test), or fidei confinia sigmatis quadrati (the confidence limits of σ2), though they'd likely recognize the words themselves (except Mann-Whitney). Oh well. IacobusAmor 12:51, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I would not have problems to build up everything anew from the classically Latin standpoint if this is possible. It could then determine the future Latin. Who else writes in Latin today? But we must find an adequate word for everything. I personally would like digressio. It is not too late. The articles concerning mathematical things are only a few. But the question is if it is possible to make everything in classical Latin. I think theorema, -tis, is not good too, but has been used by Gauss. I would prefer "lex", but wrote theorema in accordance to Gauss. We should talk about this. Is it possible? I think valor is also not classical. It would not be a problem to write numerus instead. But what is with words like "probabilisticus". You cannot write "probabilis". A probable functin is different from a function that describes probability, and so on. Please have a look at my article Distributio normalis, I used words where I have great doubts whether they are correct, e.g. functio densitiva (density function), theorema centrale limitivum (central limit theorem), symmetricus,a,um, sida pecuniae.... the verb "utor" has the ablative. Has the noun usus,-us, also the ablative. And tell me the words in a classical Latin. But we must agree in which Latin the articles should be written. De facto, Latin has died out, to return to it we have two possiblities, return to the Latin medii aevi or to the classical one. The second possibility has the disadvantage that then words in the Latin of science in the medium aevum cannot be recognized by someone who has learnt Latin in Vici. Can we distinguish scientific termini that have arisen that time? --Bachmai 15:11, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I think a pragmatic approach will do. If there is late Latin literature on a scientific topic like mathematics, physics, statistics, Chemistry, Medicine, Biology, we should use these attested terms. The same thing applies to church Latin. As a general rule, however, classical Latin should be the norm. --Alex1011 15:16, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I think like Alex. If we want to have a terminius technicus we are often glad to have a name that is not usual, so that it immediately says that this term is something else, it has another meaning than the usual verb. It is often practical that we can use Latin, Greec or English words in German that immediately make clear that this is a terminus technicus. And I think that Ciciero does not need to know what a deviatio canonica is if he does not know how it is defined. It was not yet defined that time he lived. And if we tell him what it is, he woulb probably be glad to have another name which clearly indicates that this and only this is meant. If it were a name that remembers him of something else, he would have difficulties to differ between the terminus technicus and the corresponding word in the all-day language. In Germany we have the possibility to say "Veränderliche" instead of "Variable", but no one wants to say this, because it does not make clear that this is a mathematical expression. However, I do not know whether "variabilis" is a new Latin word. Could be that it is no Latin at all. I have forgotten to mention this in my last posting. I hope that one can check whether this word is usable. Further, perhaps "digressio" would Cicero remember of a "good bye". So it has its advantages, too, if new mathematical inventions are designated by new names. But, as you say, if possible, i.e. if there does not yet exist a terminus technicus invented in former time, we should not invent new terms, instead we should try to at the classical Latin. So, I think it would not be a problem to change valor to numerus. I think that numerus has also been used, and that valor is not a terchnical term.--Bachmai 15:46, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Both valor and variabilis are neolatin technical terms first attested in Euler's works. He explains their meaning in his calculus book comparing his terminology variabilis to Newton's fluentis, etc..--Rafaelgarcia 15:53, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that the density of the normal distribution is also called the Gaussian bell curve (German: Gaußsche Glockenkurve) (bell = campana, its adjective = ?, curve = ?). For today I will leave Vici. --Bachmai 16:07, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Thank your for corrections: I said: See the disputatio page after having waited a minute. However, I have changed my mind. It is not necessary that everyone can find this discussion. Let's stay here:
Distribution function, which I called functio distributiva is a terminus technicus and should not be changed to a function that gives something. It change this back.
theorema, -tis is neutrum, so centralis relates to limitis. I thought it is related to theorema (from German: zentraler Grenzwertsatz, Grenzwert=limit, Satz = Theorem). English: central limit theorem, here central seems indeed to be relatet to limits, and I see that this is more meaningful, so the correction sounds well, but must also be used in the text, where limitivum has not yet been changed. I shall do this. Again: How should bell curve be translated? --Bachmai 17:26, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
The discussion should be moved to Disputatio:distributio normalisRafaelgarcia 17:45, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Technical terms

In my opinion technical terms should be used, but sparingly and each one we use should eventually have a page explaining its origin, like was done for volumen and massa. In other words, any unusual neolatin term we introduce and use more than once should be explained somewhere on some page in Vicipaedia. --Rafaelgarcia 16:28, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Nimia consilia

I have made a prototype of the new introduction at Vicipaedia:Praefatio/2. If you think I have missed anything out or put too much in, please let me know. Harrissimo 03:12, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

I like it. Much easier to grasp than before. I would suggest that this replace the current Vicipaedia:Praefatio. I also think the link to Vicipaedia:Praefatio could be nearer the top of Vicipaedia:Pagina communis, and there should be a link to it on Vicipaedia:Pagina prima as well (if there is one already, I missed it). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:04, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
That is done now. What do you mean by the Pagina communis, by the way?
That's why the link came red ... I meant Porta communis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:04, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I can't add anything to the Pagina Prima if you want to put in a link somewhere. Harrissimo 23:13, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC).
I have also made Vicipaedia:Fons/2 which is a considerable cleanup on the old page. The same as my first post applies (feel free to criticise and improve). It is possible that there is more information at Vicipaedia:Fons but I tried to keep it as concise as possible. The new one also needs partly latinising. Harrissimo 22:44, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

De littera v

Nos omnes, censeo et spero, scire sonum "v" non esse in lingua Latina classica atque signum "v" humanistas e "V" capitali Latina inuenisse ac usos esse in principio uerborum. Deinde credo signum "v" mittendum pro "u". Quid remini?

I think and hope that we all know that the sound "v" did not exist in classical Latin and Humanists got the symbol "v" from latin capital "V" and used it at the beginning of the words. Therefore I believe that the letter "u" should be used instead of "v". What do you think?--Maxos 14:29, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Vide Vicipaedia:Commendationes paginarum recte scribendarum; iam de hoc disputavimus et condiximus v utere.--Rafaelgarcia 14:42, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Maxos is confused. The sound did exist (its pronunciation was [w]). In classical Latin writing the character V represented two sounds, the vowel [u] and the consonant [w].
Like many other modern Latinists (but not all), we use the character U u for the vowel and V v for the consonant. As Rafael says, this has been much discussed and agreed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:56, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Ita, di immortales, non verberemus equum permortuum!!!--Ioscius (disp) 17:22, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Verberabo quodlubet. Cher Andrew, noli Maxon confused habere, with "sound "v"" I meant just like "v" is pronounced in English or Italian, pol, I know it stands for a semivowel. In my opinion your choice is very weak and misleading for them who are not so docti in Latin phonology, anyway this is a free site. Valetote--Maxos 21:33, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Maxos -- it's good to know that you are not confused! And your contributions are welcome on Vicipaedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:44, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I think our way of doing this is very standard if you look at most recent neolatin translations and writing. Given that this is intended as an encyclopedia, it is proper for us to reflect "standard practice" on things like orthography. We also try as much as possible to not be POV regarding pronunciation and people in some communities do and/or have pronounced the v as english v rather than as english w; just like church latinists pronounce the c as english ch rather than english k. However, everyone pronounces I and J the same, with no difference between them. See for example "Teachers trained in the tradition of the Catholic Church will generally use the fricative -v- and the palatalized -ch-, others will use the other sounds, which the majority of modern scholars feels to be more authentic."--Rafaelgarcia 22:15, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand that it would be disappointing for someone looking for a latin word not to find it only because of an orthographic convention. Et, cum Italicus sim, nimium ualide scio presbytes "Romanice" Latinum loqui, but, in my personal opinion, classical Latin should be our beacon, since works of the greatest value for us were written (and read) in that language. Anche se non disprezzo il latino moderno che io stesso parlo, deinde ego uobis salutem dicam sermone Latino-Parmensi: A v'salùd, stì bén.

--Maxos 07:11, 23 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Number pages

I think it is utterly unencyclopaedic to have pages like XXIII in Vicipaedia. I complained a while back about the tiny stubs we have, but these are really pushing it. It's not that I'm striving for some kind of perfection everywhere - it just seems to me like they are pages for the sake of pages. Harrissimo 21:12, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

XXIII and Viginti tres seem to be duplicates of one another; 23 (numerus) is a redirect. Practically no other pages point to these. The English equivalent is en:23 (number), which has a certain amount of desultory information in it; our pages don't. Yes, I do see what you mean. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:28, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I like that English page and I'll add the desultory information to our Viginti tres type pages. I guess we can change all those Roman number pages into redirects. Harrissimo 21:34, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC).

Iscrizione fallita

Vorrei iscrivermi, ma dopo che ho digitato il mio nome "Lio", la password e cliccato su conventum aperire, mi giunge il messaggio che il nome è sconosciuto. E' un problema momentaneo o cosa devo fare?

Credo te dicere habere problema in conventum tuum aperiendo?...Egomet nec problema habeo in conventum concludendo nec in conventum aperiendo... Et conventum nomine "Usor:Lio" quaesivi, nihil conventum sub illo nomine inventum est. Aperuisti tale conventum?--Rafaelgarcia 01:04, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Hodie, prima vicie, inscribere vellem et nominem Lio signavi sicut usor, sed mea inscriptio non accepta est a computatro.
Fortasse conventum sub hoc nomine Lio antea habebamus, sed ob causam quandam deletur; et nunc requirimus magistratum ut hoc problema corrigatur...--Rafaelgarcia 02:32, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago, Rafaelgarcia. Potes tuipse adire magistratum pro correctione mei problematis? Lio82.89.204.1 10:28, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Sum magistratus. Ego conventum novum nuper aperui sub nomine Lio sine ullam difficultatem, et iam conclusi. Igitur, Lio, nunc potes aperire eundem conventum. Potes uti password quod imaginavi -- beaumont -- et postea ire ad "praeferentias meas" ut novum password imponeas. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Recte aperui conventum et gratias ago magistratui et usori Rafaelgarcia, qui me sequitur in meis peregrinationis in Vicipedia conantem contribuere corrigendo scripta quae forte accidunt sub oculis meis. Sed non intellego quomodo potest me sequi et iudicare qualitatem latinitatis meam!

Omnes possumus alios sequi per illam Nuper mutata buttonem quae in loco laevo potes videre. Mos noster apud Vicipaediam semper est alios interdum sequi ut recensiones vandalisticas seu erroneas revertamus.--Rafaelgarcia 14:48, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical terms


I'm preparing a mathematical article, but unfortunately it's quite difficult to find some specific terms because hardly any dictionary printed or online contains them. My concrete "problems" are "null/root/zero" of a function (for the moment, I used zerum, -i n.), "extremum" (I used extremum, -i n.), "turning point" (punctum, -i n. vertendi) and "saltus" (saltus, -us m.).

Although I am quite sure about extremum and saltus, "punctum vertendi" seems a bit adventurous. Could anyone please give me the true translations into Latin of the expressions or - even better - recommend a dictionary to me that contains such specific terms (for I might have similar problems with other technical terms later)? I would be most grateful.

Please just leave a message on my pagina usoris if you can help. Thank you in advance! Ahib 17:54, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

0 can be cifra (-ae, f.), zephirum (-i, n.), zerum (-i, n.), zerus (-i, m.), zero (indecl.), nihil (indecl.).--Ioscius (disp) 18:02, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I also needed that point (in German: Wendepunkt). I took it from the mathematically English word "inflection point" (confirmed in a lexicon that translates English termini technici in mathematics and statistics to German ones. So I called this point "punctum inflectionis". I do not know whether this is good Latin. If you find a better expression, please also change it in my article distributio normalis. -- 20:05, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC). Was Bachmai 21:08, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
"Punctum inflectionis" seems to be correct: [4]. --Alex1011 20:29, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Both my dictionaries give inflexio, not inflectio, and the online L&S doesn't have the latter either. IacobusAmor 21:02, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
O.k.: So it seems that punctum inflexionis should rather be used than punctum inflectionis. I can change this in further recensendo. Also have a look at my next topic! --Bachmai 21:08, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

I'll also use "punctum inflexionis" then. Thank you all for your efforts! Ahib 18:19, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

"Puncta inflexionum" according to Fermat and this: [5]

INFLECTION POINT. In the last page of an appendix to his "Methodus ad disquirendam maximam & minimam," Fermat wrote:

Quia tamen sæpius curvatura mutatur, ut in conchoide Nicomedea, quæ pertinet ad priorem casum, et in omnibus speciebus curvæ Domini de Roberval (prima excepta) quæ pertinet ad secundum, ut perfecte curva possit delineari, investiganda sunt ex arte puncta inflexionum, in quibus curvatura ex convexa fit concava vel contra: cui negotio eleganter inservit doctrina de maximis et minimis, hoc prwmisso lemmate generali: The above was posthumously printed in the Opera varia, Toulouse, 1679, and is also in Oeuvres de Fermat, Paris : Gauthier-Villars, 1891, p. 166).


Mesolabum, (2nd ed., 1668) by René François Walther de Sluze contains two additional parts, "De Analysi" and "Miscellanea." Chapter 5 of the Miscellanea, which has the title "De puncto flexus contrarii, in Conchoeide Nicomedis prima," answers a problem posed (and solved) by Christiaan Huygens (mentioned p. 119) at the end of his "De circuli magnitudine inventa," Leiden, 1654: problem VIII "In Conchoide linea invenire confinia flexus contrarii," p. 69-71 (with French translation and commentary in Huygens, Oeuvres complètes, vol. XII, 1910, p. 210-215; p. 110-112 give more detailed information on the interchange between Huygens and Schooten concerning this problem). The problem was later also solved by Hendrik van Heuraet, printed in Frans van Schooten's "In Geometriam Renati Des Cartes Commentarii," 2nd edition, 1659, p. 258-262, where Schooten calls the point "punctum Conchoïdis C, quod duas ejus portiones, concavam & convexam, à se invicem distinguit."

In the extract of Sluse's famous letter on his tangent method, printed in Philosophical Transactions, nr 90, (1673), p. 5143-5147, Sluse refers to chapter 5 of the "Miscellanea": "qua ratione flexus contrarii curvarum ex Tangentibus inveniantur, ostendi" (p. 5147).

In his 1684 article "Nova methodus pro maximis et minimis" in Acta eruditorum, Leibniz used punctum flexus contrarii (point of opposite flection). More information is in T. F. Mulcrone, The Mathematics Teacher 61 (1968), 475-478, which has not been seen.

--Alex1011 10:17, 27 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Let's reconsider "statistica" versus "census"

I was a little shocked as I read about the etymology of the word statistics in the German Wiki-page:

Das Wort Statistik stammt vom lateinischen „statisticum“ („den Staat betreffend“) und dem italienischen „statista“ („Staatsmann" oder „Politiker“). Die deutsche Statistik, eingeführt von Gottfried Achenwall (1749), bezeichnete ursprünglich die Lehre von den Daten über den Staat, also Staatstheorie. Im 19. Jahrhundert hatte der Engländer Sir John Sinclair das Wort erstmals in seiner heutigen Bedeutung des allgemeinen Sammelns und Auswertens von Daten benutzt.

I translate in English:

The word statistics comes from the Latin "statisticum" ("concerning the state" (in the sense of country)) and the Italian "statistica" ("statesman"). The German statistics, introduced by Gottfried Achenwall (1749), originally denotes the teaching concerning data about the state, ergo: state-theory. In the 19th century the Englishman John Sinclair used this word the first time in today's meaning of a general collectiing and evaluating of data.

The idea that status = a 'political state' appears to be post-Classical, as the only senses of status recognized in Cassell's are (a) the basic one, 'a standing, standing position, posture', and (b) a transferred one, 'position, condition, state, mode of operation'. IacobusAmor 22:55, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for this. --Bachmai 09:54, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

When "statisticum" means "concerning the state", then I think that sate should be "stata" or something similar in Latin, which is new for me. I thought "state" means "civitas" or "res publica", but I am not a professional Latinman. I already know from Jacobus Amor that statistica is not a classical word. We agreed that non-classical words should only be used for termini technici. But, if at all, statisticus,-a,-um can only have been a terminus technicus for something that belongs to the state. That's not what I wanted to say with the term statisticus,-a,-um. Further: Has John Sinclair used this word in English or in Latin? If in Latin, has he enough merits that he is allowed to define Latin words as Gauss or Euler?

In my opinion, it seems that "statisticus, -a, -um" has never been used in scientific Latin journals. The Taiwan-Chinese statistical journal "Statistica Sinica" is written in English. Maybe that they thought of a Latin name (as I meant wherefore I used the word statisticus,-a,-um in my article), but were they able to give the journal a Latin name? The author of the Vici article mathematica has also used this word, but I do not know from where, was this well foundated or only an emergency solution?

The Vatican Lexicon also does not use the word "statistica" for statistics, it writes "rationarium". This might be good enough for descriptive statistics, but not for statistical inference and its basis, the mathematical statistics.

The Latin word "census, -us" hits the current meaning of statistics best. The census is a tax or possession estimation based on some facts (corresponding to statistical inference), but is also used for tax lists, so it is also a kind of descriptive statistics.

My suggestion now is to cancel the word statisicus,-a,-um including the category name "res statisticae" and to use:

  • census,-us (sive res censoriae) = statistics
  • censor = statistician
  • censorius,-a,-um = statistical
  • functio censoria = statistic (a function from the set of data to a statistical measure like mean or standard deviation),

unless someone can prove that statisticus,-a,-um has been used by a Latin scientific writer in today's meaning of the term statistics. Our Latin should not be dictated from someone, who has used the term statistics in today's meaning not in the Latin, but in the English language, as I interpret the German Wiki-article. --Bachmai 21:08, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Further: Please also think of me! Have a look at profession names: "mathematician" (comes from the Arabic very progressive mathematics, like the arabic numbers from the "cross wars" (you know what I mean)), sounds very well; "physicist" sounds well; however: "statistician" sounds awful! If I could say now "censor sum" instead of "statisitcus sum", this would be much more exciting for me. --Bachmai 21:08, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

I think we cannot avoid terms like neolatin statisticus, -a, -um. Rerum statisticarum peritus etc.. With special meanings, of course, other terms like census or rationarius, whatever, can be used. Censor is problematic, because it had also the modern meaning of censorship. --Alex1011 21:47, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Here is a definition of "res statistica" and "statistica", perhaps not exactly the modern meaning, but quite close: [6] --Alex1011 21:52, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
The problem concerning the meaning censorship was also with the Latin word censura, which had this meaning, but could be distinguished from census. Another problem (or an indication for using census?) is that the name census has a meaning in German (the micro census). One percent of the German population must list up their data every day. Concerning the Latin definition: It shows that res statisticae have existed. I have not looked at everything exactly, but it seemed that it was strongly related to the state. Nevertheless, the Latin meaning can change during the time like in German or English. I do not know which word should be used.--Bachmai 22:08, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Morgan's gloss also gives:statistics / ars rationaria [Vox Lat.]; statistica* [s.18] | statistical statisticus* [s.16] (Helf.)
The star indicates that it is a modern word (after 1400). Alex found a source above. I think it is fine to use these other terms in non mathematica contexts, but in mathematics like it or not, statistics is translated statistica.--Rafaelgarcia 22:47, 25 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Then I would start a small pagina on "statistics" or "statistical theory" (Statistica) using the source above, which is it already, nearly. --Alex1011 08:28, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
There is some connexion of the definitions in this source to what we today understand under statistical theory, even though it's only related to the political state (to conclude from res datae). But your pagina should be related to the origin of the term. The definition of statistical theory, as we understand it now, is independent of a political state. What means the form "Statistices" I saw on this page?--Bachmai 09:54, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
As with mathematices, -is this is the Greek form: Statistices, -is or Statistica, -ae. --Alex1011 10:16, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Stephanus Berard repeatedly uses statistica/statisticus in its modern sense throughout his writing, from his De Philosophia Quantali deque Institutione Publica:Vt simpliciter dicatur, ...appareat particula, nulli rei nisi probabilitatis principiis statisticis subiecta....extrapolatio: processus mathematicus et statisticus quo, ut generatim dicatur, elementi variabilis cuiuspiam valor æstimatur etiamsi nonnulli valores ad rem attinentes nondum relati vel animadversi sint. Furthermore, I found that Stephanus is real picky about purity of the language: if he used statisticus, he had to have good reasons: in this case I suspect it is because the alternatives are too confounding, as noted above.--Rafaelgarcia 11:17, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I'm having trouble parsing nulli in appareat particula, nulli rei nisi probabilitatis principiis statisticis subiecta . . . extrapolatio. It's not genitive (because that would regularly be nullius), so it has to be nominative, but as a masculine plural it can't refer back to particula, nor can it refer forward to any of the four next nouns, so it has to stand on its own (as 'none', yet plural?!), but then it has no verb. Could someone enlighten me? IacobusAmor 14:37, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I believe it is dative of the adjective nulla, e.g. nulla res ->nulli rei, think it says "a particle appears, subject to nothing except the statistical principles of probability." I personally would have tried using nihil but he may have been thinking in terms of "no principle" or "not a thing".--Rafaelgarcia 16:12, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
O.k., since it has got the status of a terminus technicus, it should be used. It was not my intention to counteract the term Statistica but to only clearify things before it could be too late (after having used it hundrests of times). --Bachmai 12:50, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's indeed really important. Even with our best efforts we end up having to reverse ourselves quite often.--Rafaelgarcia 14:07, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Further statistical terms

  • What is a set (German: Menge) in the sense of e.g. the set of real numbers (... realium numerorum)? -copia numerorum realium based on recent discussion of how to translate set as copia.--Rafaelgarcia 16:14, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC); o.k. --Bachmai 17:57, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
  • What is axially symmetrical? - Axialis symmetria ? [7] --Alex1011 14:22, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC). So, is axialiter symmetricus,-a,-um possible for axially symmetrical?--Bachmai 17:57, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
  • Center of symmetry? Centrum symmetricum vel centrum symmetriae?
  • Rectangular distribution sive uniform distribution sive Gleichverteilung (German, gleich = equal) = distributio rectangularis, distributio uniformis, distributio aequalis? The term exists but with a social meaning: [8] --Alex1011 23:02, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC) The meaning is: Every person should get an equal amount. In the corresponding density function it means that every x should occur with the same probability density. I think this would also work in this meaning. "Gleichmäßige Verteilung" is that of what I thought. Distributio rectangularis indicates the graphical illustration of the density, which looks like a rectangle. We could proceed like in German where Rechtecksverteilung (distributio rectangularis) and Gleichverteilung (distributio aequalis) are used. I find that the second English term uniform = uniformis does not so clearly express this, and I would avoid this. The first English term is rectangle like in German.--Bachmai 23:24, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Everything o.k.?-I would think rectangularis is least ambiguous.--Rafaelgarcia 16:17, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC) I also think so, so should this be the only name? --Bachmai 17:57, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

  • Skewness, skewed distribution: Obliquitas, distributio obliqualis? --Bachmai 12:50, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)--distributio obliqua--Rafaelgarcia 16:17, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC) For skewed (German: schief) I found inclinatus and pendens in the Vatican lexicon, for skewness (Schieflage) I still found inclinatio. I have found obliquitas in an online lexicon. I feel that a meausre of skewness E(X-EX)^3/sigma^3 could be called mensura obliquitatis, an inclinationis?, the skewness itself obliqutias, an inclinatio?, and a skewed distribution, as you said: distributio obliqua (an inclinata?). Using pendens sounds not o.k. to me. --Bachmai 17:57, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

I made many thoughts about "distributio obliqua" or "inclinata" and came to the conclusion that "obliqua" better corresponds to our imagination of a skewed distribution. --Bachmai 23:24, 26 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Bell est Latine campana et forma campanae est forma curvae Gaussianae. Tintinnabulum est parvum instrumentum aptum sono sed non campana. Ergo "curva campanae Gaussiana" vel "curva campanaria Gaussiana"? Lio 00:20, 28 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

I agree tintinnabulum seems inappropriate. "Curva forma campana Gaussiana" would literally means "bell-shaped Gaussian curve" and is a literal translation of what "Gaussian bell curve" means.--Rafaelgarcia 03:11, 28 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Immo, it depends on which Latin you're using: Latin of the Golden Age had no such word as campana (L&S mark it "late"), so you're stuck with tintinnabulum, but naturally people who want to use newfangled terms, especially for newfangled concepts, have every right to go ahead and do so. IacobusAmor 05:06, 28 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

Bucentaur: Translation of Italian and Latin terms

Hi, help would be much appreciated in translating the following Italian and Latin terms in the article "Bucentaur" into English:


  • "La Nuova regia su l'acque nel Bucintoro nuovamente cretto all'annua solenne funzione del giorno dell'Ascensione di Nostro Signore" (book title).


"cum uno artificioso et solemni Bucentauro, super quo venit usque ad S. Clementem, quo jam pervenerat principalior et solemnior Bucentaurus cum consiliariis, &c". "quod Bucentaurus Dominions ducis Fiat for Dominium et teneatur in Arsenatu". "Antonii Coradini sculptoris Inventum". [Translated – thanks.]

Do respond on the article's talk page. Thanks very much. — Cheers, JackLee 04:22, 28 Februarii 2008 (UTC), updated 15:26, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical formulations

I have problems to say things like

  • "results in",
--often can be rendered by "efficit ut", unde, ut, and depending on the circumstances by other expressions--Rafaelgarcia 04:20, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
  • "is defined by means of",
--depends on the circumstance but you might be able to do it by "per X-acc definitur"; or by "modo X-ablative/genitive definitur"; or simply "X-ablative+ definitur" --Rafaelgarcia 04:20, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
  • using
--render by ablative; if ambiguous can add modo or utendo--Rafaelgarcia 04:20, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
  • based on (currently I use ablative + fundatus,-a,-um)
--I've not seen this expression before; I'm not sure how to translate--Rafaelgarcia 04:20, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
"derived/obtained from X" can be said "ab X-ablative derivata" or "ab X-ablative allata"--Rafaelgarcia 04:55, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
  • "at x = 0"
--cum x=0, apud punctum x=0--Rafaelgarcia 04:20, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
  • (is defined) as follows: (currently I always write "sic")
--you can just say "definitur ut + equation" "as follows" is really not used in latin; see how Euler, Gauss, Newton write
  • the following equation (sequens, haec, or ...)
--"following" sometimes rendered by late latin adjective "sequens"; but this should be avoided; use "qui sequitur" if you absolutely must; or just "aequatio + equation". Equations are used just like words in latin, as part of a sentence like an abbrevation or a numeral.--Rafaelgarcia 04:20, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
  • primum, secundum, tertium momentum, but what is the k th moment? (up to now I wrote momentum ordinis k)
  • What is the kth derivative (German: Ableitung) called, e.g. the kth derivative of .. with respect to t at t=0,
--"secundum derivatum respectu t cum t=0", tertium, etc..--Rafaelgarcia 04:20, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
"secundum derivatum" is not clear: Did you mean "the second derivative" (then: derivative = derivatum,-i; (I asked for the kth one), or did you mean according to the derivative; what is the derivative in Latin?) --Bachmai 21:52, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
  • The preceding questions are mainly related to Functio momenta generans.
  • I am not content with "variabilis fortuita" since the variable is not fortuita, but used to describe randomly occuring events. So I need something like "fortuitistica" (following the pattern probabilistica instead of probabilis).
--"Variable with random values", which is unambigous, could be rendered as "Variabile valorum fortuitum", note the use of the latin neuter "variabile" to render the english noun "variable" as opposed to the adjective "variable".--Rafaelgarcia 04:20, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I thought the noun variablie would be variabilis,-is and used it like this. I have to correct these mistakes. If variabile,-is, n., is the correct noun, I think that the ablative ends in -e (contrary to the adjective whose abl. ends up with -i). --Bachmai 21:52, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
  • Next problem: A random variable is actually not a variable, but nothing else than a measurable function defined on a probability space. It would be good if we were mathematically more correct than linguae barbarorum.
The problem is that a random variable has nothing to do with random, it is only called so, but is a deterministic function; --Bachmai 21:52, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
  • For information: I have changed back in distributio normalis the "quae distributionem normalem dat" because the moment generating function is used to obtain the moments of this distribution. It seems that I need too many genitives, but here the genitive seems necessary to me. Further, I call the non-central moments m_k, only the central ones mu_k (as I have learnt it), but I am prepared to accept other names too. But central and non-central ones should have different names. This is now clearer.

--Bachmai 20:39, 28 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that you are misusing the genetive; Latin does use them the way you are using them in various pages you're created, as a catch all meaning related. You need to specify the relationship. Sometimes the relationshiop is expressed by "de +abl" sometimes by a phrase. Use the genitive only if he relationship is specifically specified by the latin genetive. In this case, it sounds like what you want is "quae ad distributionem normalem pertinet", because neither possession nor quality is what you are aiming at. It may be helpful to read several of Euler's papers to get a sense of how to render expressions.--Rafaelgarcia 03:50, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
I think that my main problem was that I thought too German or English (the moment generating function of the normal distribution); in Latin it begins with functio, three words later comes the genitive, and that is bad. Further, it is usual to say that a distribution possesses moments, but less usual to say that it possesses a moment-generating function. I wanted to avoid a "pertinet" because I am not sure whether this could mislead one, meaning that a moment generting function belongs to the normal distribution but not to other distributions. However, every distribution has its own moment generating function (provided it exists). What I would like to write now is "Functio momenta distributionis normalis generans, then the genitive is related to the moments, this is 100% o.k., however the link has been split into two parts. The "distributionis normalis" could also be left away, as it is clear that the moment generating function of that distribution (the article's topic) is calculated. --Bachmai 21:52, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Part of it is that I am not familiar with the math, but one can turn it into a phrase to avoid splitting anything, e.g. one could say: Functio momenta generans quae ad momenta distributionis normalis pertinet...--Rafaelgarcia 23:07, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Reading Euler papers would indeed be very helpful for me. Are there any on the web? As I wrote my first English papers, I had similar problems, but these could easily be solved since I had read some English papers. --Bachmai 21:52, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Sure the Euler archives has all of them and they are very useful because they are very modern and you are already familiar with the topics discussed:
--Rafaelgarcia 23:07, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Another problem is that I spend too much time for Vici. This robs my energy that I need to bring through my scientific papers. I currently have no occupation and need publications of scientific statistical articles (in English) to obtain a professorship. Then it would be a great chellenge for me to build up the statistics here, and I would enjoy it. --Bachmai 21:52, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Take care of the job first of course!:)--Rafaelgarcia 23:07, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)
Finally, thanks for all other answers which I have not commented upon. They help me. --Bachmai 21:52, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC)

sources of math. terms

For sources of mathematical terms pages like this are useful: [9] (this is for letter l). Unfortunaltely some barbari started to write in French quite early, see for example "derivative". --Alex1011 09:46, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC) (Alex, would you look at the disputatio in Statistica, where I added comments, some of which you could probably insert into your article.--Bachmai 21:56, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC))


Could someone please direct me to or inform me of the preferred method(s) of writing dates and months (id est should they be roman numerals or arabic numerals)?

It is described on the bottom of this page: Vicipaedia:Commendationes paginarum recte scribendarum --Rafaelgarcia 16:18, 29 Februarii 2008 (UTC) <--See also an example at the end of the sig.?

Discussion about categorizing

There is a general discussion about categorizing: Disputatio:Iacobus_Henricus_Breasted#Categoriae. --Rolandus 09:07, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about stubs

There is a discussion about stubs, especially the layout of the template: Disputatio_Usoris:Rolandus#Minor_formatting_things. --Rolandus 09:09, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to act? If so, which one shall we choose? Harrissimo 12:55, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC).
I like your suggestion Photosynthesis more than my Botanica. The important points for me are, that it is left aligned, small, has no borders and I think this clear=all is also good. --Rolandus 13:31, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)
The next question then is how are we going to act? You spoke of a master template. Does this mean we won't have to plough through the dozens of stub templates we have already? Harrissimo 16:11, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC).
I guess we have just to change Formula:Metastipula. Most (all?) stipula templates are based on this. But it takes some time until the system realizes the change (because of caching). --Rolandus 16:19, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the formatting information in Formula:Metastipula from the style-attribute to the style "#stipula" in MediaWiki:Common.css. These styles can be individually reconfigured in the user's monobook.css. See my Usor:Rolandus/monobook.css and Vicipaedia:CSS. The redefining works for the border-style, but - unfortunately - I cannot make it work for the alignment. Any ideas? --Rolandus 19:02, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Ah ... the attribute "text-align" does the job :-) --Rolandus 19:21, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC)
See Formula:Metastipula#Using_your_personal_style on how to use your personal style (left-aligned etc.). --Rolandus 12:11, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Roman place vs contemporary city

I have started to add places to section Austria#Urbes in article Austria using the sources [10] and [11] and I begin feeling uncomfortable ...

I hope I can explain, what I mean:

The German Wikipedia has these pages:

Lauriacum is a Roman settlement in the area of Lorch, which is now part (!) of the modern city Enns.

Can we say "Lauriacum" is the Latin name for Enns? What is the Latin name for Enns? Is it "Lauriacum" because the settlement was called "Lauriacum" and has just spread to what the Austrians call "Enns" today but the Romans would still call "Lauriacum"? In the Italian Wikipedia it is called it:Enns ;-)

Similar situation with de:Vindobona and de:Wien. The funny thing is, that we have a page for the German de:Wien which we call Vindobona, but we do not have an equivalent page for the German page de:Vindobona, which we might call Vindobona (urbs Romana).

Or should we have a page Wien which tells that Wien est caput et provincia Austriae and that it is the successor of the Roman city Vindobona?

I think the situation is similar to this "statistica vs census" question. Words are changing their meaning over centuries. For nearly all other Wikipedias it is obvious that they are written in the context of the year 2008. So the Austrians know that "Vindobona" names this old Roman city and "Wien" is the modern city. But if we write "Vindobona": Do we mean the Roman city or the Latin name for German Wien?

In what context of time are we writing?

--Rolandus 12:15, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)

These are excellent questions! I, too, remember noticing some cases where other Wikipedias have separate articles for the Roman city (under its Latin name) and the modern city.
I think this will become more of an issue as Vicipaedia grows. For the present, it seems to me, we present so little detailed information about any Roman city that it is hardly worth bothering to set up a different article for what is essentially the early period of the history of the modern city. And if there is a problem with how to do the interwiki links, I would say, like all other Wikipedias we are basically writing about the modern place and we should set up links accordingly. But then, if we want, we could also add a link under nexus externi to a useful separate article on de:wiki (or wherever) about the Roman city.
It's more puzzling in cases where the Roman city is not on the same site as the modern one. I suppose that's the case with Lauriacum. My instinct would be to say that Lauriacum is the Latin name for Lorch (even if it is now only a suburb), and that the proper name for Enns is Enns. But I know our usual sources, like Graesse, would sometimes disagree with me about this. It's a difficult issue. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:55, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)
If one is talking about an ancient town/city X that grew into a new one, then we can use the old roman name X for the modern city and just have a separate article entitled "X antiqua" for the ancient city, without ambiguity. Since after all the ancient city X is part of the history of the modern city X.
If the city no longer exists, then we can say X (urbs antiqua), and this would cover instances where the city was destroyed and recreated a distance away.--Rafaelgarcia 13:38, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)
In the case of "Lorch" and "Lauriacum", now part of "Enns", "Lauriacum" is not "Enns". Maybe there is a more recent Latin name for Enns. A different case might be "Rottenburg am Neckar", "Sülchen" and "Sumelocenna". Rottenburg seem to be clearly the successor town of Sumelocenna, so is to be called Sumelocenna, although the town quarter "Sülchen" by name might be the true follower of Sumelocenna. --Alex1011 13:59, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Since Enns appears to be named after the river or vice versa, I wonder what the latin name of the river is. In the worst case, we can just leave its name as Enns.--Rafaelgarcia 14:13, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Please have a look at Virunum. Is it the Latin name of de:Maria Saal or was it a Roman settlement near de:Maria Saal? The description of image   says situated near Maria Saal and de:Virunum says that Virunum has been given up. --Rolandus 20:14, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so I could change the title of the section Austria#Urbes to "Urbes et loci" and go on adding names?
That seems like a different question to me. What do you want to have a list of? All the places we have talked about either are or were cities, so urbes is OK. "Loci" is wrong anyway: it means a geometrical point rather than an inhabited geographical place (I think; well, I expect someone will disprove this ...).
Yup! Harrissimo 14:47, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC).
But if you want to have a list of major modern cities, you just list them, I guess. Then, if you want, you can have a list of ancient cities or archaeological sites separately.
But how many and how long should be the lists in our country articles? That's another question ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)
When it starts to dwarf the page, we can move to Index urbium Austriae, with {{vide etiam}} or {{vide-etiam}} linking to it from the Geographia section. Harrissimo 14:47, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC).
I have added all names I found. --Rolandus 20:55, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Toga party

I've found that:   ;-) --Rolandus 21:01, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Convivium Togale?--Rafaelgarcia 21:59, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC)
convivium togatum ? --Marc mage 21:30, 3 Martii 2008 (UTC)
O quam decorum pro taberna nostra. Macti Rolande! Harrissimo 22:05, 1 Martii 2008 (UTC).


How can I translate this expression to Latin?

  • On the other hand
altera parte; ex contrario (both from traupman lat-engl)--Rafaelgarcia 13:30, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC)
  • For the first time
primum (from traupman conv. lat.)--Rafaelgarcia 13:30, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Thx in advance!!--Le K-li 04:17, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing redirects

Maybe someone finds it useful to categorize redirects: Vicipaedia:Categoria#Categorizing_redirects. --Rolandus 10:55, 2 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Ein kleines Problem

Ich möchte das bitten, dass ihr meine schlechte Rechtschreibung in dieser Seite zu berichtigen versucht. --Adamus Mathaeus Hungaricus 18:14, 2 Martii 2008

One expression

How can I write this expression in Latin?

  • spring tide

I tracked a phrase down: aestus maxime tumentes (I found it in the "Magyar-Latin Szótár" by Alajos Györkösy) --Adamus Mathaeus Hungaricus 19:12, 2 Martii 2008

Literally translated: aestus vernalis --Rafaelgarcia 00:49, 3 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Adamus Mathaeus Hungaricus 16:43, 3 Martii 2008

What you are looking for is certainly not aestus vernalis. 'Spring' in 'spring tide' has nothing to do with the season ('ver' in Latin), but with the verb 'to spring' i.e. 'to jump'. You might go for aestus maximus. --Fabullus 19:44, 3 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Yeah you're right Fabullus. What a strange misnomer in the english. Aestus maximus or perhaps Aestus insolitus would me appropriate.--Rafaelgarcia 20:12, 3 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it 'insolitus' either, because it occurs regurarly every full and new moon. See e.g. en:Tide --Fabullus 05:48, 4 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Ainsworth's dictionary defines "spring-tide" as eluvies, eluvio, aestus maris fervens, exundans. IacobusAmor 13:55, 4 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Apparently there is more than one kind of springtide:
Normal spring tides are especially strong tides occuring when the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon are in a line. To see the effect your location on the earth shold be such that you are directly undernearth the moon at night when this happens. From the point of view of a person in place to observe it, this is not merely the maximum tide happening twice a month but an unusual one.
In addition, there is the so-called Proxigean springtide, an even rarer event happning at most once every 1.5 years, when the moon is both unusually close to the Earth (at its closest perigee, called the proxigee) and in the New Moon phase (when the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth).
It is uncertain which one is the one Ainsworth is refering to, but probably the second, since unusual flooding is indicated.--Rafaelgarcia 15:54, 4 Martii 2008 (UTC)
The opposite effect happens at neap tide, for which Ainsworth's gives æstus maris descrescens, modicus, mitior, and Cassell's says "render by [a] phrase, such as aestūs minimus accessus." IacobusAmor 17:33, 4 Martii 2008 (UTC)


I deleted about 12 pages that had been flagged "Latinitas -6: will be deleted after a week" -- in most cases they had been flagged thus for a long time. If anyone looks at the list of deletions and wants a lost page brought back, tell me and I will restore it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 4 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Nimia consilia

Below is what I think should be done to reform the Categoria:Vicipaedia for which emendationes are necessariae. I propose the following and would like to hear some feedback (this is a lot of proposition, after all). Ioscius spoke before of making a specific consilium page for implementing these changes - I'm open to that. Harrissimo 22:35, 7 Martii 2008 (UTC).





See Categoria:Instrumenta Vicipaediae which below I propose is merged with the following pages into one category encompassing all (mega)technical advice in one category.

Pages to stay

I propose that the following pages are the backbone of the Category (the pages that should be used as an editing reference) and they should be included in the subcategory Categoria:Consilia Vicipaediana



By way of category reorganisation, this is what I think:

To be in a Categoria:Publicationes utiles

To be in a Categoria:Intra Vicipaediam

To be in a Categoria:Corrigenda in Vicipaedia

To be in a technical things category

Contents of the Categoria:Instrumenta Vicipaediae can be taken into a new technical category with the technical pages above and Categoria:Paginae quae nimis ifexist adhibent.


Categoria:Vicicollaborationes is now redundant. Should it be moved to a user subpage?

Implementing the above

Sorry if I repeat myself below (it is just clarifying what is written above):

The useful consilia are categorised under Categoria:Consilia Vicipaediana.

The more more community orientated rules are at Categoria:Mores Vicipaediae and they are on VP:MORES.

Technical pages are put under a new category so that more advanced users know where to look and the Categoria:Vicipaedia isn't clogged up.

A collaboration portal (Vicipaedia:Collaboratio, VP:COL) page is made linking together existing collaborative pages in Vicipaedia (those pages are placed in the subcategory Categoria:Collaboratio in Vicipaedia). This also includes Paginae movendae, delendae, contribuendae etc. and pages malae latinitatis are linked from at the VP:COL mentioned above. It is not a short range thing to try and make a magical clearing up of the bad pages in one day but should certainly provide the links so that people can see what needs correcting (so it's for the long term)

Pages like Nomina usorum, usores, grapheocrates, magistratus, ioci, elections, praemia etc. are put in another new category, Categoria:Intra Vicipaediam

I propose we have a Categoria:Publicationes utiles which stores Index nexuum, fontes nominum locorum, Lexica Latina interretialia and Lexica Latina. Again to avoid clogging up and to promote easy access.


Wow, great deal of work! I like your ideas of regrouping the pages into useful categories and we all know that the pages in the vicipaedia namespace desperately need reorganizing, but you yourself state that a number of aspects would need discussion. Which steps do you propose, in which order, to overhaul the vicipaedia namespace? --UV 23:24, 7 Martii 2008 (UTC)
First to get rid of the pages I class as redundant (which are undoubtedly the main cause for discussion). I won't propose any sort of vote but I think it would be more effitient for people to say if they think a page which I have marked above as redundant should be saved. Then in about a month's time the pages can be deleted and I can move on to phase two: Mass categorisation. Harrissimo 23:32, 7 Martii 2008 (UTC).
Ok. I suppose when you say "get rid of", you mean redirecting the redundant page to another page where the information is to be found? No objection from my part, then. We should be aware that Vicipaedia:De Vicipaedia, which you marked as redundant, is linked to from the bottom of every page. --UV 23:43, 7 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Can that be redirected to Vicipaedia Latina? Harrissimo 23:50, 7 Martii 2008 (UTC).
Or maybe just to the en.wiki's About Wikipedia page - as the privacy policy and disclaimers links do now. Harrissimo 23:51, 7 Martii 2008 (UTC).
Both would be possible. I would, however, prefer either redirecting to a to-be-written page on some of the motives behind the Latin Vicipaedia project and its main goals and principles (cf. Ceylon's original post at Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 7#Nimia consilia), or redirecting to an enhanced/combined version of Vicipaedia:Praefatio, Vicipaedia:FAQ and possibly Vicipaedia:Mores Vicipaediae. To start with, we could e. g. redirect to Vicipaedia:Praefatio and perhaps add a small introductory header. What do you think? --UV 00:23, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Harrissimo 12:01, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC).


It is really great what you did, and the Vicipaedia-namespace needs reorganisation. However, I think we should not start to talk about individual pages but first try to find some guidelines, we want to follow and then do the work by following these guidelines. Ok, these individual pages are good examples to use them for finding and discussing the guidelines.

Changes which are harmless

In my opinion these things can be done without much discussion:

  • Categorizing
  • Renaming the page titles
  • Splitting pages ... others might have a different opinion about this ;-)
  • Adding translations
  • Reorganisation within a page
  • Cross-Linking with other pages
  • Providing interwiki-links
  • Adding information

Changes which need a philosophy behind it

In my opinion for these things we should have a philosophy behind it:

  • Removing content ("nobody needs it", "useless", "can be found in the Englsih WP", "does not belong to an enzyclopedia", "outdated", "confusing", ...)
  • Merging pages (I personally prefer short pages which provide exactly the snippet of information I want to read and are heavily interlinked with each other)
  • Removing links to discussions about the topic (these references are the "sources" in this case)

Special cases

Just to give some examples:

  • If we have a template "XXX" we could a) either say that information about topic (!) XXX should be put into "Formula:XXX", because "we already have (formula) XXX" or b) we could say that we have a topic (!) "XXX" which has to be put on page "Vicipaedia:XXX" and just the template-related information shall be put on page "Formula:XXX".
  • We can see templates as pages with content or we can see them as a technical tool which should not keep content except the one needed to use them. Example: "Salve" is a template, but also a concept, so we should have Vicipaedia:Salve, too.
  • These snippets "Vicipaedia:De xxx" (or "Vicipaedia:About xxx") are not meant to be redundant, but they should keep the core information and be referenced (and included) by the pages which talk about the concept. Not the other way round. However, this is only my opinion.


I think we have a special problem here, when we use English instead of Latin ... and I have a special problem, if we do not ;-)

At the moment, most of the pages in the Vicipaedia-namespace are written in English. So people with less knowledge of Latin can contribute (contributing is the problem, not reading Latin content). Some of the content is already translated to Latin, sometimes a translation is provided additionally.

What I think:

  • On the long run all information will be translated to Latin.
  • The Wiki-software we are using (MediaWiki) is not very comfortable when you want to provide information in different languages (like Latin AND English)
  • On the long run all information in other languages but Latin will get lost.

Fine. But then we will need more people with good skills in Latin who want to deal with the Vicipaedia-namespace.

Maybe there is a solution for this dilemma. Maybe we could use the (at the moment unused) "Help"-namespace for the English (and other translations) of the Vicipaedia-namespace. Then each page "Vicipaedia:xxx" could optionally have a corresponding page "Help:xxx" and we could avoid keeping the translations in the Latin pages.

The Help: namespace was originally intended to contain a general user manual of the MediaWiki software, without project-specific details (= about the wiki software, editing etc. but no encyclopedia-specific information). You can see the work-in-progress documentation at mw:Help:Contents (in several languages, but not Latin). --UV 10:54, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)
That being so, I don't see it as a problem that our Vicipaedia namespace should have sub-pages in several languages. (I don't understand the problem that Rolandus mentions with the Media-Wiki software.) But much better if the basic pages are all in Latin as soon as we can manage it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:02, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)
What I mean with "problems with the MediaWiki software" is, that this software is not designed to support multiple languages at the section-level like we do now. However, it supports subpages, which can be used for translations. And via interwiki-links it supports multiple languages at the wiki-level. Making translations at the page-level (by using subpages) might be a good way. Then we had to move this {{monstrare}} snippets to subpages and maybe split up pages like Vicipaedia:Invitatio. --Rolandus 14:17, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I think an idea would be to follow what we did at the Vicipaedia:Auxilium paginarum recensendarum (VP:XYZ, VP:XYZ/en, VP:XYZ/de), except with a more eye-catching template (with both English and German translations on as many pages as possible. As Ceylon said below, he would probably be best for supervising this). Harrissimo 11:14, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC).
I think maybe you mean "what we did at Vicipaedia:Commendationes paginarum recte scribendarum" -- because at Vicipaedia:Auxilium paginarum recensendarum we just link to the page on en:wiki which gives the same explanations. Yes, for most of our explanatory pages, we have to write our own explanations (in English as well as Latin) because we're just that bit different. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:02, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I made {{Cons-trans}} which adds links to the English and German versions. Hopefully it is eye-catching enough ;) Harrissimo 16:55, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC).

Main points

For me there are two main points which should be discussed and the result should be put on a page:

  • When do we remove content? What arguments are valid?
    • "nobody needs it" ... aha, who is nobody?
    • "useless" ... for whom?
    • "can be found in the Englsih WP" ... fine!
    • "does not belong to an enzyclopedia" ... reasons?
    • "outdated" ... most of the information about Ancient Rome is outdated
    • "confusing" ... for whom?
    • etc.
  • What do we mean by "redundant"?
    • If we have several entry-points to non-redundant content: Are the entry-points redundant?
    • In my opinion translations in lists shall be removed from the list, when the referenced page has been created (example Austria, see the list of cities)
    • So ... what is redundant?
Something not in line with keeping the rules as concise as possible. Mostly that is repeating information already on more worthy consilium pages, being inconclusive and being rules nobody follows and rules which may even mislead someone. It may take some time, but if you look down all those pages I listed as redundant, you will see that 95% of them are just junk anyway. Of course, some of the pages I listed as redundant are to be merged with what I plan to be the collaboration portal and some just need merging with other pages. Harrissimo 11:19, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC).
I checked the pages you listed as redundant and I would not say that they are 95 % junk. They should be developed, yes, but they exist for reasons. Maybe we have a different idea about what the Vicipaedia-namespace is for and how it shall be used/organized. I think we should make our ideas explicit, this is what I meant by "guidelines". --Rolandus 14:48, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)
OK. I believe that the Categoria:Vicipaedia can be used for pretty much anything to do with the internal workings of the encyclopaedia. It is the amount of reference pages which I would like to cut down into easily digestible chunks. So I think like this: We should have no more than 30 consilia which are in the category consilia Vicipaediana. These should be concise, reader-friendly and answer the necessary questions. They should be used as a universal editing reference. Since they are found in the category and there are not too many to get lost in, I do not think excessive vide etiams would be necessary. My overall dream: There are about 10 subcategories of Categoria:Vicipaedia which contain information about different aspects of how Vicipaedia operates internally. The "laws" are in Categoria:Consilia Vicipaediana and they should be followed by all users.
My problems with the current system:
  • Far too many pages for the consilia overall to be handy and informative
  • Some pages do not even tell you anything, just asking questions or being link repositories.
  • The presentation is overall bad (but this is not a reason to delete)
  • The same rules are reiterated and reiterated and reiterated (sure, it grinds the idea into a reader's head but spoils being a concise reference)
    • So if page Y is just an expansion of the ideas on page X, page X should just include it all (being kept as concise as possible).
  • Some of the points are quite trivial (and I think that the ones that need keeping can be kept as mores)
  • As I've already said, I think the category should be split into chunks like Collaboratio, Intra Vicipaediam, Technical, Consilia Vicipaediana, Publicationes utiles etc.
  • Some rules do not even apply anymore, some are outdated, some are never adhered to.
  • You think differently, right? Harrissimo 15:10, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC).
Maybe I do not think very differently, concerning the aspects you mention, but there are aspects which have not been mentioned yet.
  • Far too many pages for the consilia overall to be handy and informative
→ yes, because it is work in progress
  • Some pages do not even tell you anything, just asking questions or being link repositories.
→ yes, the questions have not been answered until now
  • The presentation is overall bad (but this is not a reason to delete)
→ yes
  • The same rules are reiterated and reiterated and reiterated (sure, it grinds the idea into a reader's head but spoils being a concise reference)
→ yes, there are just a few rules which are really important
  • Some of the points are quite trivial (and I think that the ones that need keeping can be kept as mores)
→ yes, they are trivial, when you have been an active user for some time
  • As I've already said, I think the category should be split into chunks like Collaboratio, Intra Vicipaediam, Technical, Consilia Vicipaediana, Publicationes utiles etc.
→ I do not talk about categorizing; by categorizing we do not lose content; we should talk about the things which I have listed under "Changes which need a philosophy behind it"
  • Some rules do not even apply anymore, some are outdated, some are never adhered to.
→ yes, the information should be updated
We could make a list of those 30 (?) topics we should have and add the links to the pages we already have. And this is exactly my approach: We should have an index which links to the pages we have. We can have several indices:
  • An index for beginners
  • An index for good Latinists
  • An index for people with technical background
  • An index for people who are used to other Wikipedias
  • An index for people who are not used to computers
  • An index for teachers
  • An index for pupils
  • etc.
What type of user are you addressing?
I think there is no ultimate collection of 30 pages we should have. We should have much more than 30 pages but indices which give the several users a starting point. Of course we should remove the redundant content, however, this can be done "technically" by using templates or by using the include-mechanism of the WikiMedia-software. There needs a lot to be done, yes. We might have a different opinion where to start and HOW it should be done. I know that this Wikipedia is work in progress and so is the Vicipaedia-namespace. We do not delete the stipulae, although they look bad. The German Wikipedia in fact does not accept very short pages. Ok, they can act arrogantly because they have 700.000 pages and they were less arrogant when they had less than 20.000 pages. Hopefully, we will never be arrogant here and be more patient. When I joined here, we had less than 4.000 articles, I remember. Just a small part of them was categorized, had interwiki links, images etc. Now we have nearly 19.000 pages. Ok, the most of them are chaotic, but the point is, that the absolute number of good pages is bigger than some years ago. The same is true for the Vicipaedia-namespace. Until now just a few people were even interested in contributing to the Vicipaedia-namespace. I appreciate that this seems having changed, however, why should the Vicipaedia-namespace be perfect, when the rest is not? It shall be developed, absolutely, but the motivation should not be that we are embarrassed by the pages and simply remove 90 % of the content and let just the best 10 % stay. (I am sure, you do not have this in mind!) This would be a relative success, because than we had 100 % nice pages. But we have lost the 90 % content, which looks bad at the moment. I am not embarrassed by the bad content. It will get better, I am sure. We can delete content, but we should not do this. We should have in mind what content we want to have in 5 years or 20 years. Again, the Vicipaedia-namespace shall be reorganized, I appreciate this, but we should be careful and patient. Sorry for this long sermon ... --Rolandus 19:03, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of what Rolandus says (as I nearly always do!) There are two points on which I don't agree.
1. I don't agree with presenting all those indexes to readers. I think it's too indirect. People use Wikipedia by clicking on useful links from page to page. For the same reason, I don't think categorization is the most important thing here. But lists and categories may help us to find our way through the maze!
2. I think it is really not a good thing if pages that are intended as guides for beginners look bad, are inconsistent, are out of date, duplicate one another, etc. ... because these are where some people will get their first impressions of Vicipaedia.
So, it is a really urgent project to improve and Latinize the Vicipaedia namespace and to make it easier for users to find what they need. I agree with Rolandus that we needn't be talking of removing a lot of content (though we may well remove some). I think we need to slim it down, put it on fewer and better-organized pages, and translate it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:36, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)
We are, then, on a reasonably similar wavelength. I propose that we have a temporary Vicipaedia:Correctio consiliorum at which we go through the pages I class as redundant one by one before we delete any of them, lest we lose important information. We don't have to crowd the taberna then, either. Harrissimo 23:00, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC).
Maybe we could go step by step: 1. Create a super-consilia page listing and sorting all the consilia we have now (or expand an existing one - such as Opes - for this purpose). 2. Move this discussion to its disputatio page. 3. Discuss there about which ones to merge, expand, rename, delete. 4. Create a new page Quid sibi velit Vicipaedia Latina (or again rework an existing one, if there is one that seems suitable). I would be glad to contribute to that one. 5. Add links to (1) and (4) to the start page. -- I have the feeling these might be steps we could all agree on and then take it from there.--Ceylon 23:16, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)
For this super-consilia page I think we should make a new, temporary one (as I mentioned above). That being Vicipaedia:Correctio consiliorum rather than doing that on the Opes. I like the idea of taking the discussions there and, eventhough doing one-by-one deletion/improvement is tedious, it should hopefully get the job done efficiently. Harrissimo 23:32, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC).
Can we call it Vicipaedia:Index consiliorum instead of Vicipaedia:Correctio consiliorum, since (i) we are trying to improve rather than correct, and (ii) we could then keep the page and rework it into the systematic starting-point we were talking about rather than having to delete it again after the 'project' is finished (which hopefully it will be)? --Ceylon 23:44, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I did intend for it to mean improvement (L&S on correctio: amendment, improvement, correction) but reworking of an index consiliorum is a good idea. And I certainly hope this does get finished at some point! Harrissimo 23:49, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC).
As for Quid sibi velit Vicipaedia, maybe this can be done on Vicipaedia Latina. In that case I would prefer the link (De Vicipaedia) on the Pagina prima to direct there rather than to Wikipedia. --Ceylon 23:55, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)
See Vicipaedia:Taberna#Well?, an alternative is to have it at the Praefatio. Harrissimo 23:58, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC).
The Praefatio with its nice table could seem like a good choice for being expanded into an Index consiliorum and to host this discussion in its disputatio, don't you think? As for the raison d'être discussion, I really think I should start adding some content on this to Vicipaedia Latina (otherwise we would have to repeat it there anyway) - then all that is left to do is adjusting that link on the Pagina prima.--Ceylon 00:08, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Seems that we are going to start :-) It might seem that I want to slow it down. So let me clearify what I meant: At the moment the pages in the Vicipaedia-namespace cover several aspects:
  • rules
  • discussions
  • vision statements
  • information from former days (3 years ago or older, which was the Vicipaedian stone age)
  • unanswered questions
  • information which might be of interest just for a few people
  • etc.
As I understand, it has been talked mainly about "rules". I am talking about the non-rules. I'd be happy if that non-rules-information would be cut from the rules-pages and pasted into a repository where it can stay until someone wants to work on it. On the long run we need categories like this:
If making cleanup means, moving the "junk" to Categoria:Miscellaneous or even Categoria:Brimborium, I would not care if someone said that 97 % is junk at the moment. I'd be surprised, but I would not care. Promised. ;-) Things should be moved to the appropriate places, it could be Categoria:Brimborium, it could even be Categoria:Trash, however, when it comes to deleting, there should be discussion before. Deleting is this action which destroys information. I fear http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism, this is a trauma, which I got in the German Wikipedia. So improving or moving is good and deleting is - with exceptions - bad. ;-) --Rolandus 08:37, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
A good idea. Let's call this category Categoria:Bliteum [12] (not a very common word, but undoubtedly more often seen than Brimborium). I will start this purge by categorising into the Categoria:Bliteum and then we can really get going with merging, translation etc. Is all that alright with you? With ye? Harrissimo 19:39, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC).
Fine for me! --Rolandus 20:19, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)


I think this topic should not be discussed in the Taberna, but on a project-page. At the moment we have one page in this project-namespace: Opus:Politica Franciae.

--Rolandus 08:18, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to this - I think we all agree that an overhaul is needed. However, it's quite a daunting task, which requires a good overview of how Vicipaedia and wikipedias in general are organised. Hence I don't feel qualified to comment in detail on Harrissimo's suggestions, but I hope others will. What seems clear is that pages should be in Latin (but might have an English/German 'Help' button), that it should be possible to access them in a systematic and self-explanatory way (starting from an overview page moving on to sub-categories; at the same time they should be heavily interlinked and thus also accessible in a roundabout fashion), and that a page explaining the raison d'être of Vicipaedia (a question most will want an answer to when coming here) would be useful. I could offer to translate pages from English into Latin (other commitments permitting) and to improve page titles. I think the latter is quite crucial: The current titles are often unwieldy or bad Latin. Maybe once we've worked out how to reorganise the system, we could open a discussion on the actual titles before starting to move stuff.--Ceylon 10:28, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)
"the raison d'être of Vicipaedia" -- oddly enough, I think that was the first question Harrissimo asked on arrival :)
I agree with what Ceylon says here, and, most important, with the general opinion that change is needed. I'm very glad Harrissimo has taken the first steps.
If this is what Opera are, yes, let's work on it as an Opus. It is a big task, and I am not personally offering to spend a lot of time on it -- I use what time I have mainly on encyclopaedia articles -- but I will certainly help where I can. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:50, 8 Martii 2008 (UTC)


Any help on chess articles??? I know very much about it, but...My latin dont pass the famous citation: COGITO, ERGO SVM. :-(

PS> No problem if I write only with capital letters?(Only in taberna)

      Dmvalio latDmvalio_lat
Err... I don't really understand what you're trying to say, but we have the featured article scacci. Harrissimo 00:02, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC).
I see two questions:
  1. Can I help with the chess articles, although my knowledge of Latin is limited? I'd say yes. Ioscius might be happy about your offer. He is very engaged in chess-things, which you might guess when you have a look at the edit history of scacci.
  2. Can I write all words in uppercase in the Taberna (only)? I'd say yes, allthough I wonder why you would want to do that. ;-)
--Rolandus 08:04, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)


http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/103362 says: "Kehrtwende in Mannheim: Der Brockhaus geht online"

The Brockhaus will go online and be available for free (starting on 15th of April). Additionally they will not publish future editions on paper.

--Rolandus 09:13, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)

We are on rank 49


From Vicipaedia:Pagina_desiderata#Paginae_quas_omnes_Vicipaediae_habeant.

We need 164 new articles ;-) --Rolandus 10:28, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)

The article that ranks the wikis says this: "Finally, a score is computed, based on the following formula: score = stubs + articles*4 + long.articles*9. The language editions are then listed in order of decreasing score." (It defines long articles as having 10,000 characters or more, but less than 29,999.) So we'd gain only one point for each new stub (defined as having fewer than 10,000 characters), but we'd gain three points by adding enough text to a stub to raise its size above 9,999 characters. Could you supply a list of articles, say, in the range of 9,000 to 9,999 characters? IacobusAmor 12:20, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Haha, good point :-) Yes, if we have more "points" we will be ranked better, but we need new 164 articles to be listed on m:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles/Absent Articles. Then we would know, which are absent. I'll think about this listing by size. --Rolandus 12:26, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I tried something else, see Usor:Rolandus/Most_important_1000_pages. --Rolandus 20:30, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Redirects from the English titles

I was looking at the list of articles you imported from "simple" and noting that you are making new redirects from the English titles. I wonder whether this is necessary? I don't see why people would search for the name Pieter Brueghel the Elder, in its English form (or rather, one of its several possible English forms), in la:wiki. It's not as if he was English to begin with, so that is not in any sense his "real name". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I do not know, whether it is a good idea, however, it has the following effects: a) When we import this list of 1000 important articles, the ones we have, will be shown as blue links. b) When a vistor enters one of these "important" topics, he will be redirected to our article. — Do we want these effects? ... for the "cost" of about 500 - 700 new redirects, I think. --Rolandus 13:12, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, to take your point (a), I suppose this may well be a good way of keeping up with the list and how far we fill it (trusting that they don't change the titles at simple:wiki)! I guess we occasionally glance at the existing list Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnes Vicipaediae habeant (odd use of the subjunctive, that) but another glance today shows that it is far from up-to-date. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:27, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I do not think it is a good idea to add English redirects for general concepts (like Bicycle, Day, and Programming language) and for non-English people. Why use English and not also French, Italian, Romanian, Swahili and Volapük? These redirects blur the distinction between a bluelink (an attested [Latin] term) and a redlink (a lemma that is possibly incorrect in Latin).
Why use English? Um, because it's pretty much the universal tongue? Certainly the English wikipedia is the most massive of the wikis. IacobusAmor 20:24, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I am fine with redirects for original language forms, such as redirecting from George Bush (the original name of this person is in English) to Georgius W. Bush, but I would prefer not to have redirects like John Paul II, Pieter Brueghel the Elder and Programming language. --UV 16:15, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
These redirects are not intended to help English speaking users find a Latin page. (But if it helps them, this can be seen as an extra benefit.) The intention is to make it easy to check, whether we have created all pages from the English list of m:List of articles every Wikipedia should have. I do not think that a link Bicycle will do any harm. If someone enters it, he will be redirected to the valid Latin page. He cannot assume that Bicycle is attested, since it is not mentioned on the Latin target page, and, as I think, an information without sources is suspect. There are several reasons why redirects are created:
  • it is a synonym ... then this will/shall be mentioned (with sources) on the target page
  • it is a valid abbreviation ... then this will/shall be mentioned (with sources) on the target page
  • it is a shortcut, e. g. Shakespeare, where the Latin name is Shakesperius for which we do not have a redirect ;-)
  • it can be a common typo and the redirect just exists to help the user; the term is not correct, but the link would be blue if the user used that term; however, since the wrong term is not mentioned on the target page, the user cannot assume anything from the existence of this redirect and everything is ok
  • it is a link from a special concept (for which we do not have a page yet) to the general concept for which we do have a page; like if we had a redirect from Lentia antiqua to Lentia; again the user has to guess what relation the redirect has with the target, because we do not classify or redirects
  • it is a translation, to help foreign users, like Help which redirects to Vicipaedia:Auxilium paginarum recensendarum; you are right, we cannot provide such assistance for all languages, but if we do, this will not clash with the Latin pages; if someone uses the word help he might think this is an attested Latin term, but he will find out that he is wrong, when he clicks on the link; I think a blue link does not mean "this is an attested Latin term"; it means "you will get a page when you click on it"; yes, sometimes the concept of red and blue links has the effect of a spellchecker, however, "blue" does not mean "attested", where "red" always means "page does not exist" (for several reasons)
  • the redirects I added, should help us, to check this list of important pages; would it be ok for you if I categorized these redirects, maybe in Categoria:1000 paginae?
Redirects are not pages:
  • they do not affect the page count
  • you will not find them, if you do not know their exact spelling; I think someone cannot be disturbed by something which does not exist for him until he searches exactly for it; who should assume that city returns a valid page in a Latin Vicipaedia? assumed someone uses the term city in a Latin Wikipedia and is happy that it is a blue link and means it is an attested Latin term therefore ... would you think, he is a serious user?
There are several tools which accept multilingual input and this does not raise troubles, in most cases. E. g. http://dict.leo.org/?lang=de&lp=ende accepts both German "Mann" and English "man" (where the second one is a bit tricky, because "man" is also a valid German term). The Wiktionaries accept input in several languages. Where the term is unique for a language, you get the answer, where it is ambigious, the returned page is split up into sections for the several meanings in the different languages. So I think, where the English term does not clash with a Latin term, nothing bad can hapen (except with very naive users). Examples: anatomy, city, astronomy, Bicycle, Day, Programming language... However: You are right, principally you are right. This can happen what you fear. In rare cases, where we should be careful with creating a redirect. But will it be a problem in common cases? Would it be ok for you if we just created redirects for those 1000 pages, categorized them in e. g. Categoria:1000 paginae and be careful to avoid critical cases? --Rolandus 18:42, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
No. This is what Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnes Vicipaediae habeant was created to track, four years ago. People haven't been using it much, but all it needs is an update to match the current version. —Mucius Tever 00:02, 10 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Hm ... and who will update it? As I understand, UV and I have found a compromise, see below. What shall we do? Btw, I just wanted to ask, whether the category could be called Categoria:Redirectio propter 1000 paginas. With the proposed method I wanted to avoid work. --Rolandus 06:18, 10 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I agree with UV. If somebody is looking for a page, he will try in the original language e.g Federico Fellini, Milano and not always in english Milan. --Massimo Macconi 18:47, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I, too, agree with UV in this point. But the intention of this redirects is to easily check this (English) list: m:List of articles every Wikipedia should have. If this list were in French I would propose creating French redirects. --Rolandus 18:52, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Categorizing these redirects is a good idea. That way we can keep track of them (and consider them not as a part of the encyclopedia, but rather as a technical tool that can be removed easily "once the encyclopedia is complete" or once we have completed the list of articles every wikipedia should have). I will not object if
Fine for me! Meanwhile I tried another approach: Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages. But it has its limitations ... --Rolandus 20:43, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of ranks

Speaking of ranks, our texts are measured in octeti, but we don't have an article on those mysterious entities! What's an octetus? IacobusAmor 12:29, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)

An en:Octet (computing) is a set of 8 bit, this is one byte, this is one letter/character in Western alphabets (8 bit = 256 possible characters per byte). Simplified, Unicode needs 2 bytes per character, so you have 256 * 256 (= 65536 possible characters). --Rolandus 12:50, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it should be an octetum. --Alex1011 22:25, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)


Excuse me, but could anybody (I mean a bureaucrat) change my username from Usor:A.A.J.S. to Usor:Viskonsas? Thank you! :) Besides, if I posted this message in inappropriate place, please move it to the appropriate article. --A.A.J.S. 15:33, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I notified our Vicipaedia:Grapheocrates. --UV 16:12, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Pronuntiatio C Latinae finalis

I wonder how final -c was really pronounced in Latin, for example in the word "nec". Something suggests me that it might be like a nasalized [k] or [g], like [neŋ]. I suppose it because of the ending of the related words in some Romance languages, like Spanish or Portuguese:

  • Latin SIC > Portuguese sim (with a nasal)
  • Latin NEC > Portuguese nem, Old Spanish nin
  • Latin NEC UNUS > Spanish ninguno
  • Latin ADHUC > Spanish n.

--Mexicanusscribe! 19:15, 10 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Urbs/municipium and town/city

I have raised this question on Iacobus' page:

We are lacking

--Rolandus 18:21, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)

In that case, urbs should mean city and oppidum should mean town. Harrissimo 20:48, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC).
Oppidum redirects to urbs ;-) --Rolandus 20:52, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Well, in that case, the redirect should be cancelled. "Oppidum" isn't the same as "urbs". I think Harrissimo is right, and so we need separate entries for oppidum and urbs. In his Lateinische Synonymik, Hermann Menge says as follows: "Urbs "(größere) Stadt" mit Rücksicht auf das städtische Leben (urbanus, großstädtisch, feingebildet); "Hauptstadt", jede größere Stadt, die in politischer, militärischer, wirtschaftlicher Beziehung den Mittelpunkt einer Gegend oder eines ganzen Staates bildet; bes. häufig = Rom (urbs Roma)"; whereas "oppidum "Stadt" als "fester Ort" im Ggs. zu offenen Dörfern oder dem platten Land, bes. eine kleinere "Landstadt" (oppidanus, kleinstädtisch)." (Menge,LS § 214.) --Neander 22:38, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I made a quick page for oppidum. The latinitas is probably pretty humilis. Harrissimo 23:05, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC).


Page Kelvin (the person) should be renamed, I think. Moreover it has wrong interwiki links (to the unit). --Rolandus 19:00, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I agree--Rafaelgarcia 19:09, 11 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Books about the future

<Moved to taberna from my discussion page --Alex1011 14:02, 13 Martii 2008 (UTC)>

I don't understand why you removed the category Categoria:Litteratura de rebus futuris from 1984 (liber). Surely a book can be about a dystopia/utopia and also about the future? There are other possible examples, such as Brave New World. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:59, 13 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I suspect, that not only these, but almost ALL are about utopias/dystopias AND "de rebus futuris", which would make one of the categories redundant, as I suspect for long. How many utopias are not at the same time "de rebus futuris"? So, to make some sense out of the distinction, I saw "de rebus futuris" as classical science-fiction (mainly space ships, new technology), whereas "litteratura utopica" focuses (mainly) on political orders and so on. A fan of science-fiction might be disappointed, if he reads "1984". A border case might be "Fahrenheit 451", which I was about to move to "litteratura utopica" also. U-topica means no place, so all SF is utopic. The word is used in this sense in other languages. In my opinion we need a categorization where utopia might be the highest category, with political utopias and perhaps technological utopias or SF as subcategories. --Alex1011 10:41, 13 Martii 2008 (UTC)
What about future-oriented nonfiction? Does it have a category yet? Thousands of people make their living as consultants about the future: they're known as futurists, and they have their own professional society (http://www.wfs.org/) and their own popular magazine (http://www.wfs.org/futurist.htm); many have produced nonfiction books about the future. IacobusAmor 11:47, 13 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think the hierarchy suggested by Alex may make sense. But we have to be prepared for overlap: literature isn't like botany, authors don't write in accordance with categories! Plato's Republic is utopic but is not about the future (so far as I remember); people looking for books about the future would be disappointed by it. The Sands of Mars is science fiction; I guess it's a book about the future, but it is not utopic, and people looking for utopias would be disappointed by it. Brave New World is future fiction and utopic; since it relates to cloning and was written at a time when cloning was not possible, it's also science fiction.
As to 1984, yes, someone looking for science fiction might not like it. But we don't yet have a category for science fiction, anyway! As yet we only have "literature about the future". This is the answer to Iacobus's question; our category Categoria:Litteratura de rebus futuris is not restricted to fiction.
So maybe the time has come to start a category purely for science fiction. What would we call it? [added a moment later:] and, incidentally, I think we also want a category for historical fiction. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:40, 13 Martii 2008 (UTC)
The highest category would then be "something de rebus futuris", then one "fiction de rebus futuris" and one "facts de rebus futuris (futurology)". Finally "fiction" could be divided in "science fiction" (mythistoriae de rebus futuris? we have already the page Mythistoriae rerum futurarum) and "utopias" (plans and schemes on better or worse worlds). --Alex1011 14:02, 13 Martii 2008 (UTC)
One result of that scheme would be that the works by Plato, Thomas More and Campanella would end up in a subcategory of "fiction". But Plato wasn't really writing fiction (or only dubiously). He was writing a philosophical discussion about a possible form of government. I don't feel strongly about this, but my feeling is that "something de rebus futuris" should be a main category differing from "something about utopias". So my scheme would be:
The first, fourth and seventh are already subcategories of Categoria:Genera litterarum. The third, sixth and seventh items in this list would also be subcategories of Categoria:Mythistoriae. The second (or first) category would also be a subcategory of Categoria:Libri philosophici. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:47, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)
But, honestly, I don't know whether this is all necessary. I only raised the question because you took 1984 out of Categoria:Litteratura de rebus futuris -- and your move still seems inexplicable to me, because 1984 is "literature about the future"! Would it be very wrong of me just to put it back there again? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 15 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Categoria:Litteratura de rebus futuris was moved to Categoria:Litterae rerum futurarum. --UV 08:31, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Rock and roll

We have a redirect from Rock and roll to Musica rockica which has an interwiki link to en:Rock music. We needed a page xxx which has an interwiki link to en:Rock and roll. --Rolandus 20:28, 13 Martii 2008 (UTC)


We needed a page xxx which has an interwiki link to en:sex. --Rolandus 20:31, 13 Martii 2008 (UTC)

A est B / A, B / A B est

Visitate Disputatio Vicipaediae:A est B! Harrissimo 23:30, 13 Martii 2008 (UTC).

I think this is evident. Also in Spanish, you can't say "A B es" if both are nouns (it sounds very strange), only "A es B". You can only say "A B es" if B is a pronoun, an adverb or an adjective in some cases, e.g. Se dice que soy Mexicano ("Loquitur quod Mexicanus sum") > No lo soy (Non sum) or Así es ("Sic est", you usually don't say "Es así"). --Mexicanusscribe! 07:36, 14 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Spanish is Spanish, and Latin is Latin.--Ceylon 09:18, 14 Martii 2008 (UTC)

OK, but they have to do something with each other, don't you think? Spanish grammar is from Latin, as all the language is a direct continuation of Latin. --Mexicanusscribe! 10:26, 14 Martii 2008 (UTC)

The discussion takes place on page Disputatio Vicipaediae:A est B ... ;-) --Rolandus 16:12, 14 Martii 2008 (UTC)


This discussion is copied from Harrissimo's user page. Comments?--Ceylon 21:18, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Salve Harrissimo! While you're at it, what would you think about the following mergers: 1. Gradus Latinitatis & Latinitas 2. Praefatio & Ops nexusque usoribus novis (Opes usoribus novis) 3. Auxilium paginarum recensendarum & Commendationes paginarum recte scribendarum & Pagina (De paginis bonis) I think they're obvious, but probably not everyone will (the English wikipedia has hundreds of funny help pages for very limited points)? If not, we seriously need to rename them to clarify how they're different, and I'm ready to offer suggestions once it's clear how many pages we'll keep. By the way, have you noticed two of the pages (Opes and Pagina) don't even have the same titles as the links?--Ceylon 20:01, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC)

  1. I see no problem with a merger of these two
  2. Yes, as long as the merged page wouldn't be so flooded with links that it is not user-friendly (as I think Ops nexusque is at the moment)
  3. Yes and no. No in the way that I think the first two should stay separate, but with new titles. Since Auxilium is focusing on how wiki syntax works and Commendationes is focusing on style they should have, I think, shorter more accurate titles. And you're head of the title department so I'll leave those to you. Yes in the way that Pagina is an odd one, which I think can be merged with Commendationes (they are both style guides). Harrissimo 20:12, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC).
I happened to notice this, and just want to say that on that last point I agree with Harrissimo: Auxilium paginarum recensendarum is "mechanically" different from the other pages mentioned because it's a direct equivalent of an English page (and no doubt German and others too) so we don't need to offer translations of it: we just need to make it as good as we can in Latin. Therefore, yes, re-title it rather than merge it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:18, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions for new titles for all pages contained in the box. (Somehow the "De ..." style seems to suit the consilia pages (reminiscent of a manual), but I've added alternative versions in brackets in case you don't like it):
Vicipaedia:Auxilium paginarum recensendarum & Vicipaedia:Pagina -> Vicipaedia:De recensendo (Recensio)
Vicipaedia:Commendationes paginarum recte scribendarum -> Vicipaedia:De orthographia (Orthographia)
Vicipaedia:Latinitas & Vicipaedia:Gradus Latinitatis -> Vicipaedia:De Latinitate (Latinitas)
Vicipaedia:Translatio nominum propriorum -> Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis (Nomina propria)
Vicipaedia:Ops nexusque usoribus novis & Vicipaedia:Praefatio -> Vicipaedia:Index consiliorum (or: Subsidia) (This one could also contain the links to place names and online dictionaries - now, in order to access Morgan, you have to click your way through 3 links at least.)--Ceylon 20:48, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the idea of having a user-friendly introduction to having a list of consilia. But I suppose having both wouldn't hurt. A note on why it's hard to get into Morgan's lexicon via a common page: Disputatio:David Morgan#Links. It is permitted to put his home page on as a link but not permitted to directly link to either part of his lexicon. Harrissimo 20:54, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC).
I agree with all your other suggestions though. Harrissimo 20:54, 16 Martii 2008 (UTC).
Since nobody has objected, I'll start moving ...--Ceylon 17:29, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)


Bis conatus sum mittendi nuntium electronicum Rafaelgarcia directum. Mea registratio confirmata est die 26 Februarii 2008, sed missio huius nuntii non recipitur. Igitur in Taberna mitto et, quaeso, explicationes peto quare hoc accidit.Gratias.LioLio 00:29, 17 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Dilectissime Rafaelgarcia, veniam a te peto quia saepe tuas paginas corrigo in parvis erroribus quos invenio legens tuas contributiones. Tu es qui primus me accepit et sollicitavit dum per Vicipaediam errabam et invitationem mihi fecisti et duxisti ad inscriptionem Vicipaedianam. De instrumento interretiali expertus non sum et, volendo adiuvare in aliquo modo, paginam tuam usoris aperui et tuas contributiones legens incepi corrigendo avocationes magis quam errores quas reperiebam in scriptis tuis. Nunc me interrogo si bene acceptum est hoc opus a te qui illas operas scripsisti. Si non, veniam peto. Sunt 50 anni ex illo tempore cum Latino studebam et multa verba oblitus sum, sed forma mentis, ad Latinum intelligendum et discordantia recognoscendum , permanet. Quaero etiam, si quid non intelligam in tuis verbis, quomodo a te petere explanationem possum: in Taberna aut in istis litteris electronicis? Cura ut valeas. LioLio 00:29, 17 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Lio, gratias multas tibi ago pro tuis multis correctionibus, quas altissime honoravi.
Nescio quod non potes in mea disputationis pagina scribere. Facendum est eodem modo per quam recenses alteras paginas.
Evidenter tuam dominationem linguae Latinae superiorem esse quam meam. Nunc, post tuas conlationes, fortasse possumus suggerere illam paginam Nix sicut paginam mensis.
Addubitavi de tuis correctionibus solum casum Disputatio:Terrae motus#Case?, quia sentiebam "...propter ea quae saepe motum sequuntur: ruinae aedificiorum et in mare undae anomalae" melius fortasse erat "...propter ea quae saepe motum sequuntur: ruinas aedificiorum et in mare undas anomalas" ut casus ruinas concordet cum praepositione propter. Sed nescio si recte dicam.

Casus nominativus est quia concordantur ruinae et undae cum subiecto "quae.... sequuntur" et non cum accusativo verbi "ea".Lio 08:15, 17 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Vale,--Rafaelgarcia 01:13, 17 Martii 2008 (UTC)


Please call in here if you have a moment ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 17 Martii 2008 (UTC)


I've been looking around for what we might call them. Some users say destructor, some Vandalus, some vandal. But I don't think any of these terms are fitting - please see Disputatio Vicipaediae:Destructor. Harrissimo 18:35, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC).

1000 pages

I have added the possibility to discuss a title: Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages. --Rolandus 21:37, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC)


Pagina numero 19 000, ut credo, fuit Optime noscitis (1854) a Massimo incepta. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:18, 19 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Pagina Absinthium

[Disputationem removi ad hanc paginam] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 20 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Felicem Pascham Totis Vobis!!!

Ut Bonam Felicemque Pascham habeatis!! Cogitemus de vita nostra ac temptemus eandem ameliorandi cum auxilio Dei et quorum nos amant.


--Le K-li 00:55, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Quid sibi velit Vicipaedia

Hortor ut nexus "De Vicipaedia" quo paginae primae lectores ducuntur ad commentationem de proposito Wikipediae varietur, ut eos ad commentationem de Vicipaedia Latina dirigat.--Ceylon 12:57, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Paginam redirectionis ad effectum mutavi.--Rafaelgarcia 13:22, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Andreas Dalby etiam independenter nexum in formula PP-ave correxit.--Rafaelgarcia 13:40, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Paginae Vicipaedia Latina adieci caput de rationibus Vicipaediae, quod spero a vobis aucturum, emendaturum, disputaturum iri.--Ceylon 14:26, 22 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Latino sine flexione - anybody close to the Library of Congress or other location?

I just asked on the Italian Wikipedia but it's possible there might be a few interested people here as well. Latino sine flexione was created (modified might be a better term) by Giuseppe Peano in 1903, and is basically just Latin without inflections. It was popular for a while but after Peano's death it was pretty much forgotten, and now there are a lot of copyright-free texts in large libraries such as the LOC that are in continually worsening condition. Someone from Auxlang (a mailing list for discussions on auxiliary languages) commented on their condition a few months back:


Today I was making one of my occasional forays to the Library of 
Congress in Washington, the world's largest library. Their holdings in
international auxiliary languages may not be the largest (I speculate
that those are in Europe), but they do have quite a bit of material.
Among other things while I was there I looked at most of their holdings
in the original Interlingua, Latino sine Flexione.
Sadly, some of the materials are deteriorating physically, just as is
so with many of their materials on Ro. Even items which are only
eighty years old are starting to crumble, as they were printed on
(apparently) high-acid paper. There are a number of booklets (I
estimate 12.5 cm. X 22 cm. -- I didn't have a ruler with me) which came
out in the 1910s and 1920s, mostly under the name of Giuseppe Peano
himself. They are stored in envelopes and are literally falling apart
to the touch. There is a lot of repetition in the text, so one can
collate most of the texts for the content. There are also a number of
bound volumes of "Discussiones," "Circulare," and "Schola et Vita"
(especially the latter, from 1923 (IIRC) to 1937). Fortunately the
issues in the bound volumes have not deteriorated so badly, although
they are at risk.
There was far too much material to go through in a few hours. However,
I was able to draw some conclusions. The usages of various early
Interlinguaists were not totally uniform. A few people even tossed in
an extra verb inflection or so, contrary to Peano's basic idea. But
from what I did read in several hours, I have come to the conclusion
that Peano himself was the exemplar of "pure" Interlingua/LsF and the
one to be emulated (just as many Esperantists look to Zamenhof as an
exemplar to be emulated). In that regard, the double volume of 1931,
the "Key To and Primer of Interlingua" and "Primo Libro de
Interlingua," published in London (I own a copy of the combined volume)
adheres closely to Peano's standard.
Whether materials of this sort can be salvaged, at least in the USA, I
would say is doubtful, as I presume that there is limited money and low
priority for conIALs. This is a shame. Although I have no illusions
about it making any kind of comeback, original Interlingua/LsF is my
personal favorite.

Two questions on this:

1)What would the chances be of finding someone to scan/type up these materials so that they won't be lost?

Slim to none, I would fear... =/ Only 2 of us ( that I know of) live within a day's travel of LoC, and Interlingua/Latino sine flexione is near the bottom of both of our lists, I'd imagine. Sorry, but real Latin consumes (more than) enough of my time. While I certainly appreciate the need for preserving the history of it, I doubt I'm the guy for it. Furthermore, I'm a poor student who doesn't even have a printer, let alone one that scans...--Ioscius (disp) 03:33, 24 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the scanning is always a problem. I forgot to mention that even a voice recording would be acceptable since I would be able to transcribe just about as well from a voice recording as a scanned image. I'm another person without a scanner, but I do have a voice recorder. I live in Korea though so there's no way I'm getting anywhere close to Washington soon. At the moment I'm also hoping that I'll be able to find a professor at Peano's university that might be interested. Mithridates 12:53, 24 Martii 2008 (UTC)

2)Would the Latin Wikisource be a good location to upload material in Latino sine Flexione?

I mean, I guess so... I might ask the guys there (does anybody work over there?). If there's no one there, come back and tell us... we should made a huge horking template for such pages saying something to the effect of "Haec pagina non est Latine scripta sed Interlingua".--Ioscius (disp) 03:33, 24 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Mithridates 13:20, 23 Martii 2008 (UTC)

New admins

Please see Vicipaedia:Petitio magistratus. --Rolandus 19:32, 24 Martii 2008 (UTC)

OK !!!!!

Quomodo possum "OK" in Linguam Latinam transferre????

Magistra mea dixit: "Bonum est" propter verbi sensum.

Amicus meus putat: "nullum mortuum/interfectum" quod etymologia huius verbi sit "0 Killed" (sua sententia)


Gratias vobis ago! Usor:Equula

Hem... habemus Omega KappaOmicron Kappa. Soleo audire "licet" pro "ok", et "sat" et "satis" et "sane". Vix, vel potius nullo pacto, intelligo tuum amicum... Et, si velim dicere modo magistrae tuae, certe elidam verba in bonumst ad Plauti instar. --Ioscius (disp) 15:33, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Omega Kappa, non Omicron Kappa? —Mucius Tever 01:53, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Certe.--Ioscius (disp) 02:02, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Soleo dicere vel "bene," vel "esto." Quod ad hoc attinet, haud multi "esto" dicere videntur: Conventiculi participes iocant locutionem esse meis moribus loquendi propriam ;) --Iustinus 18:47, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Egomet in deliciis habeo illud euge. Graecum est, sed Romani illo uti solebant sicut et nos Italice bravo dictitamus.--Ceylon 18:51, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)
OK primum (anno 1839) 'Oll Korrect' significanti, adverbium Latinum salve 'all right' attinet, quod invenies in Plauti quaestione Satin salve? 'Is everything OK?'. IacobusAmor 19:51, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Seu Omnia Correcta :) Quod certe et in summariis recensionum aliquando scribere possumus.--Ceylon 20:54, 25 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Melius Omnia Korrecta? ;) IacobusAmor 02:09, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Bis terve vidi Latinistas (colloquialiter) adverbium okius dicere. —Mucius Tever 01:49, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Vel fortasse OCIUS (quod celerius valet) ;) Equula
Vel fortasse Ned Flanders imitantes, okili dokili? :) IacobusAmor 02:07, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Ita tertia coniugatione invenires "ocilidocilidere." 02:28, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Latinitas titulorum iussorumque Vicipaediae

Possumus expandere et excolere latinitas titulorum iussorumque Vicipaediae hic: [13] Vide etiam disputationem apud Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_7#Betawiki: better support for your language in MediaWiki--Rafaelgarcia 16:03, 26 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Staging Ground

I'm trying to decide what the best word for the "staging ground" of a battle would be. I know there must be an exact Latin word to fit that term (if there's one thing the Romans had no shortage of, it's words relating to warfare), but Traupman can't seem to give me a word that means exactly what I'm trying to say. There is origo, acies, area, campus, and praesidium, along with probably several others, but none that means specifically the point from which an attack against another location is launched. Any suggestions?--Antodav 04:21, 28 Martii 2008 (UTC)

House of York & House of Lancaster

Should I translate the names of the two houses in Latin (Eboracum et Lancastria)' what do you mean, friends?--Massimo Macconi 20:51, 28 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Did Andrew handle this already, I think I saw something about it. He would know better than I.--Ioscius (disp) 15:52, 30 Martii 2008 (UTC)


Potestne quis mihi explicare hanc defaultsort rem? Omnino ignoro... --Ioscius (disp) 15:51, 30 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Mihi quoque! IacobusAmor 16:05, 30 Martii 2008 (UTC)
In commentatione de aliquo homine, exempli gratia de Aemilio Durkheim, malus est scribere
[[Categoria:Nati 1858]]
[[Categoria:Mortui 1917]]
[[Categoria:Sociologi Francici]]
[[Categoria:Anthropologi Francici]]
[[Categoria:Philosophi Francici]]
[[Categoria:Alumni universitatum et scholarum Parisiensium]]
[[Categoria:Alumni Almae Matris Lipsiensis]]
[[Categoria:Iudaei scientiae periti]]
[[Categoria:Iudaei Francici]]
[[Categoria:Alumni Lycée Louis-le-Grand]]
quia haec pagina apparebit in categoria Categoria:Mortui 1917 et in ceteris categoriis sub littera A (lemma huius commentationis est Aemilius Durkheim) nec sub littera D (Durkheim, Aemilius).
Melior, sed haud optimus est:
[[Categoria:Nati 1858|Durkheim, Aemilius]]
[[Categoria:Mortui 1917|Durkheim, Aemilius]]
[[Categoria:Sociologi Francici|Durkheim, Aemilius]]
[[Categoria:Anthropologi Francici|Durkheim, Aemilius]]
[[Categoria:Philosophi Francici|Durkheim, Aemilius]]
[[Categoria:Alumni universitatum et scholarum Parisiensium|Durkheim, Aemilius]]
[[Categoria:Alumni Almae Matris Lipsiensis|Durkheim, Aemilius]]
[[Categoria:Iudaei scientiae periti|Durkheim, Aemilius]]
[[Categoria:Iudaei Francici|Durkheim, Aemilius]]
[[Categoria:Alumni Lycée Louis-le-Grand|Durkheim, Aemilius]]
Aerumna: {{bio-stipula}} paginam addit ad categoriam Categoria:Stipulae Biographicae, et hac in categoria pagina rursus apparebit sub littera A.
Optimus est DEFAULTSORT uti:
{{DEFAULTSORT:Durkheim, Aemilius}}
[[Categoria:Nati 1858]]
[[Categoria:Mortui 1917]]
[[Categoria:Sociologi Francici]]
[[Categoria:Anthropologi Francici]]
[[Categoria:Philosophi Francici]]
[[Categoria:Alumni universitatum et scholarum Parisiensium]]
[[Categoria:Alumni Almae Matris Lipsiensis]]
[[Categoria:Iudaei scientiae periti]]
[[Categoria:Iudaei Francici]]
[[Categoria:Alumni Lycée Louis-le-Grand]]
Taliter haec pagina omnibus in categoriis (in categoria Categoria:Stipulae Biographicae quoque) apparebit sub littera D inter Dumas et Duvernoy. --UV 16:27, 30 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Possumusne etiam addere "!", sicut in pediludium, {{DEFAULTSORT:Pediludium}} [[Categoria:Pediludium|!]]?--Ioscius (disp) 16:33, 30 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Ita. Sed in commentatione de pediludio, inutilis est addere {{DEFAULTSORT:Pediludium}}, quia lemma huius paginae iam est "Pediludium". Solum si lemma paginae differt ab ordine desiderata pro categoriarum paginis, utilis est DEFAULTSORT adhibere (sicut in commentariis de hominibus, quia lemma paginae est praenomen nomen, sed ordo desideratus et in categoriarum paginis monstrandus est nomen, praenomen). --UV 16:50, 30 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Gratias iterum ago.--Ioscius (disp) 16:59, 30 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Our most accessed pages

See Vicipaedia:Census#Wikipedia_article_traffic_statistics --Rolandus 18:44, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Rank	Article	Page views
1	Pagina prima	54520
2	Specialis:Quaerere	37621
3	Specialis:Nuper mutata	12384
4	Specialis:Pagina fortuita	11353
5	Cithara Hispanica	8179
6	Lingua Latina	5511
7	Vicipaedia:Taberna	3864
8	Specialis:Export	3737
9	Vicipaedia:Nuntii	2860
10	Vicipaedia	2402
11	Usor:Rafaelgarcia	2080
12	Civitates Foederatae Americae	2060
13	Specialis:Recentchanges	1990
14	Categoria:Omnia	1778
15	Vicipaedia:Novissima	1766
16	Specialis:Random	1711
17	Special:Random	1686
18	Cuba	1391
19	Mentula	1374
20	Ovarium	1328
Cur putat Wikipedia (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias) Vicipaediae esse solum unam imaginem?! IacobusAmor 19:15, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Quia unam tantum habemus. Omnes imagines sunt apud Vicicommunia. Ergo UV optime laboravit! =] --Ioscius (disp) 19:54, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Capital letters in language names?

Reverti emendationes tuas (i.e. Usor:Rsazevedo) apud Calendarium Gregorianum etc. Mos noster (ut vides in permultis paginis!) est litteris maiusculis uti in nominibus propriis et in adiectivis derivatis ex eis. Sic faciunt multi Latinistae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:44, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering you in Latin. I assume you are English-speaking, and therefore you made a mistake usually done by English-speaking latinists, thinking that adjectives derived from proper nouns should be capitalized. That is definitely not the case in Latin, and the biggest evidence you have is that in ALL Latin languages words like these do not receive the upper case in their initials (pt:Calendário gregoriano, es:Calendario gregoriano, fr:Calendrier grégorien, it:Calendario gregoriano, ro:Calendarul gregorian etc). And I am yet to see compelling evidence that rules made for Germanic languages should be applied in Latin ones (especially in the Latin language par excellence). Could you provide them? Rsazevedo 15:51, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me for jumping in here, but I can think of several reasons:
1. It's the style of the Clementine Bible; e.g., Et cum ducerent eum, apprehenderunt Simonem quemdam Cyrenensem (Biblia Sacra, Evangelium secundum Lucam, 23:26), non cyrenensem. This example does away with any worry that "rules made for Germanic languages" are being "applied in Latin ones."
2. It's the style of the Loeb editions; e.g., post ludos Romanos reum lege Plotia (Cicero, Letters to Friends, Loeb edition, vol. 205 [2001], p. 372), non post ludos romanos reum lege plotia.
3. It's the style of Vicipaedia as its tradition has developed. Look up romanus in the searchbox ("quaerere") and see what you see.
That's not to say that change isn't possible, but those who advocate change are usually the ones who need to prove their point. IacobusAmor 17:07, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)
[Written without seeing Iacobus's reply above:] Thanks for your reply, Rsazevedo.
We have about 18,000 pages written by Latinists of many origins: if you think that all of us except you are mistaken, clearly you need to explain this to your co-editors generally (beginning, perhaps, at the Vicipaedia:Taberna. It isn't a good idea to make such a change on a few articles, without discussion, because you are introducing inconsistency.
Rules for spelling, punctuation, copy-editing, etc. don't have much to do with language families such as Germanic and "Latin" (or, as I would call it, Romance). They are specific to single languages; sometimes, even within a language, they vary from one country to another.
As to the modern layout and printing of Latin, the rules vary a bit, and to some extent they vary from country to country. But (to take five major examples from five different countries and two continents) I think all the Latin texts published in the Oxford, Teubner, Budé, Paravia and Loeb series follow the rule I mention above (proper nouns, and adjectives derived from them, take an initial capital).
It's a matter of convention; conventions differ (no mistakes involved); and the convention followed on Vicipaedia is, if anything, the majority one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:14, 9 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not writing in Latin here. I have an inquiry: shouldn't adjectives be spelled in lower-case? For example, shouldn't Lingua Latina be Lingua latina? After all, if we judge by the legacy left by Latin in the Romance languages, all of them (without exception) write language names (along with all adjectives) with the lower-case (língua latina, langue latine, llengue llatina etc). This "capitalization" seems to me as a dreadful and intrusive anglicism in Latin grammar, probably because the most important filologists to study the language were from Anglo-Saxon countries. Greetings, Rsazevedo disp 21:34, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)

As if to prove the point, here, do you mean philologists? It's a convention, I'm sorry that our wish to respectfully capitalize (another thing... capitalize, or capitalise? convention...) proper adjectives offends you, but like that f, it's a convention. Right? Wrong? Who is to say?--Ioscius (disp) 01:13, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
If it's the style in the Biblia Clementina and in Isidorus Hispalensis, what more authoritative example of modern Latin capitalization style can be asked for?--Rafaelgarcia 01:28, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I fail to see how a spelling mistake can be turned into an argument. "Who is to say"? That is the issue; who determined that it should be like this? Was it decided somewhere? I think these are fair concerns. The use of capitals does not "offend me", and I'm really sorry if I caused that impression; I was merely trying to contribute to the project. It just didn't seem correct that Vicipaedia should have its articles written using spelling conventions wrongly imported from English, when the Latin language is obviously closer to the Romance languages. Greetings, Rsazevedo disp 03:13, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Re "spelling conventions wrongly imported from English"—if anything, they were imported from the Latin Bible,* since not a few early contributors appear to have been ardent Roman Catholics. *E.g., "Simonem quemdam Cyrenensem" (Luc. 23:26), non "Simonem quemdam cyrenensem"; et "Jesum Nazarenum" (Act. Apost. 2:22), non "Jesum nazarenum." These quotations come from the text approved in 1592 by Pope Clement VIII, hardly a native speaker of English. IacobusAmor 03:54, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
But Rafael, certainly the spelling in those texts has been altered over time. Did Isidore of Seville originally use capitals in his adjectives? I must confess I haven't read his manuscripts (although I don't think they even had upper and lower cases back then...). Rsazevedo disp 03:29, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I think it's fair enough to raise the question. Since our Roman models knew nothing of lower and upper case, however, our standard should surely not be determined by how 'other' Romance languages do it (I would object to calling Latin a Romance language), but by how Latin texts are printed nowadays. As far as I can see, all standard editions - including Budé and Teubner (which might prove it is not an Anglo-Saxon tradition)! - capitalise adjectives denoting language or ethnicity. (NB: In German, such adjectives are not capitalised.) To challenge this apparently generally accepted orthography, you would need good Latin sources. --Ceylon 06:23, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Euler also regularly capitalized "Angli" and "Germanos". It would be interesting to investigate how, when, why the Romance languages diverged so completely from what apparently has the Latin norm for ages.--Rafaelgarcia 13:21, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I begin to think that's exactly the right way to look at it. Even back to the 17th century, Latin books follow approximately this habit of capitalization -- the same one that we are currently using. (There are variations, of course, but not many.) And yet, at that same time, English tended to give an initial capital to lots of nouns; and English tended to mark off proper names by italicizing them. So the Latin style certainly wasn't adopted from English!
Mind you, I have seen Latin written with capitalized Nouns; my PDF Copy of Linnaeus is like this (example) —Mucius Tever 01:44, 2 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Where did it come from, then? I think we might find it comes from French or Italian, long ago; maybe, in these languages, the fashion afterwards changed so that (as RSAzevedo says) adjectives are no longer capitalized, but they didn't change the way they printed Latin. However, that's only a guess.
As Ceylon says, French printing of Latin (e.g. in the Budé series) follows our custom. It's pretty obvious in a Budé text: if you look at the facing pages, proper adjectives are capitalized in the Latin but not in the French. Similarly, in my edition of Dante's poems, proper adjectives are capitalized in his Latin poems but not in his Italian ones. At present, we haven't heard of any places, or any publishers, who print Latin in the way RSA suggests! I'd like to hear of some examples ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:30, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in a quick research around here I found a couple of examples of this "capitalization" in pretty old texts. I'd certainly like to know where that came from... I had only seen Latin spelt this way in "Anglo-Saxon" books, so I suppose that's where it came from. In any case, I certainly can live with the capitalized adjectives. :)
Needless to say, I won't be making such changes (as much as I would prefer, if only for aesthetic reasons, to see Latin written that way). Sorry for making such a big deal out of it, I just wanted to raise this question, and try to understand where that came from. Greetings, Rsazevedo disp 22:55, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
It's a fascinating question, certainly. Some more research needed, I think! Meanwhile, I look forward to working with you on Vicipaedia, Rsazevedo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:52, 2 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

fasciculos onerare

(I copy this text from Disputatio Usoris: Rafaelgarcia:) Pravus est terminus "fasciculos onerare" qui sic videtur ad sinestram paginae partem. Vide Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina prima#Proposed Changes to side bar (Summary) et Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 5#Difficult load. Per disputationes, consensus videtur ut "fasciculos onerare" ad "documenta apponere" mutemus. Sed nescio quomodo hoc comperire et disputare apud Betawiki...Scis tu?--Rafaelgarcia 17:00, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like "documenta apponere" much better than "fasciculos onerare", but I am not really sure whether there is consensus about this. It might be wise to ask Usor:Mycēs for his opinion as well, because translations at Betawiki (http://translatewiki.net/) will (that is the advantage of Betawiki) affect not only Vicipaedia, but all Latin projects using the MediaWiki software, including Victionarium, where Mycēs is active as well. Once consensus is established, we can go to Betawiki and we well need to update quite a few interface messages (I already have an account there, you may wish to apply for an account there as well). --UV 21:58, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I made an account there already. I was just wondering how to start a discussion there regarding the change. Thus I was trying to find the relavent discussion page on Betsawiki for this translation. We would of course ask Myces to join in the discussion. Do you know if that is the right way to proceed? --Rafaelgarcia 22:45, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)
People are more likely to read the discussion if we discuss it here and not on Betawiki. I would therefore suggest that we discuss the proposed change here. Once consensus has been reached, we can make the changes on Betawiki. --UV 22:50, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)

I post the above to the Taberna out of a wish to verify that there is a consensus on this change "fasciculos onerare->"documenta apponere". Please see the previous discussion above for rationale. Thanks.--Rafaelgarcia 23:37, 31 Martii 2008 (UTC)

"Documenta" over "fasciculi", certainly. I can't say I'm certain about 'apponere', but I can't say I have a replacement either. —Mucius Tever 02:53, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Same. But if you use "apponere" I'm going to constantly think we're serving the files up for dinner! --Iustinus 07:52, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Documenta +1. Serving files for dinner, mmmm. :) But as I know, apponere in the first place means to put there, or to put near, to place something somewhere, and the dinner comes only second. :) apponere could be replaced perhaps with adicere, supplere, complere, hm? V79benno 12:47, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
The point is that phrases like "fasciculos onerare" most directly translate to "burden the packages (of information)" and "documenta onerare" as "burden the lessons". See for example the discussion at Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 5#Difficult load. On the other hand, "documenta apponere" would translate most directly to "serve up the lessons" which is much closer to the intended meaning of "upload the files" especially since documentum already has the associated meanings of "example" and "document". In my opinion another good alternative possibly could be "Documenta collocare" which translates most directly to "place the lessons in their proper position" with the attendant meaning "post the lessons". But just about anything it seems is less confusing than "fasciculos onerare"--Rafaelgarcia 12:57, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
How about documenta instruere 'to provide examples'? IacobusAmor 13:57, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
"Documenta instruere" would most directly mean "construct the lessons" with secondary meaning of "prepare/teach the lessons", Doesn't seem right.--Rafaelgarcia 14:03, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Definitions of instruere in Cassell's: basically, 'to build in or into'; transferred senses: 'to equip, furnish with' . . . 'to prepare, provide'. Definitions of documentum: 'example, pattern, warning, proof' (nothing about lessons). Maybe it would be better to stick to just plain res! IacobusAmor 14:40, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2314625 and also http://lysy2.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?documentum . Anyway, I would be as happy with either "res collocare" or "res apponere" --Rafaelgarcia 15:00, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer imponere because it uses the same analogy as upload: impono asino onus (aut computatro imaginem). Documenta entails a broader discussion on what best to call files. A documentum is certainly not quite the same as a document, but rather evidence (it's equivalent to μαρτύρια in legal oratory). I actually quite like fasciculus for file: There are fasciculi florum, epistularum, librorum - why not of data, too? (And the meaning is close to the, albeit rarely used, English word fascicle).--Ceylon 21:01, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the possiblity "fasciculos imponere" (imponere originally suggested also by Neander I think), I found attested instances of imponere being used in the sense of loading something onto a ship. See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2321981
Naut. t. t., to put on board ship, to embark; with in and acc.: quicquid domi fuit in navem imposivit, 
Plaut. Rud. 2, 3, 27 : in quas (naves) exercitus ejus imponi posset, Lentul. ap. Cic. Fam. 12, 14, 1: 
legiones equitesque Brundisii in naves, Caes. B. C. 3, 14, 1 : aeris magno pondere in naves imposito, 
id. ib. 3, 103, 1 .
I'd be happy to go with fasciculos imponere, if that's what everyone wants.--Rafaelgarcia 21:40, 1 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Is there a consensus to adopt fasciculos imponere?--Rafaelgarcia 20:52, 2 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be Fasciculum imponere? (The English Wikipedia has Upload file).--Ceylon 21:51, 2 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Good point, yes. Fasciculum imponere.--Rafaelgarcia 21:55, 2 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Wow! At last there's hope of getting rid of onerare!   :–)   --Neander 22:11, 2 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Given the discussion, it should be obvious to everyone that fasciculum imponere is infinitely better than fasciculos onerare. Please no one disagree!--Rafaelgarcia 01:29, 3 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I would like request bot flag for DragonBot.

  • Bot accout: User:DragonBot (Contributions)
  • Botmaster: User:DragonBot
  • Botmaster's home project: ml:User:Jacob.jose
  • List of botflags on others wikipedias: Malayalam(ml), English(en), Simple English(simple), Samogitian(bat-smg), Bengali(bn), Manipuri(bpy), Telugu(te), Russian(ru), Italian(it), Norwegian(no), Danish(da), Turkish(tr), Albanian(sq), Volapük(vo), Swedish(sv), Tamil(ta), German(de), Japanese(ja), Arabic(ar), Esperanto(eo), Romanian(ro), Catalan(ca), Spanish(es), French(fr), Estonian(et), Icelandic(is), Korean(ko), Marathi(mr), Hebrew(he), Hungarian(hu), Kannada(kn), Dutch(nl), Croatian(hr), Slovak(sk), Indonesian(id), Bulgarian(bg)
  • Purpose: Interwiki
  • Technical details: Interwiki bot starting from wikis in South Asian Languages. Runs in Automated/Supervised mode. --Jacob.jose 1st April, 2008
Done! Adam Episcopus 12:58, 3 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

No unique Latin translation for English 'Dam'

Item 600 in Rolandus' Most important 1000 pages is the English 'dam' (See also Usor:Rolandus/Most_important_1000_pages/Dam). I have been looking into the possibilities of supplying a corresponding Latin page. It seems to me however that there is no word in Latin that uniquely corresponds to the Englishe word 'dam'. The best rendering seems to be agger (although moles is by no means impossible), which could however also translate English 'dike' as well a number of other constructions. If I were to approach this problem from English (as well as most western European languages) I would have to invent an expression, e.g. agger transversus to provide a unique Latin counterpart. However, approaching the problem from Latin, it would seem more logical to write a single article Agger which covers both 'dikes' and 'dams', as well as a number of other constructions. In this case however it is not clear how this article should be linked to pages in other languages that do distinguish between these constructions. What say you? --Fabullus 12:28, 3 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good one ... Luckily Dike (construction) is not one of Rolandus's 1000. My suggestion therefore would be to write the article that comes naturally in Latin, and not to worry too much about the interwiki problem. If necessary, a link could be added under Nexus externi to Dike (or whatever other language has the best article on the subject -- maybe Dutch?!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:44, 3 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Some time ago, after looking at the possibilities, I also ended up choosing agger (quamobrem agger presently appears as a link on the Technologia page). However, you are quite right that agger has many possible meanings, including dike and others: see for example en:agger. I think the best thing is to first write an article describing the idea of an agger, including its Roman use in war, as a dike in construction, and its modern use as a dam, with separate articles later on agger (bellum), agger (constructio) and agger (fluvium).--Rafaelgarcia 12:59, 3 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Ahem... can (more of a wikimorals question than a technical one, obviously) we link, for instance, from en: to a section of an article? [[Agger#De dikibus (quidquid)]]? --Ioscius (disp) 13:49, 3 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be better to do it through a redirect, to spare messing up the bots jobs, i.e. if we chose we could make a page Agger (constructio) and in it have #REDIRECT [[Agger#De dikibus (quidquid)]]
Yes that is bettter. So problem solved? --Ioscius (disp) 14:26, 3 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Can I try to participate in this project ?

I'm not very good at Latin, but I'd like to participate in this fantastic project to improve my Latin and my English, too. Can I try to write something?

Of course. Click here. What would you like to write about? Feel free to ask for any help.--Ioscius (disp) 17:56, 3 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

1000 pages ... ranking has been updated

See Usor:Rolandus/Most_important_1000_pages#Ranking.

--Rolandus 19:22, 3 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)


Salvete! I have been away for the last two weeks so if anything has happened that I need to know about, please tell me. Valete! Harrissimo 09:42, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).

Salve Harrissime. Si non iam scis, nunc es magistratus et oportet tibi omnes illos malefactores sistere! :)

In progressu

For a few days, you may briefly encounter unexpected redlinks among the categories concerning literature. This is because, with the help of UV's bot, these categories are being renamed; there will be some further improvements too, as will soon become evident! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 5 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

The first stage of this is completed. As a result, all pages about books and about literature should now be given the following two categories, linguistic and geographical, whenever it makes sense to do so:
  1. one of the sub-categories of Categoria:Litterae secundum linguas digestae. These always begin Litterae ... (e.g. Categoria:Litterae Anglicae) and they indicate in what language the work was written.
  2. one of the sub-categories of Categoria:Scripta secundum civitates digesta. These always end ... scripta (e.g. Categoria:Civitatum Foederatarum scripta) and they indicate in what country or region the work originated.
When a required subcategory doesn't yet exist, it can be created following this same pattern. I'm thinking that it would be useful to do the same thing, in due course, for the Scriptores ... categories as well, so that we can categorize both what country a writer comes from and what language he writes in. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Duae res: (1) In the second set, why isn't the variable part of the category at the end, where we expect it?—i.e., Scripta Italiae instead of (what we've now got) Italiae scripta? (2) See the disputatio of Italiae scripta for a question about that genitive. IacobusAmor 13:15, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
The proposal for that word order was Ceylon's (see Disputatio usoris:Andrew Dalby#Categoriae quae ad litteras spectant). I think it's slightly better Latin than the form you expected, it files neatly (as we see at Categoria:Scripta secundum civitates digesta), it's brief, and it's as different as it could be from the other set of categories named Litterae + adjective. For these four reasons, I leapt at it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:50, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
The Scriptores categories are much more numerous than the Litteratura ones were. I would like to do the same thing with these -- to double the categories, normally giving each writer one category for his language and another category for his country. My initial proposal is that the country categories should be, just as they are now, Categoria:Scriptores Franciae or else possibly reversed, Franciae scriptores; the language categories should follow the pattern Auctores Francogallici, like our current Categoria:Auctores Neolatini. Having proposed this, I'm going to be away for the next couple of weeks, so -- if others fancy puzzling out what the revised category names should be -- the field is now clear! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:24, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to Andrew Dalby and UV (and his bot) for their work on this! Finally we got rid of litteratura. - The only category which I still feel a little uneasy about is Categoria:Litterae Latinae Renascentiae. Since during the Renaissance is usually rendered litteris renascentibus, maybe Categoria:Litterae Latinae Renascentes would be an option, too?--Ceylon 14:49, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I wondered about that one! But it's only a small category, so I just went ahead for the present. Yes, I like that use of the participle. I expect, if we ask nicely, the bot would make another small change for us ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
The bot was eager to do some work … --UV 21:56, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Index universitatum nominibus Latinis constitutis

Index universitatum nominibus Latinis constitutis, shouldn't this be Index universitatum nominibus Latinis constitutarum? --Alex1011 00:58, 7 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

No. You must be assuming a different meaning for constituere than I intended. The idea is "universities with decided/set/agreed-upon Latin names." --Iustinus 17:53, 7 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
He may merely have been wanting to apply it to a different noun: 'established universities with Latin names'. IacobusAmor 19:26, 7 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
..."constitutum" in the sense of "conditum". Now it is an ablativus qualitatis? --Alex1011 20:02, 7 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. The whole point of that page is to gather officially established names (which is why I have to revert it so often!) --Iustinus 19:21, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
Maybe less reverting would be needed if the page name were a little clearer. While the construction eunuchus nomine Pothinus ('a eunuch called Pothinus') is quite common, I doubt that the ablativus qualitatis (which in fact tends to denote qualities rather than attributes) can be stretched that far. I would suggest Nomina universitatum Latina decreto adoptata.--Ceylon 18:32, 9 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)


I and UV have been working at MediaWiki at improving the translation to our interface. I wonder if, rather than res, we could rename the content pages, "commentatio".

Pagina and res strike me as way to general, encompassing Disputationes, Categoriae, etc..

Even articulus in my opinion would be better than leaving it as is, but people have objected to articulus on the ground of being a too recent and unattested invention. (Indeed to the contrary I found a couple of 18th century attestations to articulus, e.g. Tractatus praeliminaris Mathematicarum disciplinarum elementa:... and others.

Of relevance also is the Vicipaedia:Articulus and the supporting discussion at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Articulus. --Rafaelgarcia 12:52, 7 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Of course commentatio. We actually decided that months ago, we just never did anything about it. --Ioscius (disp) 17:14, 7 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I thought we included commentariu(m/s). Any Latin noun ending in -tio is originally glossed in English with a gerund ending in -ing: commentatio 'a commenting', commentariu(m/s) 'a commentary'. IacobusAmor 17:33, 7 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
My position has always been commentatio = article, but that res was OK IN THE TAB. That is, "New article" should be "nova commentatio" no matter what, but I've always liked the brevity of res in the upper left-hand corner. It can stand for res ipsa, i.e. the actual thing, as opposed to discussion or history. Eh, I guess that will be too confusing for most people. --Iustinus 17:58, 7 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that "pagina" covers not only pages in the main namespace, but also pages in most other namespaces, including talk pages, user pages and user talk pages. To Rafaelgarcia: If it is decided to use "commentatio" in some places, we would have to do this kind of customization in the Latin vicipaedia (Specialis:Allmessages), not on Betawiki. "Commentatio" would not be appropriate for vicifons etc., that is the reason why you will not find "article" anywhere in the English language file. That kind of customization has to be done on each project (e. g. English wikipedia, Latin vicipaedia, etc.) separately. --UV 19:50, 7 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Latin terser than English?

Please see Disputatio_Usoris:Rolandus/Most_important_1000_pages#Weight. --Rolandus 17:40, 7 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

For the record, according to a very thorough analysis by Harrissimo Usor:Harrissimo/Weight, Latin is indeed about 20% terser on average.--Rafaelgarcia 01:19, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
I would say, incorrect method. Harrissimo used only Latin originals with English translations. What about English originals with Latin translations? Only if such a comparison had the same result, we would have a prove that Latin is terser. --Alex1011 18:42, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
That may be a valid objection. Unfortunately, there aren't that many english originals faithfully converted to latin out there. Most Vicipaedia articles aren't direct translations either. I translated the Bernstein Declaration from english into latin about 6 months ago (for fun) the result is
English 927 words, 5838 characters+spaces, 4927 characters (no spaces).
Latin 689 words (25% less), 5383 characters+spaces (8% less), 4695 characters (no spaces) (5% less).
Based on characters+spaces (as done by Harrissimo) latin is only 8% terser. In this case, there were a lot of large words that are difficult to translate and therefore required fancy footwork in order to be faithful to what he was saying. (Sorry that the latin version isn't posted anywhere; I submitted the latin version to them but they didn't post it. Maybe they didn't trust I wasn't putting them on.). --Rafaelgarcia 19:18, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)
N.B. I was doing characters without spaces. Harrissimo 19:56, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).
I know how about taking some statistics on Superbia et Odium and compare to Pride and Prejudice!--Rafaelgarcia 19:25, 8 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)