Disputatio Formulae:PaginaMensis/Tabularium2

Introduction[fontem recensere]

Things move slowly here, so we may as well start ahead of time. Still on the table is asteroides, which can probably go for January if there are no objections. Hopefully the Project:Collaboratio hebdomadalis will be able to produce some quality articles. —Myces Tiberinus 03:41, 24 Martii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should move towards pagina "fortnight" if not a pagina hedomadis. We have a bunch of qualities articles apud nos, and we are getting bigger all the time. We definitely have enough well formed content that we can increase the frequency with which we display featured articles on our front page. What are cogitationes?--Ioshus Rocchio 04:46, 7 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we ask for candidates and see how big the pool is: if we get 12 or 15 good ones, stick with pagina mensis - if 30, pagina "fortnight" if 80, pagina hebdomadae --Tbook 20:53, 7 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose Usor:Iustinus's Imperium Cossanum for a 2007 Pagina Mensis. It is one of our better pages on an interesting subject. Also Marc Mage's Pericles and Tuor's Queen Ann --Tbook 19:17, 10 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euge! Res de Imperio Cossano maxime mihi placet. Ego quoque Tbook-tori contso. Sicagum autem proba res est. Sed esse iudicem mihi non liceat. Sinister Petrus 20:08, 11 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 2007-8[fontem recensere]

Imperium Cossanum - January 2007[fontem recensere]

proposed above by Tbook 19:17, 10 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)[reply]

supported above by Sinister Petrus 20:08, 11 Iulii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --UV 01:14, 2 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: fait accompli --Iustinus 18:54, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitas - February 2007[fontem recensere]

proposed by Ioshus 00:21, 18 Decembris 2006

Support. --UV 00:16, 19 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

…

Pong cervisiale - Iunii 2007[fontem recensere]

I do not encourage alcohol abuse, but I think this article is really funny. --UV 23:49, 9 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse schmabuse! =]. I like the idea of this article as a pagina mensis because it shows that we write about interesting/popular stuff here, too, not just run-of-the-mill articles.--Ioshus ^(disp) 18:48, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=] sine dubio--Xaverius 09:20, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculus et iocosus. Monstrat nostram festivitatem.--Rafaelgarcia 01:03, 26 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroides (L = +2) - Iulii 2007[fontem recensere]

proposed above by Freiberg 01:52, 16 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --UV 01:14, 2 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Ioshus ^(disp) 18:48, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sustineo --Marc mage 23:54, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SupportRafaelgarcia 00:40, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sustineo, but may need more images (?)--Xaverius 09:16, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC), sed plus imagines[reply]

Xaverio valde consentio. Videte quaeso meas de hac re sententias.--Ioshus ^(disp) 01:35, 15 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physica electromagnetica (L = +1) - August 2008[fontem recensere]

This is looking better and better. Rafael has put in a great deal of work, and it is stacked with citations. We just need to proofread, the content is there.--Ioshus ^(disp) 05:50, 3 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --UV 22:33, 4 Aprilis 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sustineo--Xaverius 12:47, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Berolinum (L = +3)[fontem recensere]

(meae recentes multae mutationes ad hanc paginam in primis ad technicalia modo spectabant.) --Alex1011 21:33, 4 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Ioshus ^(disp) 18:48, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

…

Nix (L ??)[fontem recensere]

to be considered --Rolandus 23:14, 27 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This has a lot of content and good organization. We will need to go back through and add inline citations and clean up the latinitas a little. But I like it. Let's pencil it in for December (not likely to get a whole lot more snow this winter =] then again, do we have any southern hemisphere dwellers?).--Ioshus ^(disp)

Support. But why not have nix in August or the like? It's such a pleasure to think of cool snow when trying to endure the summer heat … --UV 23:52, 27 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent point.--Ioshus ^(disp) 00:37, 28 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
…Ego feci: sustineo--Marc mage 22:43, 2 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sustineo - Secundus Zephyrus 05:40, 5 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed perfect for August! Ego sustineo--Xaverius 12:49, 11 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hispania Visigothica (L +1)[fontem recensere]

Even though it has a dubium rating at present. I think this page is wonderful and a unique contribution that you can find on Vicipaedia and no where else. Thus I hope this page is chosen someday.Rafaelgarcia 01:23, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was going to wait until after we were done editing it to nominate it, but, since you already did...--Ioshus ^(disp) 05:17, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nolens superbus esse I support it -although for me is enough if it is understadable for those who may want to read it--Xaverius 09:15, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tangaloa[fontem recensere]

Iacobi opus pulchre videtur.--Ioscius ^(disp) 14:59, 25 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pagina mihi vere placet. Solus volem pagina imaginibus ornata fuerit. Sed imaginem aptam non invenio. Quis habet imaginem?--Rafaelgarcia 17:34, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Imaginem caret, sed paginam sustineo si nexos caeruleos crescent--Xaverius 17:47, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canariae Insulae[fontem recensere]

Long and well writen, should it be taken into acount?--Xaverius 12:50, 23 Octobris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly discussions[fontem recensere]

February 2007 - Infinitas[fontem recensere]

Imperium Cossanum was piced for January because discussion died down here before a decision was made, and it was considered the most complete article. Well, the month's almost over now, and there's been no progress since then. So either we need to start discussing the year again, or someone needs to arbitrarily pick something for next month, again. --Iustinus 02:50, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well...Scacci is pretty good... I was hoping to have the history part and the fontes classici better structured before we featured it. Pong cervisiale I kind of hoped would be around June, post finals celebrations and all... I could finish Infinitas this weekend, and if you could edit, that would work. Moretum isn't bad, could be quickly cleaned up. The SCDI article is huge, and technical, so I will need some time to work through that... I vote Moretum or Infinitas. A little group work over the weekend and either could be a good article.--Ioshus ^(disp) 05:12, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather abstain for now, unless everyone else does the same. --Iustinus 05:30, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, someone but me and Iustinus need to say something and quick. We have til 1800EST tomorrow to decide, or it will default to last year's february article. I'm down for a last minute run to get an article cleaned up tonight, but we need to decide quickly.--Ioshus ^(disp) 17:45, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitas is looking more & more impressive, and Scacci & Moretum are excellent. I dunno. Flip a coin? (But wouldn't a three-sided coin be kinda cumbersome?) IacobusAmor 17:54, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'd like to wait to add history on Scacci. If it's to be a coin, it should be between the other two (no need for three sided coins! =])--Ioshus ^(disp) 17:57, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I haven't actually given my opinion, for the very reasons I mentioned in my email to you, Ioshus. Maybe we need to start harrassing people by email or disputatio usoris to come vote. --Iustinus 18:02, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some feedback as requested by Rocky Josh (and the walls came tumb'ling down :-D). I see Infinitas as the best candidate, having some impressive images (since the page has to go to the frontpage they are relevant), serious treatise made even more serious by Latin language itself, and a good showoff of what la.wiki can dish out. Another one is SCDI, but I'd wait another month to check it outo carefully for verifiability (the topic is still just too sizzling). Moretum is the weakest. - εΔ ω 18:13, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I vote for Infinitas in February, Moretum in March, Scacci in April, then we need something for May and then we could have Pong cervisiale in June. What do you think about this? --UV 22:59, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion appears to be the only long-term plan seriously proposed, so I've provisionally marked in the schedule above. We can still change it if someone wishes to discuss this any further, but for now I figure the closer we are to a real plan, the better. --Iustinus 18:51, 31 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if we can manage it in time, it might be nice to write an article on somethign questionable, as described above, to put up for april, and postpone scacci to may. But this is obviously only aplicable if we can get such an article written and in good shape by then. --Iustinus 19:48, 31 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems pretty sure that we are going to do infinitas, which really was my vote anyway: it looks bad to have two articles written by me made consecutive paginae mensis. I'm not so sure it will be in tiptop shape in time, but there's no law against continuing to improve it throughout the month if we have to. --Iustinus 23:51, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and εΔω/Orbilius, what changes would you suggest to improve moretum? --Iustinus 23:52, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a more thoughtful reading I found the information on moretum very thorough on the literary side (that incidentally is my preferred), making this article precious to read, but as for other fields (the scientific ones) could be strenghtened. If this article is going to appear on Pagina prima it'd be advisable to turn some red links blue. It's my shame to tell "I suggest, you write" since my presence here is very scarce, but You asked, I answered. But if this can excuse me, lately I'm spending a wikiholiday on la.source formatting and refurbishing... εΔ ω 23:37, 31 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. If you're still around, could you explain exactly what scientific information you would consider important? I'm intreagued by the suggestion, but I confess that I cannot figure out what you mean. As for the wikiholidy, I understand. I shouldn't be writing wikipedia so much myself. I may take a holiday soon myself. But I do want to try to work on the paginae mensis while I can. --Iustinus 01:33, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007 - Moretum[fontem recensere]

Looks like it's going to be moretum then. Probably too late to do something else at this point anyway, but anyone have any objections? Or better yet, anyone have any suggestions for improving that article? --Iustinus 18:09, 27 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should definetly, if moretum is going to be our new pagina mensis, we should try to create the pages that are linked from moretum: apium, acetum, increase the one on oil which I couldn't be bothered in doing (sorry), porrus and all those vegetables/food/whatever, of which vicipaedia has rather few articles--Xaverius 23:16, 27 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like Iustinus said about infinitas, it can certainly be a work in progress through the month. I mean, check the difference in versions of Infinitas from from 31 January to 27 February. That being said, I agree with you; it's a very good idea to make blue links in featured articles on one hand, and a good idea to have articles on those very important items on the other.--Ioshus ^(disp) 23:41, 27 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent idea, Xaverius. It looks like I might actually have time to work on herbs this month, Deo volente. And certainly Dr. Dalby has expressed interest in getting more herb articles done, so he might be willing to help. If things go well with me at school, perhaps I can find the time for a daily "moretum link" assignment. --Iustinus 04:39, 28 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will then ake over oleum, and finish what I started, and probably I'll write one on garum--Xaverius 08:33, 28 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be careful about garum, given Sally Grainger's recent theory about the difference between garum, liquamen, and muries. We'll need to at least cite it. I shoudl mention, though, that when I'm at the conventiculum I tend to use liquamen as a general term for salti, umami, and likely fermented sauces, like fish sauce, soy sauce, and sometimes ketchup (which at least one theory states derives from a Chinese term for fish sauce), but garum for fish-based liquamen only. Unfortunately this isn't entirely supported by the ancients, who afterall described a vegitarian fish-sauce substitute (made from pears) as garum castimoniale. Still, liquamen soiae is an awfully convenient turn of phrase. [Course then we have those medieval Arabic muries made from fermented mouldy bread! Turns out that's almost identical to soy sauce] --Iustinus 19:49, 1 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2007 - April fool's or Scacci ??[fontem recensere]

Anyone think we should have an april fool's page?--Ioshus ^(disp) 19:00, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Beer Pong should go in April ;) --Iustinus 04:37, 26 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had fancied beer pong more in june, to coincide with college graduations, but I guess you have a point =].--Ioshus ^(disp) 07:47, 26 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion. Anyone else have an oppinion on this (either regarding the placement of beer pong or to suggest other articles). I suppose if we wanted a true April 1 prank article we could invent a new Conventiculum or Lexicon Neolatinum ;) --Iustinus 19:17, 26 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe claim that there is now a Latin edition of Playboy or something --Iustinus 19:17, 26 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman text found in America? --Alex1011 23:08, 27 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, say more Alex.--Ioshus ^(disp) 05:09, 28 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I remember correctly, there were even some claims that, say, a Roman coin was found at the Hudson river, or a mysterious stone with some Latin inscription, but all these claims did not hold water. In the area of Boston there is a place which claims to be an American Stonehenge, 4000 years before Christ, with mysterious connections to Stonehenge, England. The Chinese claim that they have a city founded by Roman immmigrants, some sort of antique free enterprize zone so to speak. That all means that we would have to write an article of Romans at the North or South pole or something like that in order to avoid confusion with real claims.
Or about some technical invention the Romans had made. (The German translation of Petronius has a "witch hanging from a balloon." Had the Romans already hot air balloons? It is easier to have some vague idea than to actually write an article, probably not so easy.) --Alex1011 16:15, 28 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though actually, writing a detailed article on one of those questionable claims might be a better idea than making something up. --Iustinus 17:11, 28 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman decendants found in China? --Iustinus 18:09, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... or maybe a (serious) article about the topic? Ludificatio Calendarum Aprilium (ex {{PONS-Egger}}). --Rolandus 13:12, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very cool idea. The history is long, and we could make a cool page translating anecdotes. I'm for this all the way.--Ioshus ^(disp) 15:25, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007 - ?????????????[fontem recensere]

it's may[fontem recensere]

already!!! What shall we do? Quick!--Ioshus ^(disp) 15:06, 2 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should have big anouncements in the taberna, with flashy lights and sirens anouncing that months pass and that we have to decide about the monthly page :p. May I ask, who decided this months' page?--Xaverius 21:03, 2 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is last year's May page. If we don't decide on something for a particular month, it reverts to whatever the last year's template was for that month.--Ioshus ^(disp) 21:19, 2 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it: Now it reverts to the default month page ... at the moment the pages of 2006. The default can be changed for each month by just editing the redirect. --Rolandus 09:37, 19 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FERTE AUXILIUM!!! CONSILIUM EST NOBIS CONSILIANDUM! =] --Ioshus ^(disp) 15:07, 2 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007 - Pong cervisiale ??[fontem recensere]

'... to coincide with college graduations ...

20 minutes to june... I cannot wait to write tomorrow, just o demonstrate I remember about our paginae mensium =] It is going to be pong cervisiale, isn't it?--Xaverius 22:36, 31 Maii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working at fixing the Latin and getting citations. Might not be ready in 20 minutes, but will by the end of the weekend. It's not too bad, if no one minds me saying... =] --Ioshus ^(disp)

July 2007 - Asteroides[fontem recensere]

August 2007 - Nix → Physica electromagnetica[fontem recensere]

Vide nix.

I like the idea, but is anyone gonna fix it up, in time?--Ioscius ^(disp) 20:55, 18 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007 - Hispania Visigothica[fontem recensere]

October 2007 - Berolinum Pericles Mercurius[fontem recensere]

*Berolinum ? ... has L = +3 --Rolandus 16:59, 4 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that Pericles has stronger support. --Rolandus 19:09, 4 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your suggestion of Mercurius (planeta) is better. If someone is willing to revise the latinitas and add a few fontes to the article, it would be perfect. Plus the fact that Pericles has no sources and less content than Mercurius. Harrissimo.

I think I agree with Harrissimo. Pericles should slide down the list, because the article is not really fully wikified. Berolinum is very good but it looks messy, at least on my screen; we maybe could adjust the order of items or the layout. For a good article we ought to have more text near the top, fewer lists and pictures, I think. This probably wouldn't take long ... Mercurius (planeta) seems completely ready to me except for the lack of references and links. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:44, 23 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References: All done. All it needs now is some Latinitas ratings and we're off. Harrissimo.

Wow! Good work. OK, if no one else gets in ahead of me, I'll read it through this evening. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:47, 24 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I wish I hadn't started this now. The Latinitas is pretty bad. I wouldn't be able to do it at all if I didn't know that it was translated from the English page (a fact which Harrissimo obviously found useful too!)

This will take some time. I will finish now I've started, but to be sure of not missing the moment, maybe for October we should go back to Berolinum, whose Latinitas is just fine. I have adjusted the layout of Berolinum experimentally. I think it's better, but please, anyone, have a look and revert me if you think it's worse! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 25 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On my browser Berolinum is okay. --Alex1011 12:41, 25 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for Berolinum too!--Rafaelgarcia 14:30, 25 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do it.--Ioscius ^(disp) 14:58, 25 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, thus I vote it!--Xaverius 15:01, 25 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a great shame that Mercurius' latinitas is down. Much of it was written by an anonymous IP. But after that quick Graphics sweep of Berolinum, it looks a lot better in my browser too. Igitur eligo Berolinum quoque. Good work Alex! Harrissimo.

And your work on the Mercurius notes won't be wasted, Harrissimo! I'll keep on at the Latinitas, and it'll be a pagina mensis one day, no doubt.

So everyone agrees. Does any of us know what to do on 1 October? I bet Ioscius does. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:53, 26 Septembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007 - 3 days![fontem recensere]

Quid nobis eligendum estne? Harrissimo.

2007-2008[fontem recensere]

[This proposal followed some of the discussion below ...]

I propose for the next four months: 1) Bacchae, 2) Aspectus 3) Cuba 4) Uranus (planeta), so we would have some time to work on Uranus. --Alex1011 21:27, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.--Ioscius ^(disp) 22:07, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me too. --Rafaelgarcia 22:48, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And me ... Hoping no one disagrees, I have rearranged the subheadings of this disputatio as will be seen. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:33, 30 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007 Bacchae[fontem recensere]

I would also like to propose Bacchae because it not only has excellent latinitas it is very nice over all as well. All three pages deserve to be pagina menses at some point.--Rafaelgarcia 19:44, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well done, Neander! Harrissimo 19:57, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, Bacchae is great too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:35, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ianuarius 2008 Aspectus[fontem recensere]

I want to propose the article aspectus, because it gives a lot of information, in opposite to different grammar-based articles like tempus, modus, verbum etc. It can be understood as a idol for other grammar-articles! Vide ! -- IP Quindicenne 19:26, 18 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very strong article, certainly. Did you write it yourself, Quindicenne? Some external links (if there are any suitable), some citing of sources for specific details (if necessary), some general bibliography, would improve it further, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:25, 18 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has a lot of great information, I think it is strong, as well. A few things I'd like to see would be maybe an example in Russian, as well as Polish, and I would like to see Greek letter in the examples. Also, I second Dr. Dalby in that we really must have citations for an article of the month (we must have citations for every article, not just featured ones!), and there are some formatting issues as well (no vide etiam, or nexus externi). Up to the challenge?

Also, the creator of Nix seems to have left the building, so I'm afraid that one probably won't get cleaned up in time to use it . . .--Ioscius ^(disp) 20:51, 18 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, honestly, even if this were to get in shape in time, I would rather push Physica electromagnetica, and Hispania Visigothica up a month, and slide your article behind. No offense whatsoever, but they did great work and these pages were nominated months ago.--Ioscius ^(disp) 21:08, 18 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First: Yes, I write the article, because I wanted to give a larger article (but I was still an IP, and they are sometimes disrespected (but not here in WP:la) ;-)), but the written things were determinated to be the beginning. I had an orientation: see [1]. But its not a translation! And of course I can add things like vide etiam, sources, links etc. But the sources aren't Latin. Is it bad? (today, linguistic scripts aren't written in Latin...).

And of course I respect the other articles, I didn't know that they were proposed such a long time ago. For me, it is satisfactory, that you called aspectus strong, thank you! I will expend it. Maybe I can persuade you. Or later... :-) -- IP Quindicenne 10:36, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely acceptable to have sources from languages other than English. If we were only able to draw sources from things written in Latin, we would never get anything done, around here =]

That being said, I'd be very surprised if you couldn't find something on aspect written in Latin. I'm going to slide your proposition to December, is that ok?--Ioscius ^(disp) 13:19, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, until December it will be a better article than now :-). There is still something to do... -- IP Quindicenne 16:43, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Look at it now, it's improved! http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspectus -- IP Quindicenne 18:25, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody mind if I standardise the tables on the page? I know the grey tables may look bland but the page is a bit scruffy as it stands. Harrissimo 20:59, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Good idea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:33, 30 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael has made a diagram, so the page looks more eye-catching now. Everything seems to be ready. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:13, 29 Decembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Februarius 2008 Cuba[fontem recensere]

I propose this because it is of a good size and has plenty of references. I imagine the latinitas is good too. Harrissimo 15:22, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think the latinitas of the page is fine and that the content is good.--Rafaelgarcia 19:44, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cuba is very good too but I don't want Aspectus to be squeezed out. We don't get good pages on grammatical concepts all the time ... I suspect that Uranus still wants some adjustment, and therefore that whichever of these two pages we don't take now should re-emerge in January. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:03, 29 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martius 2008 Uranus (planeta) Relativitas specialis[fontem recensere]

Propono [originally for Ianuarius 2008]. --Alex1011 13:35, 9 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problems are:

The disproportionate amount of red/blue links
not a single fons
Not in keeping with vicificatio

The Latin is pretty good, and the content is great, but we look for examples of a great page holistically for pagina mensis. Do you want to spearhead the campaign to get this article in shape, Alex?--Ioscius

Well, spearheading ... then I must paddle back somewhat. There would be quite a lot to do: deleted images, red links which, however, already exist, if written properly, also some Latin language problems. On the other side there is still some time till January. --Alex1011 14:33, 9 Augusti 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Uranus is not up to par yet, any suggestions for pagina mensis? I can suggest:

Relativitas specialis because it fairly close to complete and Ceylon, Neander, and others have worked to improve the latinitas.
Euripides Neander has worked a lot on this page, which to me looks pretty complete and has a pic.
Mathematica should also be considered at some point but it probably needs someone to check and improve the latinitas, as I suspect I may have committed more than one idiomatic gaff, which put it in a lesser category alongside Uranus (planeta).--Rafaelgarcia 19:23, 10 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dominus Miraculorum I think will eventually be worth considering too. --Rafaelgarcia 03:42, 11 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I prefer Euripides (may need more content) and~~ I choose Relativitas specialis (needs ~~sources~~ latinity check) Harrissimo 01:17, 13 Februarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Euripidem nondum perfeci. Relativitatem specialem egomet propono. --Neander 03:24, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo tollo propositum meum illius paginae. Harrissimo 03:30, 22 Februarii 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Ego quoque.--Ioscius ^(disp) 22:12, 24 Februarii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aprilis 2008 Nix[fontem recensere]

Do we have anything in store? There is discussion above of Uranus (planeta) and Mercurius (planeta). (I promised to improve the Latinity of the latter, but I have found that astronomy is so far from my usual field of knowledge or reading that it is very difficult for me to work on it in Latin!) Perhaps there are other suggestions lurking above as well. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:02, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean...in order to fix it, one must spend a lot of time learning about those things, figuring out what they are trying to say. I think Nix might be considered. Euripides is close too, it just needs a summary of his works, not just a listing. Mathematica is good too in my opinion, but it is already linked to the front page. --Rafaelgarcia 13:47, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all three of those. I don't think it's a problem that Mathematica is a "leading article": it still deserves to be featured at top left. Perhaps Nix April, Mathematica May? I think maybe Euripides ought to wait in the queue a couple of months, since we have only recently chosen Bacchae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:35, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mihi quidem Nix maxime placet.--Ceylon 22:16, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utinam esset nix circiter Vasingtoniam... =[ --Ioscius ^(disp) 22:19, 18 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maius 2008 Mathematica[fontem recensere]

This suggestion arises from the April discussion, and before. Do others have an opinion? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:10, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sustineo! --Secundus Zephyrus 17:57, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fine! --UV 22:12, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iunius 2008: Euripides[fontem recensere]

Euripides is looking better and better. Is it OK for June?

I have been working on Eleutherius Benizelus recently. Does it seem a possible candidate? Any suggestions for improvement? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:29, 21 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like both. --UV 21:44, 21 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro me, volo paginam Euripides mense Iunio et paginam Eleutherius Benizelus mense Iulio. --Rafaelgarcia 18:16, 26 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

consentio :)--Xaverius 10:33, 27 Maii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iulius 2008 ...[fontem recensere]

Thinking again, however, I wonder whether it would be better to postpone Benizelus, at least for a month, so as not to have two Greek biographies in succession, and maybe choose for July one of the countries that an anonymous contributor has been working on: either Ager Merulensis, which is very topical but perhaps not quite ready yet, or Armenia, which looks good to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:38, 9 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing with Ager Merulensis is that the historia section seems very long. Could it just be broken up into subsections? That would help it visually I think. --Secundus Zephyrus 23:22, 9 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on Hizbullah. Maybe if some others help me go through it, rate it for Latinity, create stubs for the remaining red links etc., we could eventually bring it up to Pagina Mensis quality?--Ceylon 16:06, 14 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there. (Macte, amice!) For pages in more-distant months, I suggest we try to boost articles from among the list of 1000 articles every wiki should have. At the moment, according to the point-system devised by a Wikimedian analyst, Vicipaedia ranks only 45th in this regard (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias_by_sample_of_articles). In this system, we gain a fourfold bonus for articles longer than 10,000 octets (excluding interwiki links) and a ninefold bonus for articles longer than 30,000. Of the 1000 specified articles, only eight of ours are longer than 30,000 octets (though Saturnus is really-really close, with 29,867). To see where these specified articles stand, go here: Usor:Rolandus/Sizes. IacobusAmor 16:28, 14 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I had forgotten how handy that "Sizes" page is. I can see a few there, just below the thresholds, that I'd like to work on right now ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:56, 15 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tempting, isn't it?! But don't bother with Smetana: I can't imagine that he'd survive on any rationally composed list of the Thousand Most Important Topics in the World! <subrideo> IacobusAmor 12:01, 15 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saturnus (planeta) has grown about 2,000 octets in overall size since Rolandus last checked, so it is probably above the ("content size") threshold now.--Ceylon 12:52, 15 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. I myself probably pushed it past the goal when I added 723 octets about a week after Rolandus made his census. Say, may we ask Rolandus to rerun his program a bit more frequently & regularly? Perhaps on a given day each month? IacobusAmor 18:33, 15 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think of those suggested Hizbullah is the best right now. Armenia may be good but it has soooo many red links even in the first paragraph and ager Merulensis needs loads more work too; there isn't a single source cited in the history section. --Rafaelgarcia 03:23, 15 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I propose Hizbullah for July and (modestly) Eleutherius Benizelus for August. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:52, 15 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Rafaelgarcia 12:47, 15 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. IacobusAmor 18:33, 15 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sept. et Oct. 2008[fontem recensere]

Suggero pro septembre et octobre, Iohannes Rawls et Liber (litterae)... --Rafaelgarcia 14:30, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consentio! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:28, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's only 1 day left. I'll put up the Iohannes Rawls as next month's page, tentatively.--Rafaelgarcia 01:25, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008 ...[fontem recensere]

De abecedario Graeco quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:43, 6 Octobris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mihi placet. Quid nobis faciendum manet? --Fabullus 18:14, 6 Octobris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mihi quoque. Utilis symbola eleganter facta. --Neander 13:42, 21 Octobris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certe sustineo--Xaverius 13:54, 21 Octobris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agedum--Rafaelgarcia 14:43, 21 Octobris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008[fontem recensere]

Quid? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:28, 30 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortasse Canariae Insulae--Xave ri us 12:44, 30 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bene. Quid dicunt alii? Admitto multos nexus rubeos remanere in hac pagina: si eligimus, ego stipulas insularum singularum creare possum seu hodie seu cras.

Bibliographia et nexus externos ex aliis Vicipaediis addidi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:48, 30 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etiam fortasse formulam Communitatis Autonomae addenda est, et stipulas insularum quoque ego creare possum--Xave ri us 14:07, 30 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ita, melius! Si tu vis id facere, ego potius de rebus historicis aliquas stipulas creo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:02, 30 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortasse res in Rolandi indice mille commentariorum. IacobusAmor 14:11, 30 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, but is there one ready? (We only have half a day.) Canary Islands is useful because (although not one of the thousand) it it very widespread among Wikipedias, and therefore gets the Latin star on to many other pages. Maybe choose one of the thousand for January? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:02, 30 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was thinking of the more-distant future. IacobusAmor 16:04, 30 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. For example, I'm intending to do some work on Alexander Magnus, who is in that list. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:14, 30 Novembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]