Disputatio Formulae:PaginaMensis/Tabularium4

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pages with latinitas > 0[fontem recensere]

Ubi est index omnium paginarum mensis?[fontem recensere]

Ubi est index omnium paginarum mensis? IacobusAmor 14:33, 29 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vide Vicipaedia:Pagina mensis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:36, 29 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias, amice! For alternate new pages of the month (say, in March, May, July, etc.), how about a suitable topic from among the 1000 famous pages (except Smetana)? IacobusAmor 15:12, 29 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed pages[fontem recensere]

we should start finding a number of good articles for next year's paginae menses – let us collect ideas!
Here is a number of pages that have been proposed above, please add others and discuss the articles suggested here! If we have about 15 to 18 good suggestions, we can work out some order for next year's months. --UV 01:14, 2 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite right UV. Let's hop on this. I think we could search for curiosities, too. Our paginae mensis need not always be about people or places. We can have more unusual topics to demonstrate the breadth of information on here.--Ioshus (disp) 18:48, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support all pages (they are just 11 now) but I especially like the curious articles and the articles about "modern" topics. --Rolandus 20:36, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we should look for curiosities and articles about hot topics of the 20th and 21st century. --UV 23:49, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pericles[fontem recensere]

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

Support.--Ioshus (disp) 18:48, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Marc mage 18:14, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. --Fabullus 17:54, 4 Augusti 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sustineo, but it may need more blue links and references....--Xaverius 19:15, 3 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Great article content, but no sources are given whatsoever, not enough blue links (as said above) and a few more pictures would be nice. --Harrissimo 19:23, 3 Septembris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sicagum[fontem recensere]

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

Fistula nicotiana[fontem recensere]

and another thing that I do not condone, but the article is nice. --UV 23:49, 9 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, I don't condone this at all, but it could certainly deserve some expansion given the impact cigarettes have had in history, plus it opens up the door for pages about addictions and illnesses.--Ioshus (disp) 18:48, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SCDI (L = ??)[fontem recensere]

Long article. --UV 23:49, 9 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support.--Ioshus (disp) 18:48, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sustineo( longum articulum)--Marc mage 22:42, 2 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Silvester II[fontem recensere]

Very good start by Massimo Macconi, can still be expanded a bit. --UV 23:49, 9 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Against, it may be a good start, but it has not developped--Xaverius 09:20, 13 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Benedictus XVI (L = +1)[fontem recensere]

Plenty of text and a decent enough article. Alexanderr 05:31, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak support: The article is certainly very good, nevertheless I would prefer more articles about topics that are not related to the two themes one would expect on a Latin wikipedia: Ancient Rome and the Roman Catholic Church. (I know, this contradicts a bit the fact that I myself proposed Silvester II just above, but Silvester II is not only known for his theological qualities.) Greetings, --UV 22:07, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Both popes, for my part. If we had a pagina hebdomadis, or pagina diei, it would be different, but a month is a long time. As UV said, I think it's a kind of a cliche to have Ancient Rome and the Catholic Church as topics on a Latin wikipedia. I'm not saying they aren't good articles, or that they aren't important. I'm just saying we can show we can write about other topics.--Ioshus (disp) 23:07, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lucunculus[fontem recensere]

To be considered --Rolandus 06:30, 7 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree but needs to be checked.--Rafaelgarcia 17:18, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ludificatio Calendarum Aprilium[fontem recensere]

I think this is a great idea for April. Let's move scacci back a couple months til fall maybe, that way it wont go Iustinus-Me-Iustinus-Me and Iustinus-Me. =] --Ioshus (disp) 15:28, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kyriacus Anconitanus de Picenicollibus[fontem recensere]

looks very good to me. Myself, I would shorten the title to Kyriacus Anconitanus to make it less of a mouthful. I suppose it wants a picture or two. Of what? that's the question. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:34, 3 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Maybe a photo of an old print (more than ~100 years old) of one of his works, if this can be found in a library? --UV 13:41, 5 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, I missed this nomination, but I would definitely support it.--Ioscius (disp) 13:22, 19 Iulii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mercurius (planeta)[fontem recensere]

Should be watched ... --Rolandus 18:44, 20 Maii 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks like our best overall page for nomination for November. What do others think? is there another page that rivals it that you know of or on which you've been working?--Ioscius (disp) 00:26, 22 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first part is nicely done but the subsequent sections beginning with after the first paragraph of structura intestina may need some work. It needs to be checked. The trouble with long pages is that they take quite a commitment to read through, regardless of language. I won't be able to do it before Nov. 1. I'm not sure which page to recommend. --Rafaelgarcia 00:43, 22 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I began work on the first part but -- for similar reasons to those given by Rafael -- I haven't yet had time to continue. The Latinitas in those further reaches is really not good. As it stands, I don't feel it's ready yet. How about Kyriacus Anconitanus de Picenicollibus? For that, if it would help, I could contribute by making a few redlinks blue. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 22 Octobris 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clades Variana[fontem recensere]

Pro bimillenario propono Clades Variana. Est in quinque et triginta vicipaediis. --Alex1011 22:03, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linianum (L = +1)[fontem recensere]

Quite long article and completely unrelated to both ancient Rome and the Catholic Church. Would fit into the beginning of holiday-season in June or July. Roger McLassus 08:03, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. Needs wikifying, though -- in the main text there are scarecely any links as yet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 5 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've contacted the author and suggested he should provide some more links. Roger McLassus 12:00, 6 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Postquam a te certior factus sum de hac re, auctor huius paginae Vicipedianae consilium cepi quam plurima verba ligaminis adornare sed, ut nunc videre possum, usor IacobusAmor, cui gratias ago, hoc pensum heri iam fecit. MGo 09:47, 7 Martii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To avoid too-hasty discussions[fontem recensere]

I propose a two-stage method for choosing pages of the month. This is actually a bit like what en:wiki does, though much simpler.

  1. All pages we think are suitable should be proposed by anyone -- including, but not limited to, the page's main author. We propose pages as soon as we think they are suitable, not before (and if we think they are nearly ready, we work them up before proposing them).
  2. Whenever pages are proposed, we all comment, as we already do. It's decided to put the page on the list, or it's decided that it doesn't (yet) qualify. Pages that get a consensus go on the list.
  3. We also retain a list of pages that didn't quite get a consensus -- so that anyone who wants can put some work into them.
  4. We delegate someone, who of course will listen to suggestions by others about suitable dates etc., to put up one page each month.

I volunteer to do some of this (e.g. looking after the two lists, of chosen pages and not-quite-ready pages -- but I'll also be very happy if anyone else wants to do it!)

Do others think this might work? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:56, 1 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I agree. I liked the idea we had of picking a stipula and making it ready for a specific month, but it simply didn't work. If we are going to do that, it needs to be more organized and more official. Maybe we could create something like "Collaboration of the Month" (Collaboratio Mensis?) which would encourage everyone to work on an important page (e.g. Carolus Robertus Darwin, Interrete, Bellum Civile Americanum, &c.) which has the potential to be a candidate for Pagina Mensis in the future. But I think this should be separate from Pagina Mensis, which should only deal with articles that are already good. --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 14:52, 1 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, a "collaboratio mensis" will be a very good project if we separate it off. Our recurring little problem (I think) comes from combining that idea with the pagina mensis idea, so that when the collaboratio doesn't happen in time, we end up without a pagina mensis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 06:07, 2 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Woah! Look what I found! Vicipaedia:Collaboratio hebdomadalis! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 17:23, 3 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea, Andrew! --UV 21:17, 1 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clades Variana[fontem recensere]

Pro bimillenario propono Clades Variana. --Alex1011 11:44, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Macte! Quo pro mense? Septembre? IacobusAmor 13:42, 14 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assentior. Non iam scimus quo mense pugna fuerit. Propositionem supra inserui. --Alex1011 21:59, 15 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ait :en: "The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest (described as clades Variana by Roman historians) took place in A.D. 9 (probably lasting from September 9 to September 11)." IacobusAmor 03:07, 16 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

obiectivismus[fontem recensere]

We should be considering this soon, too. --Ioscius (disp) 04:30, 17 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Against. I don't really want to start a war, but we've already had one Rand article. --Autophile 16:20, 18 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why a "war"? We've always been a nice bunch. Anyway I agree two Rand related articles in one year is silly if not arkward or tacky. --Rafaelgarcia 17:01, 18 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's a fine article, but it would be better if we wait awhile before making it a pagina mensis. So, something quite different: I think I might suggest [Diana, below] [Andrew Dalby]
Agreed with Rafael. It will take much more than this to start a war =] I had forgotten that we already had a Randian (Randy was a more tempting, but far more lascivious option...) article this year. Therefore, agreed, we should wait a while. It's fine work, though Rafael, macte. --Ioscius (disp) 03:23, 19 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diana[fontem recensere]

It's a nice page, written by Usor:Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus, and would get our star on to a lot of Wikipedias. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:15, 18 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is nice. We had a kind of an unofficial no Roman myth pages for a long time to try to break the possibility of stereotype a little bit, but it might be good to back to our roots. I see a lot of disambig bluelinbks though. I will see if I can sort out some of them. (I taught myth for 3 semesters, you'd hope I could sort some of them out...) --Ioscius (disp) 04:33, 19 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am for this one too! Maybe one of the civil war pages for next month?--Rafaelgarcia 19:55, 28 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of those pages, the big one, the hub of them all, Bellum Civile Americanum, isn't ready yet; nor is Clades Variana, but one should never miss an opportunity to mark the 2000th anniversary of something important in Roman & German history (and therefore Western European history), so I hope somebody will do enough that Clades Variana can be the pagina Septembris! IacobusAmor 21:46, 28 Iulii 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the fact that Iacobus has so nicely improved Bellum Civile Americanum during the month, I think it follows from the above that we want it to be our page of the month. If not, please propose and vote for your favorite!--Rafaelgarcia 03:58, 30 Augusti 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bellum Civile Americanum is my favourite, and I vote for it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:43, 30 Augusti 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clades Variana is admittedly somewhat short, but the Latin is I think ok, there were several authors involved. Due to 2000 years I opt for this article for September. Alex1011 13:16, 31 Augusti 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As indicated above, I also like the idea of commemorating a big & historically important anniversary, and if people want to put Bellum Civile Americanum off until October, that's fine with me, since I'll be continuing to work on it. As one of the most important articles in U.S. (and, some might argue, world) history, it has an amazing number of links, an unfortunate percentage of which are still red. IacobusAmor 13:32, 31 Augusti 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your points, but I disagree with making Clades Variana our September page this year. It is just embarrassing to compare our Clades Variana page to either the English, Spanish, or German pages; it is hopelessly incomplete, a mere stub; as it stands the description of the battle consists of a single 5 sentence paragraph and the introduction consists of a single sentence, which does not even begin with the lemma. On the other hand, by contrast, at least our Bellum Civile Americanum page, as incomplete as it is, does some justice to the subject at hand.--Rafaelgarcia 16:54, 31 Augusti 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking ahead[fontem recensere]

Vicipaedia doesn't seem to have featured a plant, so I'd say botany should soon have a go, but as to which plant, nescio. An essential one in the tropics is Cocos nucifera, which, unlike most of the world's important plants, has many extraordinarily important uses beyond mere food & drink; the text, however, needs to be expanded. IacobusAmor 15:09, 30 Novembris 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could always work on finishing Cannabis ;] --Ioscius (disp) 15:52, 30 Novembris 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ianus mihi valde placet! --Neander 16:29, 30 Novembris 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pro Ianuario mense?--Rafaelgarcia 16:59, 30 Novembris 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cum Neander nostro concurro.
Etiam humiliter paginam meam Regnum Navarrae propono--Xaverius 17:43, 30 Novembris 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ianus scilicet est optima electio pro novo anno. Scilicet quoque accipiat tuum Regnum, mi Xavi. Iocatus sum, cum proposui Cannabin, at nunc eam inspicio, et videtur habere potentiam latentem multam. Sunt permulti fontes Classici, Sinici, Aegyptii, Anglici, ceterique. Habet quoque multa informatica, sicut scripsit Iacbus, de usu ad vestimenta sive funes fabricandos, ad cibum coquandum, et alia. Desideratur sine dubio etiam magnum opus ad commentationem poliendam, sed mea sententia omnia poterunt corrigi augescique ante mensem Martium. Deinde fortasse habere possumus Ianus, Regnum Navarrae, Cannabis, quibus novum annum incipiamus? Quid putatis? --Ioscius (disp) 22:59, 30 Novembris 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mihi valde placet. Apud paginam navarrorum regni nunc continenter laborabo!--Xaverius 23:09, 30 Novembris 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De mensibus futuris licet et indicem meum commentationum notabilium ab aliis scriptarum perlegere. Est incompletus, sed fortasse utilis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:59, 1 Decembris 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seeming that there has been little discussion, I've prepared Regnum Navarrae for our next pagina mensis. Cannabis seems to be for March, but from then on, nobody knows. Out of the further above proposed, I'd really go for Tellus in April, although it is now incispienda.--Xaverius 11:46, 31 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paginae futurae?[fontem recensere]

Paginas Iosephus Schumpeter, Proelium Castelli Sumter et (paginam a me inceptam) De vita Caesarum propono. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:37, 4 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bellum Civile Americanum iam fuit pagina mensis, et censeo paginam alteram de re similare non optimam esse.--Xaverius 12:17, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consentio. IacobusAmor 12:30, 6 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tunc hoc mense De vita Caesarum?--Rafaelgarcia 16:19, 30 Aprilis 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Et de mensibus futuris ...? Iosephus Schumpeter rursus propono; addo et Alanus Mathison Turing. Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:52, 27 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paginarum propositarum, solum Turing est una ex mille paginis gravissimis. IacobusAmor 23:53, 27 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Etiam post Iunium vivemus (ut spero). Quin de symbolis propositis altera Iunio, altera Iulio proferatur? Quo ordine, meá minime interest. --Neander 21:58, 28 Maii 2010 (UTC)
Propono igitur Alanum Turing, natum et mortuum mense Iunio, a nobis mense Iunio promovendum esse, Iosephum Schumpeter mense Iulio. Placetne? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:40, 30 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quando erit Roma pagina mensis? Urbs est nostra magni momenti res! IacobusAmor 00:33, 29 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ego quoque opto paginam Alani Turing Iunio mense, et Iosephi Schumpeter Iulio?, et Romae Augusto?--Rafaelgarcia 01:42, 31 Maii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pagina Augusti[fontem recensere]

Anonymus quidam hodie inseruit "Tabula Rosettana" sicut paginam mensis Augusti, successorem Iosepho Schumpeter. Mihi quidem non displicet (quia incepi!) sed fortasse alii alias paginas proponunt? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:07, 30 Iunii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Volo ego quoque ut haec pagina, quam optimam habeo, sit pagina mensis Augusti. Bene factum Vicipaediani!--Rafaelgarcia 13:21, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Volo ego quoque! IacobusAmor 14:10, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Refert mea, haud "impartialis" sum! Sed suffragium meum habes etiam. --Iustinus 14:31, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mihi quoque in votis est! --Neander 17:46, 6 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sine dubio haec commentatio stellae est merita! --Ioscius 09:02, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias vobis ago. Iam ante septem dies propositumst; hodie igitur, nemine contradicente, stellam praefixo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 7 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Praemium GLAM/BM iam petivi (vide en:Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize et en:User talk:Witty lama). Videtis paginam Anglicam sine disputatione acceptam, paginam Catalanicam disputatam (sed nuper acceptam). Amici nostri Catalani putant Witty lama ha fet un bot amb una molla quant ha vist l'article a la llista de premiats. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:57, 7 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Em, accepistique :) --Iustinus 19:59, 8 Iulii 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pagina Septembris[fontem recensere]

Aliquam paginam pro m. Septembre malumus?-- 08:48, 29 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Birmaniam propono, ab amico anonymo elaboratam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 29 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nemo proponit aliam? Credo illam Birmaniae nos magis polire oportere ea maiore Lainitate egente. Sed fortasse qui linguam melius me scit, opinionem alteram offerat.-- 10:56, 31 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recte fortasse mones: sed loco Birmaniae quid proponis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:40, 31 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nescio an multo melius, sed aut ius aut res militaris servire possunt (neutra est perfecta).--Rafaelgarcia 14:34, 31 Augusti 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias multas tibi ago. Mi paenitet neminem alium paginam aut protulisse aut elexisse. Ut imaginem ridiculam pseudo-Senecanam e pagina prima removeam (paginae mensis Septembris 2006!), "Res militaris" nunc promoveo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 1 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pagina Octobris[fontem recensere]

Rursus nihil proponitur ... Propono Saturnus (deus), sed aliis suadeo ut plures paginas promoveant! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:47, 30 Septembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nemine contradicente, promovi Saturnum. O auctores (et alii), propone paginas bene amatas ad hunc locum implendum! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:55, 1 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

tempus[fontem recensere]

Tempus facile fieri possit pagina mensis. Fortasse tempus ipsum inveniam, quo tempori aliquot temporis darem. -- Ioscius 22:55, 23 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volo ego quoque.-- 11:27, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bene fecisti, Iosci mi, quia (nisi fallor) tempus fugit. Consentio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:37, 31 Octobris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pagina Decembris[fontem recensere]

Propono Calendarium-- 15:30, 27 Novembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iam fuit pagina mensis quaedam de tempore. Calendarium miki videtur repositio. Fortasse alia pagina? Constantinus I aut Tiara? Nescio paginas propositas et ignoro paginas bonas alias, sed ex paginis a me scriptis nullam censeo optimam, et iam fui pagina mensis Regnum Navarrae... --Xaverius 01:09, 1 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indicem paginarum idonearum confeci (vide Usor:Andrew Dalby/Paginae (aliorum) notabiles). Sed hodie paginam "Tiara" laureandam accipio ... Alii quid censent? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:07, 1 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ibi tiaram inveni. Vidi etiam multae paginae sunt de civitatibus aut territoriis, et iam fuit Adrabigania pagina mensis. Et maxime de tiara tecum consentio, mi Andrew!--Xaverius 11:02, 1 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tiara quidem optima et videtur mihi. -- 12:38, 1 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paginae Ianuarii et 2011[fontem recensere]

Paginam propriam Ianuario 2011 habemus. Nullas ex paginis a me scriptis optimas censeo, et nescio paginas alias bonas. Cum paginam de Antiquitate Posteriore aut de cibis perficiam, eas igitur proponam, sed interdum forsan bonae paginae Ianuario sunt Clazomenae aut Obiectivismus. --Xaverius 20:22, 28 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ita: fortasse, loco primo, pagina "Obiectivismus" iam antea proposita nunc promovenda est? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:16, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tecum adsum. Sed imagines in pagina adendae sunt.--Xaverius 10:24, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propono paginam Computing machinery and intelligence loco paginae Obiectivismi pro Ianuario quia Imaginem aptum iam habet. Possum post quam taipeium redeo anno novo imaginibus aptis paginam Obiectivismi illustrare--Rafaelgarcia 12:38, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De "Computing machinery and intelligence": Censeo paginam bonam esse, sed paucos nexus (3) ad paginam habet. Si re vera paginam pro mense Ianuario eligimus, creabimus novos nexos ad paginam, atque nexos intervicos novos.--Xaverius 12:54, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De obiectivismo: simul censeo paginam de obiectivitate necessariam esse.--Xaverius 12:58, 30 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simul fecimus anno 2009, necesse est nobis paginas de rebus variis elligere:--Xaverius 20:22, 28 Decembris 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bisbona?[fontem recensere]

Quid de Bisbona (L+1, Latinitas bona)? --Markos90 14:17, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On questions regarding the pagina mensis in the foreseeable future, one should vote, if we ever had a formal vote, against any Italian village, much less an obscure one having 3 983 inhabitants, unless, perhaps, the article's prose demonstrated Latinity of such impeccability & stylishness as to make even Cicero's shade marvel. In a context where Europe is already overrepresented, to make a point of featuring a village in Italy is almost to advertise the nonuniversality of Latin. IacobusAmor 13:07, 3 Iulii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linianum?[fontem recensere]

Linianum has been suggested. Vicipaedia can occasionally afford to feature an item of restricted interest (e.g., Apocolocyntosis); but if the purpose of a pagina mensis is to attract readers, then, for a tourist destination, instead of Linianum, the most celebrated tourist destination in the world---whatever it might be!---should be apter to the purpose. IacobusAmor 11:14, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linianum and Bisbona cannot be pagina mensis. I mean, one of them may be, but not both, because we shouldn't have two villages in a row as pagina mensis.--Xaverius 11:40, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good point. IacobusAmor 12:10, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bisbonam anteponendam suadeo: est enim pagina praecellens. An igitur Antiquitas Posterior mense Iunio, Bisbona mense Iulio promovendae sunt, Linianum ad annum 2012 postponenda? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:14, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tum Bisbonam promovemus ad paginam mensis Iulii, nonne?--Xaverius 13:17, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non, non, non, millies non: hic commentarius ad paginam mensis promoveri non vult. Vide supra. IacobusAmor 13:12, 3 Iulii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Et Ho Chi Minh pro mense Augusto?--Xaverius 13:25, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paginam "Ho Chi Minh" brevem esse confiteor, nec hoc tempore plura in eam addere volo. Censeo paginam Publius Ovidius Naso, si labores continuit Usor:Amahoney, pro mense Augusto promovendam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:09, 26 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Miki maxime placet. --Xaverius 21:17, 26 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mihi quoque! Iam hodie pagina Publius Ovidius Naso suam 30,000 litteras habet, quamquam haud dico eam perfectam esse. Quaeso, omnes, si libros aut opera musica Ovidiana amatis, eos inscribite! Cursum scholasticum "de Ovidio et fama eius" doceo mense Iulii (spero, si discipulos se adscribant); scribo igitur de litteris post vitam Ovidii. A. Mahoney 21:42, 27 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ob hanc rationem iam mense Iulio paginam promovendam moneo (si licet Bisbonam ad mensem Augustum postponere ... quid dicis, Xaveri?) Ita discipuli Amahoney Ovidium admirabunt in pagina prima Vicipaediae nostrae positum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 05:51, 28 Iunii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bella est pagina de Ovidio -- gratias ago omnibus qui eam meliorem faciebant, praecipue Dalby nostro. Euge! A. Mahoney 17:13, 1 Augusti 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ego? Minime! Omnes potius hanc paginam (iam formosam) formosiorem redderunt. Sed gratias tibi ago, Amahoney, quia (opere tuo perlecto) recognovi utile fore paginas novas de tabulis pictis creare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:22, 1 Augusti 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attracting visitors[fontem recensere]

To the extent that attracting visitors is a purpose of the pagina mensis, editors should pay attention to the articles that gain the most page views in the English wiki. These perennially include certain general topics (at the top of the list, United States, and then in descending order last December Google, Wikipedia, United Kingdom, Canada, World War II, YouTube Wikileaks, India, Harry Potter), famous current TV programs & films (Glee (TV series), Tron, Black Swan, Dexter (TV series), List of Glee episodes, The Big Bang Theory), and people & things in the news (in December, Julian Assange, Mark Zuckerberg, Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaj, John Lennon, Teena Marie, Eminem), probably including en:Barack Obama and other politicians. ¶ Also, calendrical items shoot up to the top of the list when they come into season. In December (omitting seven housekeeping pages), Christmas was #3, Hanukkah was #28, New Year's Eve was #39, and Boxing Day was #40. Similarly with other events: last December, Lunar eclipse was #17, and December 2010 lunar eclipse was #21. And then there's the perpetually compelling Sex. --IacobusAmor 12:10, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harry Potter could work nicely, especially because it has been translated into Latin! We just need someone who has read them that is willing to improve one of our articles on the topic (Harrius Potter and its books: Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis, Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum, Harrius Potter et Captivus Azkabani, Harrius Potter et Ignis Calix, Harrius Potter et Phoenicis Ordo, Harrius Potter et Princeps Mixticius, Harrius Potter et Mortalia Insignia).--Xaverius 13:14, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's a good idea! IacobusAmor 13:28, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note, however, a problem with the lemma and/or the linking: Vicipaedia's Harry Potter begins "Harrius Potter . . . est persona ficta et actor princeps," but the English wiki's Harry Potter begins "Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels." The lemma of the former is a character; the lemma of the latter is a set of books. It's the latter, not the former, that stands near the top of the most-visited list in Wikipedia. IacobusAmor 13:28, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blimey... Now then - If we are to follow en:wiki, we want to move the current content of Harrius Potter to Harrius Potter (persona) while turning the page into something like Harrius Potter est series mythistoriarum Anglice scripta..., don't we?--Xaverius 13:46, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I won't be contributing to this topic, so what I say may safely be ignored :) But I'd suggest getting the page right and readable and cogent. The fact is, the character defines the series. The character is called "Harry Potter"; the publishers refer to the series, without uppercase or italics, as "the Harry Potter series". We're OK, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:56, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've not been too keen on attracting visitors, but of course I can understand this aspect, too. But it goes without saying that an important point of attraction is decent Latinity. I surmise that there are people out there who enjoy reading good Latin, whatever the subject may be. That's why there seem to be so many "greges Latine loquentium" who have not so much to say to each other except for praising each other's Latin skills. (Sorry, if I'm being a bit harsh!) Those of my fellow citizens who are able to reaad and understand Latin are usually academic people, and therefore I'm not quite sure that their "attraction profiles" will be fully satisfied by those themes brought forward in Iacobus's list. Neander 19:45, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see I'm a bit late for this discussion, which I've just come across, but I've been doing a bit of work on Harry Potter in general, lately. I did split Harrius Potter and Harrius Potter (persona), as per other Wikipedias and what a fan would expect to find. (Though I should point out, I've yet to do any actual work on the pages other than splitting them!) As well, I'm planning to transfer a few different character lists from :en:, viz. Index personarum in Harrio Pottero (feel free to debate the syntax... I just thought "Index personarum in serie (librorum) de Harrio Pottero" would be a bit long), Operarii Hogvartenses, Ministerium Magicum, etc. I've also tidied up the mess of made-up Latin terms and Needham's actual translations. ¶ I think Neander's right in that it's the Latin (good Latin, hopefully, but I feel hypocritical to say so since mine's still a work in progress) that'll attract readers the most. However, I see Harry Potter in particular, on account of having been translated in Latin, containing Latin-derived spells, and Hogwart's motto, as a part of more mainstream culture that deserves special attention on here. It's fair to say that Harry Potter is very much associated with Latin. Mattie 21:48, 5 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I'm fully in agreement with that, though, not being the Harry Potterist in our family, I won't personally be writing about him! Popular modern culture that has some link with Latin definitely does attract visitors to a site like ours. As for splitting the two topics, I would support whatever seems best to the editor(s) actually working on the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:30, 6 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The logic to me is that "Harry Potter" can refer to either a series or a character. Since it's more frequently used as a reference to the series, I kept the blank Harrius Potter for the series and named the page about the character Harrius Potter (persona). Nearly all the other Wikis did the same. Hopefully I'll be able to get some writing done on the pages soon =) Mattie 17:26, 6 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we have it then for September? Or maybe rather October (the page needs much improving and during the summer we get less contributions)?--Xaverius 13:34, 31 Maii 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure Harrius Potter will be good, but it isn't good yet. Would it be best to postpone it, and insert another into the October slot? (Or are you working to a 30 September deadline, Mattie?) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:32, 24 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't know I was working with any deadline at all! Actually, I haven't been working on it at all! Harrius Potter shouldn't be a pagina mensis anywhere in the near future. I'll be very busy with university/scholarship applications for the next few months, as well as getting as much volunteer work done as I can, so I won't get to work on Vicipaedia very much. If I need to give you a deadline (I'm ok with working with one), it should probably be around December 31st. Mattie 16:46, 24 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. The older discussion led to the placing of Harrius in the October slot, but he can wait. We now have a clean slate, so please comment below on choices for the remainder of the year. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:40, 27 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and, good luck with those applications ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 27 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merci! :) Mattie 23:19, 27 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 2011[fontem recensere]

I thought we were doing Ho Chi Minh this month. It looks like the current Pagina Mensis is a fallback, or a left-over from a prior month. Is it sufficent to create a formula-page for this month by analogy with the one for August, following the redlink in Formula:PaginaMensis to get the name right? And does this require godlike privileges, or could anybody do it? And is there any reason not to? Nothing against Hispania Visigothica, which is a good article and something I hadn't known much about -- my main motivation for asking is a general desire to learn how this all works. A. Mahoney 18:37, 5 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed and didn't do anything about this because I'd been feeling that Ho Chi Minh (which I started) is a bit short, as I maybe said above, and would rather some different page had been proposed. However, you're right, it was sort of agreed. I think anyone can do it, so why not have a go :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:28, 5 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool: it really is that easy. And this is definitely not a classical, Euro-centric, or Catholic subject, so it makes a good Pagina Mensis, mea sententia. A. Mahoney 20:58, 5 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An interesting detail for those who relish such things. The English page en:Ho Chi Minh mentions the "Versailles Peace Conference" (which didn't exist: the 1919 conference was in Paris; only the signing of the treaty was at Versailles). The English page justifies this with a footnote link to a Library of Congress photo, quoting the full caption, which is: "Ho Chi Minh, 1890-1969, half length, standing, facing left; as member of French Socialist Party at Versailles Peace Conference, 1919". Apart from the mistake about Versailles, there are two other problems here. One is that governments, not parties, made up the delegations at the [Paris] Conference, and certainly the French Socialist Party was not there. The other is that Ho Chi Minh was never admitted to any meeting of the Conference in any capacity.

The answer is that this is Ho Chi Minh in December 1920 at the Socialist Party Conference in Tours. A very important occasion, for him and for the French Socialist Party, but not the occasion that the LoC claims it is. I think these errors might be difficult to set right on en:wiki, (a) because it's hard to prove a negative, (b) because the strong presumption would be that the LoC is what they call a "reliable source". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 6 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De mensibus futuris[fontem recensere]

Propono paginas "Britannia Minor", "Lingua Theodisca", "Denarius" et "Tenos". Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:33, 7 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good articles all; Denarius is particularly neat. We haven't had a scientific article in a while, though; perhaps Astronomia would be a candidate. Lingua Theodisca is marked "stipula"; are there things we'd like to add? A. Mahoney 15:54, 27 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Lingua Latina" is a bit (very) predictable, but it could do... There's also "Theoria numerorum." Admittedly, though, I haven't read that one -- the math is beyond my level -- but it's long! ;-) Mattie 23:18, 27 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have we really not had Lingua Latina as a Pagina Mensis yet? Certainly worth doing. I'm flattered by the suggestion of Theoria numerorum but wonder if it's a bit on the arcane side for this purpose (it was really fun to write, though -- haven't done this much math since grad school, and it's a great lark to get back to it). Does the Pagina Mensis have to be one of the Notorious 1000 Paginae? (most of what's been suggested here happens to be on that list -- coincidence?) A. Mahoney 12:27, 28 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it doesn't. There are several desirable features:
  1. Being a good page (I put this first)
  2. Being on many other wikipedias -- as of course the 1000 pages are (gets a star against Latina on all those other wikipedia pages, which is good)
  3. Being a topic that people are likely to look for (attracts new readers who may then browse Vicipaedia)
  4. Inviting further improvement (I put this lower because I'm not sure it often happens during the month concerned; others might put it higher)
But any page can be chosen.
I support Theoria numerorum! Hadn't seen that one. All the better because it is on many other wikipedias. Astronomia is potentially a strong candidate, but it is as yet too short for my liking. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 28 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now for something completely different: Ornithoptera alexandrae.
While urging others to comment on all the above suggestions, I'm proposing to promote Denarius as pagina mensis for October. Any objections to that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:15, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support Denarius for October, and the butterfly page is delightful -- for November perhaps? Then German for December wraps up the year, allowing us to move toward fleshing out Harrius Potter, Astronomia, and other favorites for spring. A. Mahoney 11:54, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Denarius is fine; Lingua Theodisca (on which I worked some time ago) still is a stipula, because there is nothing about geographic distribution, High German dialects, grammar, phonology, vocabulary - which of course can and should be changed in near future.--Utilo 16:42, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, Denarius for the present month? If we've got consensus, I'll put it up tomorrow (unless somebody else gets there first of course); we've got a fall-back at the moment. If we decide about November by the end of this month, I'm happy to change it at the end of the day on 31 October (my local time, which is EDT, 6 hours before Europe). A. Mahoney 22:25, 1 Octobris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine with me. IacobusAmor 23:01, 1 Octobris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I had it all planned and then completely forgot. Well, I've done it now -- just got in ahead of you. You're right, next time it would be better for one of us to do it in advance. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:30, 2 Octobris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Theoria numerorum looks great, though those maths are too much for me. I really like it and I think that, as it has been said, it is time for a more sceince-related pagina mensis. What are the other candidates for the rest of the year? Is the butterfly for november and something else for december?--Xaverius 09:10, 3 Octobris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless Utilo objects to this, I am inclined to think Lingua Theodisca could go ahead in December, although it doesn't cover all topics as yet. As I said above, "inviting further improvement" is a legitimate qualification for a Pagina mensis. Then maybe Britannia Minor for January and Theoria numerorum for February? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:26, 3 Octobris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No objections from my side. I hope I'll find some time late on (and before December) to "further improve" the the pagina.--Utilo 13:31, 3 Octobris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This all sounds good to me, too. A. Mahoney 12:39, 4 Octobris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remembered this time. The big butterfly is in place. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:50, 31 Octobris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-- and a lovely thing she is, too! A. Mahoney 13:00, 1 Novembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been trying to turn some of her redlinks blue, but first a backlog of flora Terrae Mariae, Asteroidea, &c. looms. In particular, drafts of Historia naturalis (scientia) and Latitudo alarum are waiting in the to-do file. :/ IacobusAmor 13:08, 1 Novembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harrius Potter[fontem recensere]

... should be ready to roll by January or February. Mattie 01:22, 3 Decembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's looking really good: this will be a treat! A. Mahoney 17:48, 5 Decembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My suggestion -- others comment please! -- is that we retain Britannia Minor as our January page and crown Harry in February. We had previously thought of Theoria numerorum for February, but perhaps, exciting topic though it is, it might wait till March? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:26, 6 Decembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, sounds good: and let's not forget to publicize this to non-Vicipaediani who may be interested, such as the teachers who frequent various mailing lists. A. Mahoney 13:16, 6 Decembris 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Annus MMXII[fontem recensere]

OK, I admit I'm showing my age here, but Bellum Indosinense II is a possible page for this year (one of the events that marked my youth, though some of you are far too young to remember it). Since we've had Ho Chi Minh recently, though, perhaps this could come in the summer. Another candidate page is Gulielmus Shakesperius, and have we really not used Lingua Latina yet? A. Mahoney 13:14, 23 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Bellum Indosinense II is fertile ground, and it should be a topic that will attract not a few readers, but its text isn't ready yet, because not enough of it has been translated & rewritten from elsewhere, and so few people have been working on that historical period that virtually every major personal name, placename, and concept still prints in red! Maybe, as you say, it could be sufficiently presentable by the summer. Has Bellum Orbis Terrarum II been a pagina mensis? That would seem to be a more important war, though the importance of the Bellum Indosinense II as a focus of the Bellum Frigidum can't be overstressed. IacobusAmor 13:44, 23 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No opinion from me on the war pages, but I was personally thinking of doing some work on The Lord of the Rings / J. R. R. Tolkien (if we could have a Tolkien-related pagina mensis around the time The Hobbit comes out, that'd be super!), Socialismus libertarianus / Noam Chomsky, or perhaps something more local to me, like Ioannes Layton or even Kalle Lasn. Thoughts? Mattie 17:17, 23 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy if anyone likes Gulielmus Shakesperius. I needed to get all that stuff clear in my mind in the course of writing a Shakespeare cookbook (now almost complete): I find writing Vicipaedia a more productive work method than writing private notes and then forgetting them.
I agree about one war (maybe not two wars in the same year) and I would go for Bellum Indosinense II if Iacobus thinks it might be ready in the summer (but it's good already). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:36, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'll keep it the back of my mind as something to work on (intermittently); it's probably all right in regard to the military box, the definition, and the references, but it needs more text, and one hates to see a featured article have so much red in it. IacobusAmor 13:45, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to see any of the pages Mattie suggests, but they are all going to take some improvement! The possible coincidence with The Hobbit is enticing. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:36, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I promise to help in the Tolkien side of things, despite my little presence here recently (for which I'm very sorry). Oceanus Arcticus, on the other hand, is also a good candidate--Xaverius 11:03, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I just read it, and I agree. I also just noticed that Noam Chomsky (out of Mattie's list above) is one of the 1000 pages. But he certainly needs fleshing out. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:26, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Arctic, alas, isn't my favorite ocean, and the Atlantic has more historical importance. I mean to boost the Pacific soon, but this semester's lectures keep hogging the time. :/ IacobusAmor 11:34, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or, indulging Mattie's national pride with less up-front work, Canada ipsa? The Tolkien pages would also good, when finished. A. Mahoney 21:14, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Last time I looked, Canada seemed to have been written around 2005 when Martin was still prime minister, so the page needs some updating. It could still do, though! ¶ "National pride"? xD ¶ I want to finish reading The Silmarillion before I start any work on Tolkien, which might still take a while. If Xaverius agrees, I think the first step related to Tolkien would be translating all the Sindarin and Quenya words into the original English, so that people can actually understand what's being talked about ... ¶ I agree on Oceanus Arcticus, I myself wanted to suggest it here but Xaverius beat me to it! Mattie 22:44, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps Theoria numerorum for March, since it's basically done, buying time for further work on oceans, linguistics, and elves? A. Mahoney 13:08, 29 Februarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That one looks quite right!--Xaverius 13:24, 29 Februarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine with me! IacobusAmor 18:23, 29 Februarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the last speaker. OK, I've done it. Check it at midnight, anyone who's awake, to make sure I haven't forgotten something. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:26, 29 Februarii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Patres conscripti, iamdum caremus paginam mensis Aprilis. Propono aut Shakesperium aut Oceanum Arcticum laureare--Xaverius 20:55, 28 Martii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quod Poeta Avonensis mense Aprilis natus est, optima mensis est, ut opinor, eius paginae. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 11:41, 29 Martii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sententias Anglicas nonnullas in hac commentatione citatas nuper Latine reddidi. Legete, O amici, et corrige! Si Shakesperium accipitis, gaudemus et ego et ille. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:28, 29 Martii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NB inter paginas laureandas habemus etiam Canadam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 29 Martii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would someone else fix up the Pagina Mensis on the 31st, please? I will be travelling. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:18, 29 Martii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd be happy to do it ... I just need to fix Formula:PaginaMensis and create Formula:PaginaMensis/Aprilis 2012? Mattie (disputatio) 17:34, 29 Martii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just the latter. Then, yes, if it doesn't immediately seem to work, it may help to make some minor edit to Formula:PaginaMensis.
It could be done now, but it's better done as near the time as possible. Thanks! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:48, 29 Martii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mensis Maii[fontem recensere]

Quem paginam elegimus hac mense? Lingua Latina, Oceanus Pacificus vel alia pagina ex oceanorum, illud bellum supra laudatum, Opera -- hae bonae sunt, ut opinor. Totam septimanam habemus ad paginam nominandam! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:49, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oceanum Pacificum! Si et quodvis oceanum et Canadam in paginam mensis convertere volumus, cum ambae ad geographiam plus minus spectent, una, mea sententia, statim adhibenda est, alia posterius, id est postquam una duabusve paginis de rebus aliis usi simus. Canadam si in paginam mensis convertamus mense Iulio, cum die natali nostro conveniat! Mattie (disputatio) 21:12, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita, scilicet! (Maritus meus eisdem Kal. Iul. natus est; ergo bene scio quando sit Dies Canadensis!) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 11:51, 25 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Et ego (tardius) Oceanum Pacificum eligo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:31, 29 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iunius 2012[fontem recensere]

non habemus paginam mensis ;-( --UV (disputatio) 21:12, 2 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elizabeth II ? - --Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 09:18, 3 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mehercle, oblitus sum. Inter paginas bonas Elizabeth II haud eminet, sed fortasse, si promovemus, usores meliorabunt. Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 3 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
certe Andrea paginam ampliare debemus--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 09:18, 3 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sunt alae quoque symbolae, ut mihi quidem videtur, ad paginam mensis idoneae, sicut Phalanx et Iter transtemporale. Neander (disputatio) 11:59, 3 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elizabeth II certe digna est, quae suo tempore promoveatur, sed valde augeri debet. Nondum satisfacit ad hunc mensem. Neander (disputatio) 12:12, 3 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recte dicis, Neander, sed ut laboribus Helvetici et Iacobi fruamur paginam ad epocham iubilaeorum tantum promoveo. Licet aliam paginam die circiter 6/7 Iunii substituere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:33, 3 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Factumst. Dicite, amici, quid die 7 Iunii faciamus? (a) Retinere? (b) Phalanx? (c) Iter transtemporale? (d) Aliud quid? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:47, 3 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoc mense, commentarius Anglicus de Elizabeth II haud dubie permulta pageviews ad se in Wikipedia trahebit, quorum multa Vicipaediam certo intervisebunt! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:17, 3 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iulius 2012[fontem recensere]

Consensu haud visibili, eandem paginam per mensem totum scintillare permisimus. Paginas "Phalanx" et "Iter transtemporale" mensibus futuris pro certo proponere oportet, et "Noam Chomsky", et "Canada", et alias. Quid igitur mense Iulio? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:12, 19 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noam Chomsky malo.-- 10:28, 19 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Iter transtemporale mihi valde placet. Noam Chomsky est pagina doctissima (CXXV adnotationes!) etiamsi aliquae "paginae principales," formulae, verba latina a pagina absunt. Quod Kalendae autem Iuliae Dies Canadensis est, fortasse Canada in scaenam introducere hac mense velimus? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:12, 19 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Chomsky for later, I'm not done yet. :-) Egomet cum A. Mahoney consentio. Mattie (disputatio) 21:52, 19 Iunii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Veniam date: haec verba Mattiana pro Itinere transtemporali intellexi, sed fortasse pro Canada vocem dare voluit! Trop tard. Sed Canadam promovendam pro certo consentio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:19, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Propterea igitur Iter transtemporale elegisti! Sententia Mattiana ad Canadam enim spectabat, cum Dies Canadensis mense Iulio celebretur. :) Mattie (disputatio) 15:36, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Qua re multo tardius clarificata, quid faciendumst? Canada aut mense proximo (e.g. Septembri 2012) promovenda, aut mense Iulio 2013? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:51, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rem mense Maio exposueram. (-; Re vera non credo tantum referre; Canadam mense Iulio paginam mensis esse idoneum mihi videbatur, quippe cum Canadam in animo haberemus et mensis Iulius adventurus esset. Mattie (disputatio) 19:26, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Augustus 2012[fontem recensere]

Quid volumus? Noam Chomsky, Opera, Olympia (certamina) (pagina brevior, sed ludi nunc aguntur), Respublica Coreana (pagina recenter elaborata) -- omnes bonae paginae sunt; equis vult aliam proponere? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:00, 26 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non Chomsky, cum de linguistica adhuc mihi scribendum sit! Mattie (disputatio) 23:07, 26 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Olympia (certamina), quia ludi nunc fiunt et commentarius est una ex 1000 paginis. Tum Septembre Noam Chomsky (una ex 1000 paginis), et Octobre Opera (etiam una ex 1000 paginis)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:09, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
De omnibus illis paginis consentio, sed volo in calendarium nostrum Phalanx et Canada inserere. Placetne?
Olympia (certamina), si statim promovemus, nobis oportet admeliorare et augere dum locum stellarem tenet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:15, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Si Decembre paginam de Hobbito vel aliam de Terra Media habebimus (quod tunc, nisi fallor, nova pellicula edita erit), necesse est paginas nominare pro 4 mensibus. Fortasse Chomsky ille (et nos qui rem linguisticam colunt) vult novum annum manere? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 22:04, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Die 1 Augusti Helvetiae dies festa est, ergo propono Helvetia--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 22:32, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ego laetius Helvetiam recipiam, mi Helvetice, quando textum admodum longiorem sed praesertim enumerationes pauciores habet. Hunc laborem aegre inter tres dies conficiamus. Mattie (vide nunc supra!) accipit locum Iulii 2013 pro Canada; fortasse tu accipias locum Augusti 2013 pro Helvetia? An alii adnuunt, nescio.
Quo dicto, confiteor Olympia (certamina) textum brevissimum habere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:51, 28 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... sed paulisper auxi usque ad annum 1896. Si alii collaborare volunt, ite, scribite! Ego plura hodie non scribam.
Iacobo et A. Mahoney secutus, propono: Aug. Olympia (certamina); Sept. Phalanx; Oct. Opera; Nov. Respublica Coreana; Dec. Hobbitus Ille (si augetur). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:45, 28 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Inter symbolas Tolkienianas, The Silmarillion (quam ex en extraxi, ita ut modestissime eam suadere possim!) operae addititiae nihil fere eget. Rationem nostram fuisse credo non necesse esse Hobbitus Ille in paginam mensis converteretur, sed ulla pagina Tolkieniana hoc mense, quo pellicula de hac fabula divulgabitur (mense Decembri). Mattie (disputatio) 16:07, 28 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cum Andrea consentio; Mattie et alii qui in agris Tolkienianis laborabant possunt paginam idoneam nominare, sive The Silmarillion sive aliam. Velim bene collaborare ad paginam "Olympia (certamina)" augendam -- aliquas habeo adnotationes e cursu scholastico quem iam pridem docui. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:51, 28 Iulii 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Omnia si bene intellexi, Chomskium ad annum 2013 adposueramus quia nondum de linguistica scripseram; sed hac re nunc in symbola tractà circumstantiisque igitur mutatis, Iacobi primum de mensi Septembri consilium mihi videtur sequendum esse. OK? Mattie (disputatio) 02:34, 1 Septembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consentio! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:27, 1 Septembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 2010[fontem recensere]

Nemime contrario, The Silmarillion in paginam mensis mox mutabo?--Xaverius 10:27, 1 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ita, fac, Xaveri! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:18, 1 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Annus novus venit[fontem recensere]

Paginas debemus eligere: duae tantum septimanae huic mensi restant. Anno 2012, paginae de Brittania (Apr, Iun), de litteris (Feb, Apr, Dec), de locis vel geographia (Ian, Mai, Nov), de mathematica (Mar), de musica (Oct), de physica (Iul), de linguistica (Sep), de ludis Olympicis (Aug) nostram primam paginam ornaverunt. Habemus paginas optimas de medicina, astronomia, artibus popularibus (ut musica vel pelliculis), philosophia, historia? Quid velimus? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:48, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iustini opus recens magnum Sisith propono. --UV (disputatio) 22:56, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vehementer assentior! Neander (disputatio) 23:48, 19 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assentior quoque! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:51, 20 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ego equidem sane me recuso. Sed quid si volo alias paginas proponere (opus enim erit duodecim...), qui non satis (recentioribus saltem annis) intersum ut possim idoneas paginas nondum electas iam novisse? Fortasse debemus inceptum sumere simile en:Wikipedia:Good articles illi, vel facilius possimus indicem componere commentationum iam propositarum sed nondum ad Paginam Mensis elevatarum. Quid remini? --Iustinus (disputatio) 19:41, 24 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amici, tempus fugit. I admit I had pagina mensis in mind when I wrote sisith, but I certainly don't want to win by default. Plus we'll need twelve articles for the upcoming year. Doesn't anyone have any other suggestions? --Iustinus (disputatio) 13:25, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pagina "Sisith" pro certo promovenda est. De aliis paginis nunc medito ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:57, 30 Decembris 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Horam dicatam praeteriimus!! Nullo contradicente, mea pagina proscribenda videtur... nescio utrum prooemium quod scripsi satis aptum sit ad primam paginam, sed pro tempore ita ponam ut est. --Iustinus (disputatio) 04:13, 1 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aliae Paginae Candidatae[fontem recensere]

Pages longer than sisith that have not yet been pagina mensis (excluding lists and the like):

  1. Mexicum
  2. Columbia
  3. Brasilia
  4. Nicaragua
  5. Viceregnum Peruvianum
  6. Belgica

Amazingly, one of these pages is not about a nation in Latin America.
--Iustinus (disputatio) 02:43, 1 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7. Parthenon? Neander (disputatio) 02:57, 1 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is certainly a possibility. --Iustinus (disputatio) 03:01, 1 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not satisfied with Parthenon: I think it's not well balanced yet. It also needs to say more about the later period, the church, the mosque, the bits that are in museums, the descriptions and sketches by visitors. From the pages I've recently worked on I would suggest Angkor Wat ahead of Parthenon. Does anyone else agree?
N'oublions pas Canada, qui a manqué d'être couronné au mois de juillet 2012. Peut-être juillet 2013? Quant à la liste donnée par Iustinus, pour ne pas choisir deux nations nord-américaines dans la même année, je suggère qu'il vaut mieux prendre Mexicum (page magnifique) en 2014, mais Belgica en 2013. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:56, 1 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am of accord with all this. --Iustinus (disputatio) 14:10, 1 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moi aussi, quamquam commentarius de Mexico recentiore (non "classico") dicendi genere scriptus est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:18, 1 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's quite true. Between now and 2014 there might be time for improvement if any of us cares to do that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:33, 1 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, yes, in idle moments while sipping jentacular coffee, one of us might have a go at that. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:43, 1 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or indeed merendine tea. The great thing about Vicipaedia is that we are never short of things to do :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 1 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quid dicimus, O amici, de his paginis: Mahometus, Arithmetica, Oceanus Arcticus, Athenae, Protagoras? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:34, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haud malae omnes. Sed quod ad Athenas pertinet, velim plura de antiquitate legere, ad Mahometum velim quendam eius asseclam commentationem recensere (sensu verbi Anglici "vett")... dolendum est Mustafaam nihil inde ab anno 2004 contribuisse! --Iustinus (disputatio) 18:09, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Athenarum non solum antiquitas adhuc brevior quam ut digna est, sed etiam historia recentissima abest - aliquando in aliis negotiis versans commentationis simpliciter oblitus sum. Ad Mahometum scribendum plurima ex pagina Theodisca sumpsi. Ut vel assecla vel saltem rei peritus commentationem recenseat (quorum ego quidem neuter sum), nimirum cupiendum est.--Utilo (disputatio) 21:52, 5 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feles might be fun to work up. It's already quite good, and of course, this being the internet, we all like cats. --Iustinus (disputatio) 06:58, 6 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feles needs a lot of work; it is over 30,000 language-weighted characters, but that's the best I can say for it (having done that much myself). Doing Canada in July would be appropriate. Arithmetica was a lot of fun to write and might make a neat page at back-to-school time in September perhaps. Immediate idea: Angkor Wat for February? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:13, 15 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cybele !!! Neander (disputatio) 18:33, 15 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assentior, commentatio egregia est!--Utilo (disputatio) 20:24, 15 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assentior quoque: pagina pulcherrima! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:47, 15 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Post Annam aliosque, hunc ordinem paginarum promovendarum propono: mense Februario Angkor Wat, Martio Cybele, Aprili Belgica, Maio Oceanus Arcticus, Iunio Protagoras, Iulio Canada, Augusto ..., Septembri Arithmetica, Octobri Viceregnum Peruvianum. Mense Augusto possumus aut "Mahometus" aut "Feles" aut "Athenae" inserere aut paginam aliam non iam propositam. Quid dicitis, O amici? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:37, 26 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Februario mense consentio; de aliis quoque, etiamsi possum sententiam mutare, anno persequente. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:56, 28 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nunc Augustus venit[fontem recensere]

... et nullam paginam nominavimus. Feles ergo? Nisi alia melior in mentem venit, illam PM mox faciam. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:06, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aprilis Francisco sit?[fontem recensere]

What about Franciscus (papa) for next month -- or is that too obvious? Then move Protagoras to August, Belgica to May, Oceanus Arcticus to June? (Canada of course stays in July.) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:25, 14 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly a worthy task, pagina mensis or not, but easier to do in two weeks would be Argentina. Of course, as both Andrew and I have already pointed out... countries in South America seem to be overrepresented here. --Iustinus (disputatio) 21:18, 14 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be fun to do Franciscus, yes! The number of languages in which he has a page has increased massively in the last twelve hours -- but no language has had a really good biography of him thus far. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 14 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What does Belgica have going for it that several countries & cities that are actually among the 1000 pages don't? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:31, 14 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's a good article; unlike some others this year it's not in the Americas (see discussion above); Usor:Bruxellensis, who perhaps hasn't done a pagina mensis before, worked on it (apologies if I'm confused here). All pages about countries have lots and lots of interwikis, so I don't see why the 1000 pages are relevant. Having answered your question as well as I can, I still invite you to propose something else instead :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 14 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Francisco: anonymus quis, me dormiente, Franciscum ad paginam mensis Aprilis iam promovit. An hoc aliis placet, nescio; possumus mutare! Sed hodie et cras hanc paginam meliorare conabor. Si amicus quis verba de opinionibus aut scriptis Francisci addere vult, adde! Usque adhuc nullae aliae Vicipaediae paginis suis de Francisco stellas aureas imposuerunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 31 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scriptores sine nomine commentarios ad statum paginae mensis promovere non debent. Franciscus paene nihil notabile post consecrationem papalem iam fecit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:16, 31 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pedes virginis Serbicae Mussulmanae scelestae osculavit: id fortasse nullus papa usque adhuc fecit.
Si eum non promovemus, sicut supra enumeratur, paginam de Belgica pro mense Aprili habebimus. Placet omnibus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 31 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pagina ipsa monet: "Si quandam paginam vis paginam mensem facere, sodes, disputa eam apud Pagina mensis." Usor autem rem hic non iam disputavit; ergo sua opinio nugatoria videtur. Inter paginas mensis iam adest Ecclesia Catholica. Praeterea, permulti omnium paparum Romanorum historiam plus quam Franciscus moverunt. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:51, 31 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Omnibus, etiam anonymis, opinionem proferre licet ... sed cito. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 31 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quia opinionem hic non obtulit, ea nugatoria habenda est. Nos revera eius causam nescimus: fortasse Franciscum odit et Vicipaediam polluere velit. Sola causa quam hic legimus est tua: quod novus papa pedes mulieris Mussulmanae osculavit. Si papas maximi momenti quaeres, vide Leonem I, Gregorium I, Innocentium III, Iulium II, Leonem X, Clementem VII, Gregorium VII, Paulum III, Paulum V, Urbanum VIII, atque adeo Pium Nonum, qui diutissime regnavit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:13, 31 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cur hanc enumerationem? An paginam mensis proponis? Si recte perlegi, res ita stat:
  1. Belgica: pro censuerunt Anne, ego; contra fortasse censuit Iacobus.
  2. Franciscus (papa): pro censuerunt Anne, ego; contra fortasse censuerunt Iacobus, Iustinus.
Per me pagina Belgica plenior et melior est. Nisi alii opinionem proponunt, Belgica vincit. Si male dixi, corrigite, amici! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:11, 31 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dixerim Belgicam, sed si multi velint Franciscum mensi praeficere, paginae suscipere curam polliciti, omnino non obstem. --Iustinus (disputatio) 17:35, 31 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gratias ago, Iustine. Tempore fugiente, Belgicam promoveo. Franciscus diem suum apud nos exspectet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:10, 31 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bene fecisti. Franciscus quidem diem suum exspectare potest. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:30, 31 Martii 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pagina Belgica bona est, certe. Franciscus autem nunc clarissimus est inter omnibus qui linguam Latinam colamus (nisi sit Benedictus XVI); haec causa fuit quare eius paginam proposui. (Est etiam primus Papa ex Americis, primus e Societate Iesu.) Consentio vehementissime collegas anonymos non debere paginas mensium facere. Actiones Andreae, pagina Belgica mihi placent. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:15, 1 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ratio notabilitatis huius papae, quam Iacobo postulante subridens proposui, vera est sed non sola :) Pagina autem brevissima est; multis rebus caret. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:09, 1 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Infeliciter autem paginae de Belgica sunt permulti nexus rubri. Quis eos caeruleos pingebit? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:41, 1 Aprilis 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

November 2013: Kyriacus Anconitanus de Picenicollibus. De paginis variis[fontem recensere]

Quid de Parthenone, vel etiam Belgica? Nescio an Index Imperatorum Romanorum bona pagina mensis sit, quod nihil nisi tabulas continet. (Bona est pagina, certe, sed difficile positu in paginam primam, ut videtur.) Inter has malim Kyriacus Anconitanus de Picenicollibus, vel Parthenon. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:05, 29 Octobris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Belgicam nuper laureavimus! Gratias tibi ago: nisi aliis displiceat, Cyriacum cras promovebo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:59, 29 Octobris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ita, nunc memini: Belgica pagina fuit mensis Aprilis. Tot menses, tot paginae! De Novembre mense consentio. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 11:58, 30 Octobris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possumus fortasse in paginam "Index Imperatorum Romanorum" praefationem longiorem addere? Valde bonam esse censeo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:36, 30 Decembris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December ...?[fontem recensere]

Propono Litteras Civitatum Foederatarum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 28 Novembris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

... atque (nemine dissentiente) promoveo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:28, 29 Novembris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ianuarius 2014?[fontem recensere]

Propono Star Wars. Commentatio longa et bona est, ita ititer. -- Donatello (disputatio) 22:33, 29 Novembris 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Bona propositio, ut videtur, sed quia pagina nunc titulum "Latinitas dubia" monstrat, fortasse debemus admeliorari? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:06, 2 Decembris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scio Latinitate in Star Wars commentatione non satis bona est, sed rei laboro. :) Circa dimidium commentationis emendari necesse est. Ad vobis alios, libere senti adiuvare. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 17:56, 2 Decembris 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Scio Latinitii is potentae laboro est, sed rei amorae. :)Stephanos (disputatio)1:24:20, 10 Decembris 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Paginam Star Wars his diebus haud promovendam suadeo quia (sicut Index Imperatorum Romanorum) textus Latinus brevissimus est. Igitur Star Wars supra in indicem reposui, unde possumus -- textu iam longiori, enumerationibus aut paucioribus aut verbosioribus, Latinitate meliori -- mox eligere. Ad mensem Ianuarium Theaetetum Platonicum propono. Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 30 Decembris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Necesse sum paulum oblivisse laborare... sed intelligo. :) Star Wars fortasse esse Februario mensi potest. Credo Star Wars satis tempore accipit.
Theaetetum propositio bona est. Alia propositioni "machina vaporaria" sit. Donatello (disputatio) 04:28, 31 Decembris 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Hmm, propositio utilis! Paginam Machina vaporaria supra in enumerationem addidi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:41, 31 Decembris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Theaetetum promovi, imagine Socratis ornatum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:34, 31 Decembris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Februarius 2014[fontem recensere]

Cum Donatello (vide supra) propono Machina vaporaria. Alii quid dicunt?

NB indicem paginarum nonnullarum candidatarum supra vides ... sed habemus pro certo aliae multae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:08, 28 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Longius tempus quam credebam Star Wars conlaborare capiebatur. Nunc argumentum pellicularum Star Wars recentium multum laborare, et versiones breves in pagina Star Wars addam. Ita "machina vaporaria" etiam propono. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 23:44, 28 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC).Reply[reply]
De machina vaporaria consentio. Fortasse bella, multos annos abhinc in galaxia tam remota, mense Martis habebimus? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:37, 29 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martius, Aprilis 2014 ... etc.[fontem recensere]

NB: Hae paginae olim supra sub titulo "November, December 2013 ... etc." enumerabantur. Hic hodie movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usque adhuc nullam paginam pro mensibus futuris statuimus. Has propono: abnuite si vultis, sed addite, o amici, plures paginas laureandas (tam vestras quam aliorum). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 28 Octobris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aliquas paginas ab aliis propositas addidi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:36, 30 Decembris 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paginas iam promotas expunxi indicemque ordine alphabetico retractavi. An quis paginas mensium singularium, aut hinc aut aliunde, proponere vult? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 9 Februarii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aliis usque adhuc non contradicentibus, enumerationem punctualem nunc propono. Si disputare vultis, disputa! Si aut paginas aut ordinem mutare vultis, mutate! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:39, 27 Februarii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consentio; bona mixtura est materiae antiquae et novae. Gerasimus noster adhuc in Anglia haeret, sed certe ad mensem Maium erit finitus. Lesgles (disputatio) 03:44, 28 Februarii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me paenitet. Non vidi hanc paginam. Inserui iam, Nympha marina et Fada. Mute autem si tibi placeas et non consentis. --Jondel (disputatio) 08:33, 21 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quod Nympha marina et Fada similes sunt, fortasse non volumus ambobus uti. Et, ut opinor, paginas longiores usque hoc tempus praetulimus. Pagina Reformatio proximo mense melius videtur. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:00, 22 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removi Nympha marina et Fada e pagina principali, propter has rationes, et quia ad caput illius paginae consilium video de disputatione priori hic habenda. Ego, sicut Anne, paginas longiores et pleniores promovere malo. Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:49, 22 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cum Andrea et Anna consentio. Non requirimus (nec fortasse volumus) paginas aeque longas atque aliquas paginas electas Anglicas (e.g. en:Barack Obama), sed saltem pagina solida, aliquot partibus praedita, magna elementa rei tractans, mihi necessaria videtur. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:46, 22 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Constat quidem inter omnes peritissimos solum commentarios plenos magnique momenti paginas menstruas eligi debere. Commentarius de Reformatione Protestanti aptissimus videtur mensi Octobri quia Dies Reformationis est 31 Octobris—vel fortasse Novembri quia dies dictus pridie Kalendas Novembres est. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:10, 22 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cum Iacobo consentio: bonum est si pagina mensis ad mensem ipsum pertinet. Sed si Reformationem est Octobris pagina, quid tunc Augusti? Fortasse Star Wars, tum Parthenon, dein Reformatio -- quid censetis omnes? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:40, 22 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ego quoque. Nice one, Iacobe. Sed mihi videtur paginam Star Wars haud confectam esse: Donatello, qui (nisi fallor) proposuit, abest. Igitur Naxos pro Augusto propono; tum Parthenon, dein Reformatio, postea (si pagina Star Wars nondum idonea sit) Xenophon (scriptor). Alii quid? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 23 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consentio, et video commentationem Parthenon quoque ad mensem pertinere: "Die 26 Septembris 1687, receptaculum armorum fulminantium ... ab ictibus pyrobolicis obsidentium Venetianorum erumpi coactum est"! Lesgles (disputatio) 17:37, 23 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposita et mihi placent. Praeterea propono, ut mox unam ex commentationibus longioribus ab usore Marco Terentio Bibliophilo exaratis eligamus (Agesilaus II (rex Spartae), Xenophon (scriptor), Denarius, Cybele ...)--Utilo (disputatio) 11:58, 24 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Utiloni vehementer assentiens suadeo, ut pro Star Wars, re et praesertim linguà imperfectà, Xenophontem supponamus. Neander (disputatio) 12:58, 24 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Habemus ergo:

Estne communis opinio? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:38, 24 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adde fortasse (vide opinionem Utilonis) ...
Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:11, 24 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bona est pagina, sed fuit pagina mensis Martii 2013! Visne iterum eandem paginam proponere? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:51, 24 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha! Retraho igitur :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:26, 24 Iulii 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]