Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby

Hic sunt tabularia! Veteres disputationes ad specialia tabularia motae sunt (auxilium). Si vis, hic infra scribendo in talibus tabulariis quaerere potes.

Disputationes anteriores hic habes: Tabularium 1, Tabularium 2, Tabularium 3, Tabularium 4. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 27 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Άρης Neograece

Pars accepta a: Disputatio:Andreas Dalby § Άρης Neograece

Salve, Andrea, dubius sum, quomodo verba Neograeca apud nos tractanda sint. Videas quaeso commentationem quam de Μήλα (pellicula 2020) nuper scripsi. Utrum Latine Mila an Mela and Mēla scribam? Et Άρης Σερβετάλης histrio: Utrum Aris Servetalis an Ares Servetales? Neander (disputatio) 17:34, 10 Ianuarii 2025 (UTC)

Quamquam ego Andreas non sum, nolo silere de modo quo Theodisce res tractatur: Neograeca (nomina propria praesertim) saepissime modum in antiquum transscribi solent. Inde ego praeferrem res Neograecas modum in veterem Latine reddere Giorno2 (disputatio) 18:39, 10 Ianuarii 2025 (UTC)

Vide etiam hanc paginam: Vicipaedia:Translitteratio. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:55, 12 Ianuarii 2025 (UTC)

Date veniam: pro tempore rarius apud Vicipaediam versor. Tribus rationibus translitterationem classicam nominum Neograecorum commendo: primo quod lingua Latina utimur atque hoc modo antiqui lingua nostra utentes verba Graeca in Latina convertebant; secundo quod nullam translitterationem hodiernam sine ambiguitate, sine incongruitate, sine inconsistentia reperire possumus; tertio quia eruditi scientifici, qui etiam hodie neologismos Graecos vel Graecolatinos creant, saepius translitteratione Latina uti solent. Salvete! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:13, 12 Ianuarii 2025 (UTC)

Gratias omnibus vobis ago. Ipse quoque ita ut dicitis faciendum esse cogitavi. Neander (disputatio) 14:34, 13 Ianuarii 2025 (UTC)

Foods in Latin questions

Hello, I wrote a couple of questions on different pages related to food (Disputatio:Capsicum e carne, Disputatio:Salsa alba, Disputatio:Gruellum Bretonicum, Disputatio:Brodium, Disputatio:Iuscellum, Disputatio Categoriae:Embammata, Disputatio Categoriae:Pastilla_panicea, Disputatio:Ius (cibus), Disputatio:Botulus) and then saw that you had worked on all of the pages, so linking the questions to you directly might be better. I understand this topic is difficult because medieval authors were very inaccurate with their terms and rather stole words from their own languages, and even the Latins themselves seem to have used the words to mean a wide range of things that don't quite match the terms moderns use and it's difficult so cypher foods/dishes from text anyway, but it would be nice to at least have some consistency on Vicipaedia. Krken (disputatio) 07:32, 15 Aprilis 2025 (UTC)

It's difficult finding convincing names. I commented at Gruellum Bretonicum: I gave quite a bit of thought to that, and chose the medieval term intentionally, but I may not have reached the ideal conclusion after all! I'm too busy just now to spend long on Vicipaedia, but please write about food, please improve where you can. Pages can be moved easily: as a rule, a changed or new lemma should be justified with a footnote. I added a footnote to your well-justified addition of "lupus" under Esox lucius: "lupus" is in fact more classical, so I moved it up to second place. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:32, 15 Aprilis 2025 (UTC)

Attestations of lemmata may also help. Where attestations are missing, the formula "{{FD ref}}" may want to be attached to lemmata. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:49, 15 Aprilis 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, @IacobusAmor: you're quite right. I found attestations for the previous lucius and the lupus that Krken added -- if I'd had no time to do that, adding {{FD ref}} would have been my fallback position. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:09, 15 Aprilis 2025 (UTC)

Create an article for Peshkopi (Penestae - in Latin)

@Andrew Dalby Hi Andrew! I am LevaneNevale who has communicated with you last year regarding a request made by me to create an article for Peshkopi: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshkopi on Latin Wiki. The title for it should be "Penestae" in Latin. Please can you create the article for Peshkopi on Latin Wiki with short content? Then add it to its corresponding Wikidata page. I would thank you so much if you will create it. Thanks NevaleLevane (disputatio) 10:58, 17 Aprilis 2025 (UTC)

@IacobusAmor Please can you create the article for Peshkopi - Penestae in Latin yourself. Since Andrew isn't responding. Thanks NevaleLevane (disputatio) 20:09, 19 Aprilis 2025 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby Hi dear Andrew! Please can you create the article for Peshkopi - "Penestae" on Latin Wiki? Thanks NevaleLevane (disputatio) 11:00, 21 Aprilis 2025 (UTC)

De nova formula citationum

Hi Andrew. If I don't remember wrong, you did not like the {{Cite book}}, {{Cite link}}, {{Cite journal}} templates due to their lack of flexibility. I am creating our own version, a single template that should be able to replace all of them. It's called {{Opus}} (sorry, the documentation is still minimal), and we can make it do whatever we want. I would like to know what exactly were the shortcomings of our {{Cite ...}} templates according to you; maybe that will help me improve the {{Opus}} template accordingly! --Grufo (disputatio) 16:28, 19 Aprilis 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Grufo. My objections were practical, not a matter of principle. 1. I felt it would be better to agree, if we could, on a format, before designing a template ... but I don't know whether we really could ever agree! 2. I feel that bibliographical templates encourage users who are unfamiliar with citations and bibliography to include too much information, to try to fill all the boxes (examples: on English Wikipedia, citing an unsigned news or periodical article, editors often write "staff" in the author space -- without evidence -- so as to fill the box; and sometimes, when citing a periodical, they add details of the publisher. In both cases, a editor who knows about citations would leave those boxes empty). It's hard to give concise advice on things like that, and the result is that Wikipedia bibliographies tend to be padded with unnecessary and distracting detail. However, if you want to make a suitable template, I still say, go ahead. Since I am currently busy elsewhere, I can't offer to help. (But watch out, this may well change!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 20 Aprilis 2025 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I would be very happy to discuss the format! I am not really a big fan of using dots to separate the various fields, although after working on the template, I must admit that it solves several practical obstacles – but I am open to anything. As for filling too many fields, well, in the {{Opus}} template the only mandatory field is the title. And so

{{Opus
	| titulus = Divina Comoedia
}}

will produce

Divina Comoedia

Everything else is optional. Maybe we could emphasize this aspect! --Grufo (disputatio) 15:25, 20 Aprilis 2025 (UTC)

@Grufo: If you are developing a citation template why would you name it "Opus"? Sure, a citation should refer to some work but unpublished works are not really that useful unless they are well known ancient manuscripts so wouldn't a better name be "Citationem" or even "Publicatio" (excuse my lack of Latin knowledge). It just seems to me, something named "Opus" might be better for something like an Infobox template for creating infoboxes about works or a Navbox about topics related to works, etc. Maybe "Citatio opus" or "Opus cita" would be okay but even something like "Citatio publicatio" (a la {{citatio libri}}) or maybe "Publicationem citare" sounds better to me. The Opus/work can then be the article/chapter, etc. referred to in that publication (be it a book, magazine, etc.). So then you might have a publication title and a work title (of course they are sometimes the same like novels that are typically published in books with the same title as the work contained within). —Uzume (disputatio) 13:00, 20 Iulii 2025 (UTC)

Hi Uzume. The latin word “opus” simply means “work” (noun). The idea is to have a template as generic as possible. Rather than “publicatio”, classical Latin would prefer “editio” (“edere” means “to publish” – for an English speaker it is a bit of a false friend). But as you mentioned, that would limit the template to published works. It would not be much of a problem, really; it is just that “opus” is the most open and generic name that came into my mind. Of course it could also indicate an infobox, but usually here on Latin Wikipedia we add “capsa” (“box”) to infobox templates (e.g. {{Capsa hominis Vicidatorum}}, {{Capsa insulae}}, and many others). “Citatio” could also work, but we have already the old {{Citatio}} template, and the two will need to coexist for a while. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:08, 21 Iulii 2025 (UTC)

@Grufo: So can I cite a sculpture, a building, or canal? These could all also be considered works or "Opus" I suppose you could do something limit it via something like "opus litterarium". I just think "opus" is too general and as a citation it should contain "citation" somehow like "Opus cita" or some such. —Uzume (disputatio) 00:21, 21 Iulii 2025 (UTC)

@Uzume: Exactly, the idea was exactly that (I just love Postel's law)! You can cite a sculpture, a building, or canal :-) It is an experiment, but so far it seems to be working well! I have not finished writing it however. I still have to differentiate the current |series= parameter into two different parameters: one for the case in which the series is a minor detail (e.g. a collection of books belonging to the same series) and one for the case in which the series is a more important feature (e.g. a journal). I have still to find the right wording, but it is in the back of my mind. Other capabilities will need to be implemented too. As you can see, the nomenclature is left open and generic on purpose. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:28, 21 Iulii 2025 (UTC)