Disputatio Formulae:PaginaMensis/Tabularium3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Former pages[fontem recensere]

Ianuarius 2009[fontem recensere]

I'd like to suggest Pecunia. Though it has a bunch of red links, I think it's latin (I think) is passable, and it is among the 1000 paginae. I think it would be ok.--Rafaelgarcia 19:34, 31 Decembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, that DOES look like a good article, so I'll support that. If there are problems we can work on them next month. Maybe we might want to, um, start planning these things more than a day in advance again though ;) Another article I've been meaning to read is melongena, it definitely looks promising. --Iustinus 01:54, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest Adrabigania. It has a lot of red links too, but it has been greatly expanded during the last month. --Gabriel Svoboda 10:24, 1 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is impressive. --Iustinus 20:31, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And mostly by anonymous friends! If only such industry were to be applied to the 1000 Famous Pages, Vicipaedia would rank much more highly in the pertinent rankings! IacobusAmor 20:59, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Februarius 2009[fontem recensere]

Cyclus Inarotis et Petubastis is very good. The only objection I can see is that choosing this page will not spread our star on to any other Wikipedias.

I would also support Adrabigania. See above.

And I like both Melongena (see above) and Safranum, but I think they both need something about current cultivation and uses (not that I mean to suggest work to others, but perhaps they aren't quite ready yet?) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:31, 29 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that have not links in other wikis at all are not recommended, or at least I would be against that. Adrabigania is long, well written and structures, although based completely on red links. the other two do not seem ready either... On the othert hand,m I cannot think of any other good long article. I would go for Adrabigania unless we find something else --Xaverius 10:29, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since 12 Februarii 2009 is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Carolus Robertus Darwin, his bio has a fair claim to be the pagina mensis for February—or perhaps, in his honor, the topic of his greatest achievement (and indeed one of the greatest achievements of the human mind), the theory & fact of Evolutio. Darwin himself has already been the pagina mensis in five wikis (including the English and the Greek), and Evolutio has also been the pagina mensis in five wikis. Also timely in February (for the same reason as Darwin) is Abrahamus Lincoln, but he's been the pagina mensis in only one wiki so far, and he's influenced how we understand the world much less than Darwin has. IacobusAmor 15:04, 31 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All good ideas -- but for 2010, I think. We have 24 hours, and they are all as yet much too short. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:27, 31 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with Adrabigania. --Rafaelgarcia 22:47, 31 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propositae[fontem recensere]

Anaxagoras[fontem recensere]

Haec est pagina longa, Latinitatis quasi impeccabilis, res accurate exponens. Propono, --Fabullus 06:26, 4 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anaxagoras in 43 wikiis adest. Macte! Adnuo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 4 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tellus (planeta)[fontem recensere]


Discussions about months[fontem recensere]

Martius 2009[fontem recensere]

I thought the idea was that a topic would be selected so that everybody could pile on and build it up into a respectable article, not that it would have emerged more or less complete from a single source and then merely ratified as a pagina mensis. Perhaps these things should be selected more in advance than one day or one week! In any case, I urge people to look at the list of 1000 pages because some of the listed articles we don't have really are important, and some that we do have are too small to gain respect. IacobusAmor 22:58, 31 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a worthy goal. I suggest we decide on one for March that we can all work on in February.--Rafaelgarcia 23:03, 31 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how about Darwin for March then? We can work on him in February, the month of his 200th birthday—a timely project! IacobusAmor 23:10, 31 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it the 200th anniversary of Darwin, it's the 150th anniversary of the publication of his On the Origin of Species and the 800th anniversary of his university, Cambridge. Never a better year than this year to work on his Wiki articles of all languages. Nooj 03:02, 1 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favour, and would be happy to contribute, but I can't personally devote time to him in February: I am deep in Southeast Asia and I need to stay there. I ought to be freer from March onwards. But if others can, that's great! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:52, 1 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is further discussion about Carolus Robertus Darwin below. Iacobus's idea was excellent, but we haven't carried it out. I think there isn't time now. Should we take Neander's suggestion of Anaxagoras instead? [I withdraw this (though it's a good prospect for future months) because I think Rafael's suggestion of Gulielmus Wordsworth, below, is preferable.] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:25, 27 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maius 2009[fontem recensere]

In honor of May Day and the workers of the world, how about Marxismus? IacobusAmor 15:04, 31 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For May, yes, nice idea. The "de doctrina" section is already fine; more history and background is wanted, I think. The Vietnamese article on this topic is starred. I can't read it, of course, but it seems more varied and rounded than ours is as yet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:38, 31 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iunius 2009[fontem recensere]

It is May 31! Neander has suggested Ianus as a good page. I would select it too, unless someone else is aware of another page that is as good and as finished up.--Rafaelgarcia 04:06, 31 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this isn't obvious, I would suggest that Ianus be the page of the month in January. But, if you don't have another page that can be ready in less than a day, I would agree with Ianus. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 05:04, 31 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. If we reserve Janus for next January, an alternative, also ready right now (and suggested above) is Anaxagoras. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:17, 31 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iulius 2009[fontem recensere]

Columbia? C.F.A.?[fontem recensere]

Disputationes hic movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:18, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pretty strong, and there have been a lots of edits to it in the past few weeks by mysterious IPs. It still needs a lot of work, but it has a great foundation! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 17:29, 7 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice one. There is a resolutely anonymous, and very welcome, contributor who is gradually providing good, long articles about the countries of the world. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:58, 7 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be finished, and impressive again! I know we already have a plan, but if something fails, Columbia might be a good candidate either for July (199th anniversary of the country's declaration of independence) or August (190th anniversary of the recognition of the country's independence). Gabriel Svoboda 11:43, 30 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that nobody has proposed Civitates Foederatae Americae, a topic that has cognate articles in 202 wikis (perhaps a record!), and is featured in 7 of them. Haec res est una ex 1000 gravissimis paginis, et CFA sane est gravissima mundi civitas. Dies libertatis: 4 Iulii. IacobusAmor 20:58, 1 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and my birthday!   :–)   --Neander 02:25, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... and my wedding anniversary ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! A cosmic coincidence on the level of Darwin in March! ;) --Iustinus 16:59, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how about for July, we decide what the page is going to be before it's July. If I'm not mistaken, there isn't a consensus yet for July's page. Iacobus suggested Civitates Foederatae Americae, and also mentioned that Independence Day is in July. I think the article has a good base, but still needs work on a few sections. But it's still better than some other suggestions in their current states (Interrete, Circuitus Franciae, &c.) --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 07:13, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Civitates Foederatae Americae covers the field yet. Maybe next year. Meanwhile Columbia, suggested by Secundus Zephyrus and backed by Gabriel and myself (above), seems a good prospect for tomorrow! How about it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:18, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Columbia is a very nice page, but it needs a lot of work on references. There is not a single citation provided on the page for a fact given, other than for the name Columbia! (A more minor issue is that it contains a few infelicities that I can detect sprinkled here and there, like independentia instead of libertas, securitas for incolumnitas,...). Likewise CFA has lots of missing sections, lacking many references that are needed. It's at a beginning stage too. I would humbly suggest instead the page Ayn Rand. Although it doubtless contains some infelicities too, because my latin is not very good, I don't think they are not too bad, and Ayn Rand does have something to do with recent history of the CFA, with one of the Ayn Rand Conferences taking place on the week of July 4.--Rafaelgarcia 14:10, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it has a great deal to do with Vicipaedia, since Jimmy Wales, our founder, is an Objectivist! So I could vote pro if it came to a vote. ¶ I don't remember suggesting CFA, but evidently I did; I do remember suggesting Circuitus Franciae, but that article remains too sketchy. (Btw, the tour is about to begin again, on the Fourth of July!) Columbia has a lot of minor non-Vicipaediaisms, but those can easily be fixed; its lack of sources, however, is a bigger barrier. Alanus Mathison Turing is complete and translates the whole of en:Alan Turing with the exceptions of only a few passages (for ease in continuing, the text currently includes the English, commented out), and it has the advantage of being one of the 1000 most important pages. ¶ Someday, the American civil war should be a featured page, as it was one of the most consequential wars of all time, but the article requires a lot of work before it'll be ready. IacobusAmor 14:26, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While C. F. A. is too ambitious for me, I'm slowly (very slowly) trying to improve my weak Latin skills by working on the Maryland page. So if you have the time, come on over and podicem meum Latine verberete! :-) Autophile 19:40, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure someone will be along to do that!
Meanwhile, yes, OK, Ayn Rand. Very strong page, Rafael. She's obscure to me, but no more obscure, I must admit, than the Cycle of Inarotis and Petubastis. It's surprising, since Rand is a Wales enthusiasm, that we will be only the second Wikipedia to make her page a Feature. Let's do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:12, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pro --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 21:32, 30 Iunii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tabulation of unresolved discussions (excluding "Remainder of 2009" infra)[fontem recensere]

The following topics are discussed supra. Of the numbers in parentheses, the first is the number of wikis in which a cognate article appears, and the second is the number of wikis in which it's featured.

Proposed remainder of 2009[fontem recensere]

Here's a suggested list for the rest of the year + short pros & cons. Of the numbers in parentheses, the first is the number of wikis in which a cognate article appears, and the second is the number of wikis in which it's featured. (Vide disputationes supra.) Some votes pro & con were originally without regard to the specific month, so interested vicipaediani may wish to check their votes as summarized below. I've proposed several pages de novo.

Hoping no one disapproves of this act, I am adding (indented) my personal judgment about what remains to be done in each of these cases to bring the article to star quality. My conclusion, for what it's worth, is that this proposed program requires a fair bit of work, and therefore some enthusiastic volunteers! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Far from disapproving, I'm glad you did it, as this is the best way to get the conversation going. You are right that this will require a good deal of work, but I'm not sure we have much of a choice, as there really aren't that many pages already ready to go. Consequently, unless I say otherwise, count me as a weak pro. --Iustinus 17:15, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pro: Andrew Dalby, IacobusAmor, Nooj, Rafaelgarcia, Xaverius
Barely more than a stipula: it needs a lot of work all round (and, since my "vote" is counted above, I have to say I don't have time right now). The English article could be the basis for improvement. AD
There MUST be fontes on Darwin, but I find none. Perhaps an article in Melissa Latina or something? --Iustinus 17:15, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Darwin isn't ready, it seems Iacobus has improved Gulielmus Wordsworth to the point where it would make a nice pagina mensis--Rafaelgarcia 12:14, 16 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In suggesting Anaxagoras above I somehow missed this comment of yours. It would be much better for Wordsworth to go first. It's a splendid page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:23, 27 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People are making useful changes in Gulielmus Wordsworth, and if that means it's going to be the pagina mensis for March, that's fine with me, as we can postpone Darwin till next February or later. The main respect in which the French & Italian wikis' versions differ from ours is that they offer critical commentary about Wordwsworth's art, after the account of his life. (Ours may be the only wiki that mentions the epigraph from the Appendix Vergiliana and observes its significance.) Strangely, the English version doesn't have such commentary. If somebody would like to translate a few such paragraphs from the French or the Italian, please feel free to have a go! IacobusAmor 14:34, 27 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pro: Usor:Andrew Dalby, IacobusAmor. Anti: Xaverius.
I've corrected the voting: I proposed it, Justinus didn't vote, Xaveri was against! See Justinus's comments below. Excellent, I think, except that no other Wikipedia has it --which was Xaverius's reason for opposing it. AD
I suppose I could write an article for en, but I confess I've kind of enjoyed having the only article be on la. Maybe if we just write a stub? ;) Another problem with this article is that it's unlikely anyone here but me has the background to contribute new material to it. --Iustinus 17:15, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pro: Andrew Dalby, IacobusAmor, Alex1011.
The theory part is fine but there is little or no history, background, reference support. The English article is not bad as a basis for improving ours; the German article perhaps even better. The French and Spanish are longer than ours but have similar problems. AD
I suppose it's worth pointing out that Carolus Marx was the pagina "mensis" for the month of ... um ... 2004. We may risk getting a reputation! ;) --Iustinus 17:15, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pro: IacobusAmor.
It's just a stipula as yet. Will someone take it in hand? AD
Pro: IacobusAmor, Xaverius.
Nicely started: needs more information on earlier years. There is time. AD
Pro: Andrew, IacobusAmor, Xaverius.
Excellent already. It could fit in any time. AD
Pro: IacobusAmor
The article is very good but the Latinitas is poor. It needs a scientist-Latinist to revise it. AD
That opinion looks too censorious here this morning! At least before a second cup of coffee, I'd say the Latin is generally grammatical & clear, and experts among us will easily be able to invest it with enough classical twists to stop Cicero's shade from frowning. IacobusAmor 12:42, 4 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I withdraw my censoriousness. It's a very thorough article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:19, 27 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pro: IacobusAmor, Alex1011
Scarcely more than a stipula. AD
Just you wait! Besides, it's a pregnant source of spinoffs. We have many articles on obscure European placenames, but none on certain American placenames that even Europeans may have heard of because of the war (e.g., Gettysburg). IacobusAmor 12:33, 4 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that. I blame the Americans. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 4 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pro: Xaverius; Fortasse: IacobusAmor.
Not very good yet, but I could promise to work this up to standard. I have time. AD
Cheese is always a good option - I'll be helping here as often as I can--Xaverius 15:43, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decembris 2009. SCDI (102, 3). Una ex 1000 gravissimis paginis. + Fortasse gravissima res ad salutem humanam hodie pertinens, praecipue in Africa. Decembris est AIDS Awareness Month.
Pro: IacobusAmor, Ioshus, Marc mage, UV.
The article is excellent but the Latinitas is patchy: too many sentences read like literally translated English (as no doubt they are!) Again, it needs a scientist-Latinist to work through it. AD
  • SUMMARIUM: Distributio paginarum menstruarum anni 2009 inter genera cognitionis
Pro omne igitur anno, secundum ordinem 1000 gravissimarum paginarum, hoc propositum nobis dat (those not among the 1000 pages are starred):
Biography: inventors, scientists, mathematicians: Darwin
Biography: explorers ~ social scientists: Kyriacus*
History: modern: Bellum Civile Americanum
Geography: countries: Adrabigania*
Society: business & economics: Pecunia (pagina mensis for January 2009, right?)
Society: politics: Marxismus
Culture: language & literature: literature: Cyclus Inarotis et Petubastis*
Culture: recreation: sport: Circuitus Franciae*
Science: astronomy: Mercurius
Science: health & medicine: SCDI
Technology: electronics: computers & internet: Interrete
Foodstuffs: Caseus
People will want to make changes, but I hope that making an overview here will prove to have been worth the effort. IacobusAmor 20:58, 1 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A general thought[fontem recensere]

The re-listing of earlier proposals and the suggested timetable for 2009 are both extremely useful in getting us to the point. We should remember, in looking at the "votes", that some of these (but not all of them!) were cast on the assumption that the page we're talking about will be significantly improved before going forward. So perhaps we need to evaluate the pages in this suggested timetable to see how close they are, individually, to pagina mensis standard. Unless someone else wants to do it right now, I might look at that later today. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclus Inarotis et Petubastis[fontem recensere]

Whoa, I'm honored to have the page considered! A few things though:

  1. When did I actually vote for it?
  2. I wouldn't file that under "worldview & religion". Religion plays a part in the cycle, but it's really a saga of heroes much more than of gods. Really I would place it under "literature" (or whatever the proper equivalent in your system is).
  3. The page may be long (and have an uncharacteristically thorough bibliography), but—and this is all too often the case in pages I write—it has very little actual text. It's all lists and tables. I've been meaning to improve this situation for a while, so if the page gets accepted, I will appreciate the two months to improve it.

--Iustinus 22:08, 1 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggest, I've changed it to language & literature above. I thought you'd voted for it, or at least offered it, earlier, maybe in an archived thread. If we weren't to feature it, I suppose we should feature Pericles, which has received the strongest support otherwise. As a rule, I don't think we should feature many pages that have no (or only a few) interwiki links, but one or two a year might be OK. IacobusAmor 00:33, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Iustinus can be blamed (except for writing it). I believe I encountered the article and proposed it de novo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for all the problems enumerated above, I'm going to pretend for the time being that it will be accepted, just to get me working on it. --Iustinus 17:15, 2 Februarii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For march then, what shall be put up? "Cultura", which Iacobus has been working on seems ripe enough, and is plenty interesting. Cyclus Inarotis et Petubastis is not very full at present and Pericles lacks references.--Rafaelgarcia 18:10, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of those three, "Pericles" has improved, but isn't referenced and doesn't yet read like a proper, critical encyclopedia article; "Cyclus ..." is (although I proposed it) very technical; surely it has to be Cultura. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:34, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultura[fontem recensere]

I'm humbled & honored if you like it, but shouldn't the ancient Egyptians have a go? This one could be put off for a month or more. ¶ Here are some points to consider. It almost entirely corresponds with en:Cultura, but I've added some images, and a few tidbits near the end. I consulted the German & Spanish versions, and they have more useful tidbits than I took from them. (The emphasis is a little too American.) The English version entirely lacks a section on linguistics, though it has a heading that announces that such a section is desired; so I moved some material starting with Hockett into that area. It can be moved back when en: gets its act together; if you check its discussion page over there, you'll see that people have been thinking about precisely that point. ¶ The original text is probably overdetailed regarding our simian friends (and I left a few such paragraphs untranslated, though hidden in case someone wants to translate them). ¶ The article is (I think) about three times as long as Vicipaedia's next-longest article, and one wonders if that isn't too much. The matter at the bottom, about cultural change, could be spun off into a separate article, though some of the bibliography would want to go with it. In that area, I have a few more factoids to add; for example it needs a sentence or two referring to an eventual article on measuring the rate of linguistic change by en:Lexicostatistics (something I myself tried to do with a specific kind of music, using different methods of course). ¶ If you compare the graphic design of Cultura, I think you'll find it more appealing than that at en:Culture. The placement of images, and their captions (almost entirely irrelevant in en:), are important factors in enhancing texts. A curiosity of graphic design is that indented quotes, whether triggered with ":" flushleft or with the "blockquote" command, don't work if an image is between them and the left margin. Also, it's usually bad to put left-facing people flushleft and right-facing people flushright. I mention these points because they and other constraints make tinkering with the images a tricky game. Of course the size of the illustrations can usually be changed; but be careful, because such changes can generate other problems! ¶ Stylistically, the original text involved some jargon and dense expression, which I sometimes tried to avoid and at other times tried to match; there is (or was) one point that has (or had) four verbs in a row, marking the end of some nesting periods. I maintained a few distinctions of vocabulary; for example, exemplum is 'example' and exemplar is 'pattern, model', though 'model' may sometimes (depending on its implications) have become theoria. And nota is 'trait' (as recommended by Cassell's). One common word that amounts to a buzzword in the social sciences is approach; researchers are always demonstrating their "approach" to something. It's a much commoner locution in these fields than in what we may regard as "ordinary English." (It's somewhat loaded, as it can imply a theoretical orientation.) For it, I used Latin aditus, and sometimes I converted it into a verb. Of course everything here, as always in the wikis, is negotiable. IacobusAmor 19:55, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a really great piece of work. Personally I would just change one thing: I would take out (most or all of) that list of "vide etiams". There are plenty of links, blue and red, in the text, and that's where links are most useful (because the context helps to explain their relevance). All the rest is first-class. To me the layout looks very successful too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:22, 30 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, as the list has twenty-nine links—and they're all red! However, it could be useful as a guide to topical offshoots whose articles need to be written: so if editors don't want to see it, I'd recommend hiding it but retaining it in the editable text so as to keep it for reference. Of course either hiding or deleting it ruins the effect of the placement of the picture; but it's my least-favorite image, whose point isn't even mentioned in the text, so I wouldn't mind if it were cut. IacobusAmor 13:12, 31 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an admirable and breathtaking piece of work, indeed. And a very brave effort to domesticate Latin for easy-flowing communication. Yet, on the basis of a very quick reading I feel the article might benefit from some discussion of issues relating to substance (it's a bit too American, as Iacobus says, and a brief conceptual-historical survey, rather than etymology, of the term cultura might be quite in order, too) and idiomaticity of Latin (in fact, the article seems to be rather free from obvious grammatical errors, so the standard is going up ... :-) So, I agree with Iacobus that this article could be put off for a month or so. --Neander 02:27, 31 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "breathtaking," perhaps in its scope, but not necessarily in its style. To improve my Latin, I wanted to get away from the easy formulas of three-line biographies and listlike articles and plunge right in on something that kept on going—and going, and going, and going. Certain problems of vocabulary & rhythm become apparent only when one does that! Rafael seems to have the same idea with Ayn Rand, which could become another article of interest. IacobusAmor 13:29, 31 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. To be practical, would you suggest then that we stick with Cyclus Inarotis et Petubastis for April and go for Cultura in May? From the specific to the general? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 31 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me; and besides, we sort of promised it to Iustinus. (Hmm. Where is he, anyway?) Thanks to Neander for working on UNESCO's pronouncement. (As he's pointed out, I'm at the stage where I've got the basics of the grammar down cold, or almost so, and the great unknowns are in the world of idiom.) When I get time—not this morning!—I want to go through it phrase by phrase, as it offers a clearcut exercise in translating. Incidentally, its style is quite different from that of the original of much of the rest of the text. Whether an article should flit about from style to style is a question, but I suppose it's OK for the style of quotations to differ drastically from the style of the text. IacobusAmor 13:12, 31 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly, you didn't promise me anything. I explicitly said I was only pretending you were going to accept it, in order to motivate me to fill it out. I never did write the much needed section on Greek influence, or make the Delta-map that would really enliven things, but perhaps I can work those in sometime over the month. Unfortunately for this next week I'll be out of town for the CAMWS conference. --Iustinus 05:57, 1 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So cultura for may?--Rafaelgarcia 19:42, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, but I'll first be concentrating on the 1000 pages for a couple of days. IacobusAmor 19:52, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a looot to correct but at least the beginning looks ok, as far as I can tell. --Neander 21:21, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because that's the part you've corrected! :) Further down, you'll encounter some curious little horrors. Be forewarned! IacobusAmor 21:24, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's important enough of a work in progress that we should do it anyway and all make an effort to improve it as much as possible. That's part of what wiki's are about. We can put a dubium on it to warn off the innocent.--Rafaelgarcia 21:43, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haec commentatio re vera est commentarium perlongissimum quasi liber!!! Egomet non possum omnia scrutinare. Est nostra longissima pagina??--Rafaelgarcia 23:30, 30 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haud dubie! And it's an ironic matter of record that when I went to post the original text, I accidentally hit the "Haec est recensio minor" button! ¶ An obvious way of shortening it would be to send the material about cultural change elsewhere to become its own article, Mutatio culturalis or whatever. A counterargument is that as long as the English version (from which most of the article was translated) keeps the discussion of cultural change where it is, we should too. IacobusAmor 01:05, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stercus sacrum, Iacobe! This is a behemoth. I can't believe you had the patience to write that. I thought I broke the length rules with Infinitas, but this is something else. Macte. I'm all for it. I'll give it a good editing read through tonight or tomorrow. --Ioscius (disp) 02:22, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sprinkled some invitatory dubsigs here & there; but of course in a text of that length, style (the stultifying turgidity of academic writers, which the Latin sometimes tried to match), and field (anthropology), unmarked infelicities must abound. IacobusAmor 02:44, 1 Maii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October[fontem recensere]

Any thoughts for which should our page of the month for october?--Rafaelgarcia 20:28, 29 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, it should be one of the 1000 pages that's already more than 10,000 long but not more than 30,000, so that additions can put it over the goal and boost Vicipaedia's score! Some that come to mind are Abecedarium Arabicum, Alexander Magnus, Alexander Pushkin, Civilizatio, Constantinus I, Diplomatia, Foedus Arabicum, Franciscus Lloyd Wright, Ganges, Geoffrey Chaucer, Globalizatio, Gulielmus Shakespeare, Hokusai, Ibn Battuta, Iulius Caesar, Iura humana, Pulchritudo, Siva, Tellus, Thomas Aquinas. IacobusAmor 20:59, 29 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ganges, Pulchritudo?--Rafaelgarcia 21:14, 29 Septembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November[fontem recensere]

Trafalgaris Pugna? Aeolus (Euripides)?--Rafaelgarcia 21:53, 29 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just recently been working on Caseus (which was Iacobus's earlier suggestion for this month) but, realistically, it won't be done by tomorrow, so that can be set aside. Of your two suggestions, I like both, and I'm proud to have been the one to initiate Aeolus (Euripides) which Neander has developed so fully, but I suggest that Trafalgaris Pugna, which would get our star on to other Wikipedias, might take priority. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:47, 30 Octobris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pro mense Decembre?[fontem recensere]

Quae commentatio pro mense Decembre decet? Aeolus (Euripides)? caseus? --Rafaelgarcia 00:31, 30 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caseus pulchre scripta est, et bene citationibus utitur, etiamsi magna eius pars de rebus linguisticis tractat. Opus est mea sententia pluribus imaginibus et fortasse plus de varietatibus.
Aeolus quoque pulchra est, et melius (vel latius) citationibus utitur. Desideratur hic fortasse aliquid de deo Aeolo ipso praecipue apud Homerum.
Ambo utuntur fontibus Classicis. Non facile inter eas eligo, fortasse licet caseus melius me teneat. --Ioscius (disp) 13:44, 30 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caseum malo, quod iam pagina Iunii de re Graecorum fuit--Xaverius 13:56, 30 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. [What's the Latin for that? or for "me too"?] IacobusAmor 14:59, 30 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Et mihi caseus placet! --Fabullus 15:03, 30 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gaudeo igitur! Imagines hodie addidi; etiamnunc additamenta facio ...
Gratias multas ago Neandro qui capitulum etymologiarum melioravit! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:05, 1 Decembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Receptum de "https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disputatio_Formulae:PaginaMensis/Tabularium3&oldid=3388586"