Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Categoriae urbium[fontem recensere]

I asked UVbot to move a couple. I mention them to you because you happen to have created them: Categoria:Philadelphia Pennsilvaniae and Categoria:Concordia Massachusettae. In pagenames and categories for US cities (others too, usually) we choose "Name (State)" so I thought it best for these to match the others. Hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 1 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)

... et poetarum[fontem recensere]

You've adumbrated four "Poetae formalistici" and two "Poetae formalistae". Since there are six, it's more efficient to create the category than delete the redlinks, but please tell me which form of words you prefer! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:33, 8 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)

The agent-noun derived in recent times from newly coined words ending in -ismus commonly (but not exclusively) ends in -ista, and poeta formalista ('formalist-poet') might work as a double noun, much like participant-observer, a term of art in anthropology. Consistency is to be effected in such words whenever possible, but which pattern is best remains unclear. For yet another option (with faults of its own), see the hidden code in the basic article on the subject of new formalism in poetry: Novus Formalismus. (Whether to capitalize the names of movements is a topic about which people will no doubt have opinions.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:31, 9 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your reply. Let's try "Poetae formalistae", since it's shorter, and see if anyone disagrees. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 9 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)

... et sagarum[fontem recensere]

You had probably forgotten the discussion at Disputatio:Iudicia de magia apud Salem acta. Because of this, while merging your page with the existing one, I also changed the categories. I don't think we ought to say that these ladies were witches, though some people certainly thought they were!

For the present, there is no longer a separate category corresponding to "Salem witch trials" -- just a couple of more general categories, Categoria:Iudicia de magia and Categoria:De magia quaesiti (I hope that name works ...) -- but a more specific category Categoria:Iudicia de magia Salemensia (for example) would meet the POV objection and could surely be created if you care to do so. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:47, 18 Februarii 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back Kotter[fontem recensere]

It's nice to see you back. I realize I still have far to go with latin but I would appreciate if you would hint a bit more to what would be wrong with the article.--Jondel (disputatio) 06:58, 1 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)

Adventures[fontem recensere]

I am appreciative of this page. I hope you don't mind if I peek and will make the necessary changes --slowly--? Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 11:20, 2 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)

Portmanteau, a kind of , jeepney[fontem recensere]

Thanks for your corrections to Jeepney and your inputs about 'a kind of'. Portmanteau is great word to know but we can't use that word in Latin don't you think? Besides, in many current English dictionaries, it is a kind of travelling bag.--Jondel (disputatio) 09:34, 9 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)

Candela canens[fontem recensere]

I like your candela canens article! I still am bothered a bit about how to translate feedback, which is a powerful concept.--Jondel (disputatio) 16:02, 3 Maii 2014 (UTC)

Maybe something related to responsum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:12, 6 Maii 2014 (UTC)
The Romance languages suggest retroactio, retroalimentatio, realimentatio. Retroago is an attested classical word, so retroactio might be possible as a {{convertimus}}. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:01, 7 Maii 2014 (UTC)

I would like very much to suggest retroalimentation. The others seem like 'drive/push back'.Btw I can hardly do wiki these days because of my job.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:17, 21 Maii 2014 (UTC)

Talking of feedback ...[fontem recensere]

Hi, Iacobe. It would be good to have your answer to the last question I posed at Disputatio Categoriae:Pelliculae per civitates digestae! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:01, 5 Maii 2014 (UTC)

Last week of semester: grading papers, exams on Friday, etc. Busy busy. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:10, 6 Maii 2014 (UTC)
While awaiting your reply there, I noted the redlink category names "Pelliculae documentariae atrae-et-albae" and "Pelliculae nigrae-et-albae". I'm going to delete these redlinks because (apart from being inconsistent with one another) these forms don't sound like real Latin to me. If I'm wrong, maybe cite a parallel? If I might be right, maybe consider instead "Pelliculae unicolores" or "incolores"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:52, 20 Maii 2014 (UTC)

Tosa Inu[fontem recensere]

Iacobus, please indicate what you think is wrong with this article. It will help me in the future. Thank you.--Jondel (disputatio) 10:39, 17 Maii 2014 (UTC)

Done long ago. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:47, 15 Iulii 2014 (UTC)

Categoria:Studia Byzantina[fontem recensere]

Seems to me a useful, much-needed, long-desired category, but I don't see how Argos and Collegium Artium specially fit into it. That would need to be explained in the text of those articles maybe? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:45, 1 Iunii 2014 (UTC)

Composita anorgana?[fontem recensere]

Dear IacobusAmor, I noticed that you created the Categoria:composita inorganica in 2010. In English inorganic [1] and in French inorganique[2] is used (with an in privativum), while in German[2] and Dutch[2][3] anorganisch is used (with an α privativum). Earlier in English anorganic [4] and in French anorganique [4] was also used, but English anorganic seems to be nowadays restricted to "denoting tissue (e.g., bone) from which the organic material has been removed".[1] The adjective inorganicus is not attested in classical Latin.[5] In case one would find such a word, one would expect that it would resemble the ancient Greek adjective ἀνόργανος,[6] instead of a hybrid derived from Latin in- and ancient Greek ὀργανικός. In Neolatin one can find anorganicus [7][8][9][4] and anorganus,[8] the latter more closely resembling ἀνόργανος. By the way, English inorganic is also translated in modern Greek as ἀνόργανος.[10] I would like to suggest a move to composita anorgana. In ancient Greek ἀνόργανος is both the form for the masculinum and femininum with ἀνόργανον for the neutrum. My source for anorganus only specified the masculinum, but we could use anorganus/-us/-um (M/F/N)? I would like to know whether you would agree. In case this request is unfounded, I would appreciate it, if you could explain possible objections. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 14:54, 14 Iulii 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. I hadn't thought about it, but Google suggests that inorganicus is in well-established Latin use, going back at least as far as Francis Bacon (hic), and of course to the works of Linnaeus (hic) and other authors (e.g., The Elements of Materia Medica (1839) and Cursus philosophiae naturalis, de inorganicis, de vita vegetativa. . . (1912)). The OED traces English inorganic(al) back to 1621, but anorganic only to the late nineteenth century. If in an encyclopedia, as in dictionaries and biological taxonomies, prior use has pride of place over later use, then Bacon and Linnaeus trump Kraus (1844), Siebenhaar (1850), Schlockum (1879) and Divry (1982). Generally, like you, I cultivate a classical style, though we have to allow for the exigencies of technical terminology. Regarding categories, perhaps it's best to wait for the return of Andrew, nostri regis categoriarum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:32, 15 Iulii 2014 (UTC)
If it's of interest: Cassell's Latin Dictionary, focusing on the classical idiom, reports:
inorganic, render by phrase, referring to life (vita) or growth (crescĕre). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:49, 15 Iulii 2014 (UTC)
Dear Iacobus, thanks for the sources. It seems that inorganicus is slightly older. The earliest source I can find currently is from 1700 for anorganicum and from 1673 for anorganus. I know that the principle of priority is used in botanical Latin. In terminici technici from other disciplines, like anatomy for example, priority is less of a concern as many terminici technici change over time. The official nomenclature committee declared that they do not want to change terms to often, but over the last 120 years some terms went through three or four revisions. Although the official nomenclature committee dictates to use their latest approved list of anatomic terms, different spellings/forms can be found within the same list, with some spellings more adhering to classical Latin or their ancient Greek roots than others. Kraus' earlier publication Kritisch-etymologisches medicinisches Lexikon was devised to correct incorrect forms and spellings used by his contemporaries and predecessors. Although I can not find inorganicus in his Lexikon, I think he would probably remark that the form would be falsch and would suggest anorganicus. Unfortunately Kraus didn't list the more rare anorganus as can be found in Siebenhaar's dictionary. But I find it an excellent idea to wait for Andrew's input! With kind regards and thanks for the response, Wimpus (disputatio) 11:04, 16 Iulii 2014 (UTC)
Nice of you to invite me to comment, gentlemen! On the minor issue of how to form the feminine (you probably knew this, Iacobe? Greek adjectives normally have a feminine in -a/-e if they are simple words, but in -os if they are compounds) I believe that it is very rare in Latin to transfer -us -us -um from Greek, and that it would startle readers, so we should prefer -us -a -um.
On the major issue, I really don't know what's best. In an article we can of course list all three attested forms, but in a category name we have to choose one. My initial inclination is to say that if "inorganicus" goes back as far as Bacon, and is additionally close to the form in many modern languages (though admittedly not modern Greek), it will be much more familiar to readers and may deserve a slight preference for that reason. Also, to me, Greek "anorganos" ought not really to have the required meaning: it ought to mean "without an organ". What do you say to that, Wimpus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:46, 24 Iulii 2014 (UTC)
Dear Andrew, thank you for response and insights. Regarding the feminine: there are a lot of Greek loan adjectives in the Tensaurus Italograecus[11] that have two endings, i.e. -os for the masculine and femine and -on for the neuter. And there are by the way alot of feminine loan nouns that end on -os (anhydros, diametros). In case one wants to import a word from Greek into Latin one can stick to the Greek form on os. Some people[12] however cast doubt on the Latinitas of this procedure to keep the Greek ending intact:
"Of course, there can be no question about the existence of forms in -os for Greek -ος and -on for -ov in a certain class of writers of the Silver Age, when, according to that same Juvenal, Rome was more Greek than Latin. Apuleius occasionally so transliterates; but it is simply one of his many Greek mannerisms. Pliny the Elder is responsible for the most of the transgressions of that law which are to be found in the dictionaries; his reason for such violation of the Latin law is found in his desire to present the technical or scientific words of his Greek original in an untranslated, unchanged form. The same phenomenon, with the same reason underlying, is to be found in the Church Fathers. And so we have, hammo-chrysos, hady-osmos, ophidion, gingidion, and many more; most of them, as I said, are Pliny's Latin, but Pliny's solecisms or mannerisms should not be good enough for any one when a better than Pliny (in point of Latinity, at least) can be found; and the law both before and after Pliny was: Greek ος is Latin -us, and Greek -ov is Latin -um."
For a Greek adjective of two endings one can create a masculine adjective on us. But do we have to create a third ending on -a for the feminine? In the Tensaurus Italograecus there are enough examples of Greek loan adjectives on ος/ov that became -us/-a/-um in Latin. However, are these exact forms in each gender attested? Miller[12] comments on this procedure:
"In general, it is arbitrary and inexact to make adjectives of three endings in Latin out of Greek adjectives of two endings. The old Latinists used the form in -us for both masculine and feminine, and -um for the neuter; e. g. curo-troph-us (-os), masc. and fem., curo-troph-um (-on), neut.; dory-phorus, masc. and fem., dory-phorum, neut.; disco-phorus, masc. and fem.; eu-petalus, masc. and fem.; poly-stomus, masc. and fem., -um, neut. The only exception I find given in the Latin dictionary is di-somus, -a, -um; but that is erroneous and should read disomus,- um."
I only have difficulties in finding these aforementioned forms as adjectives (as adjectives: curotrophoe[5][11], it seems like a plural feminine). So I have to try harder. But, it seems a complicated issue.
As you have mentioned, Ancient Greek ἀνόργανος is translated as "without instruments"[6] or "without organs (zonder organen)"[13] and ὀργανικός is translated as "serving as organs or instruments, instrumental"[6] In this respect, it seems like ἀνόργανος is related (negatively) to ὀργανικός. But to make it more complicated, in Ancient Greek the adjective ὄργανος/η/ον is also attested with the meaning "working, forming"[6] as well as the verb ὀργανόω, "to be organized"[6] (hence anorganus as "nicht-organisiert"?). So, could anorganus can also be seen as the opposite of organicus? As I mentioned earlier, English inorganic is also translated in modern Greek as ἀνόργανος.[10] Or is ἀνοργανικός also attested as translation of English inorganic? I must admit, that I am more accustomed to the form with the alpha privativum and not with the in privativum as in my native tongue (Dutch), the adjective is anorganisch. Maybe I have created even more confusion. My apologies :) With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 21:39, 24 Iulii 2014 (UTC)

Notae[fontem recensere]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Anderson, D.M. (2000). Dorland’s illustrated medical dictionary (29th edition). Philadelphia/London/Toronto/Montreal/Sydney/Tokyo: W.B. Saunders Company.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Haan, H.R.M. de & Dekker, W.A.L. (1955-1957). Groot woordenboek der geneeskunde. Encyclopaedia medica. Leiden: L. Stafleu.
  3. Everdingen, J.J.E. van, Eerenbeemt, A.M.M. van den (2012). Pinkhof Geneeskundig woordenboek (12de druk). Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 Foster, F.D. (1891-1893). An illustrated medical dictionary. Being a dictionary of the technical terms used by writers on medicine and the collateral sciences, in the Latin, English, French, and German languages. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
  5. 5.0 5.1 Lewis, C.T. & Short, C. (1879). A Latin dictionary founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Liddell, H.G. & Scott, R. (1940). A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  7. Kraus, L.A. (1844). Kritisch-etymologisches medicinisches Lexikon (Dritte Auflage). Göttingen: Verlag der Deuerlich- und Dieterichschen Buchhandlung.
  8. 8.0 8.1 Siebenhaar, F.J. (1850). Terminologisches Wörterbuch der medicinischen Wissenschaften. (Zweite Auflage). Leipzig: Arnoldische Buchhandlung.
  9. Schlickum, O. (1879). Lateinisch-deutsches Special-Wörterbuch der pharmazeutischen Wissenschaften. Leipzig: Ernst Günther’s Verlag.
  10. 10.0 10.1 Divry, G.C. (red.) (1982). Divry’s modern English-Greek and Greek-English desk dictionary. New York: D.C. Divry. Inc., Publishers.
  11. 11.0 11.1 Saalfeld, G.A.E.A. (1884). Tensaurus Italograecus. Ausführliches historisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Griechischen Lehn- und Fremdwörter im Lateinischen. Wien: Druck und Verlag von Carl Gerold's Sohn, Buchhändler der Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften.
  12. 12.0 12.1 Miller, W. (1897). Scientific names of Latin and Greek derivation. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 3(1), 115-143, p.127 Lapsus in citando: Invalid <ref> tag; name "”Miller1897”" defined multiple times with different content
  13. Muller, F. (1932). Grieksch woordenboek. (3de druk). Groningen/Den Haag/Batavia: J.B. Wolters’ Uitgevers-Maatschappij N.V.

Ironman[fontem recensere]

Thank you for your Ironman dubsigs! They will help me and other latin enthusiasts to improve our latin.--Jondel (disputatio) 00:46, 25 Iulii 2014 (UTC)

I hate to admit it but I guess it deserved a latinatis. I guess I have to look really hard with the other ones. --Jondel (disputatio) 00:57, 25 Iulii 2014 (UTC)

Accusative of respect[fontem recensere]

What do you think about it? Is it not recommended to use?--Jondel (disputatio) 00:50, 25 Iulii 2014 (UTC)

Gildersleeve (#338) implies it's a Greekism, a verbal tic of Sallust & Livy, and "much more common in the poets": "Good prose uses the Ablative for [it]." No matter how we look at it, your cordem isn't the accusative of cor. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:16, 25 Iulii 2014 (UTC)

I know now, cordem was a mistake, good catch! I will try my best to avoid Greekism, but shouldn't we use more of fundamental grammar? Books on higher prose are not too available.--Jondel (disputatio) 16:35, 26 Iulii 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for intruding, o amici. In these terms the alternative to "prose" is "poetry". I don't think it's a good idea for us to try to write like the poets :) We really are writing prose. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:05, 26 Iulii 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I was going to say that! :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:09, 26 Iulii 2014 (UTC)

It is great to have people like you around. The rest of us are not Latin specialists, eg we need to stick to basic grammar. Which also brings me to the question, I see a lot 'this is used in poetry' in my Teach Yourself Latin book(can't remember any grammar rule now). I'm, sure it is ok to use them here right?--Jondel (disputatio) 18:16, 26 Iulii 2014 (UTC)

It depends on how peculiar or self-conscious you want to sound. If a grammar says "used in poetry," it's probably warning you to be careful about using it in prose. As a rule, check any hints about usage that dictionaries give. They may say point-blank that a word is poetic: for 'sword', Cassell's offers "gladius, ensis (poet.), ferrum (esp. in general or abstract sense)." Or you may have to figure it out for yourself from the citations given: for gladius, Cassell's cites Caesar, Cicero, Vergil, Livy; for ensis, it cites Lucretius, Livy, and Vergil. Those sets of authors alone tell you that gladius is going to be perfectly acceptable in prose, but ensis has the danger of evoking poetry, or at least sounding a little odd. Maybe the situation there is like sword and blade in English: the latter (like ensis) can be found in prose, but it's not the usual term, so it might lead a reader to wonder what's afoot. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:09, 26 Iulii 2014 (UTC)

I meant to say in the summary, Welcome ^back^ Andrew!--Jondel (disputatio) 18:18, 26 Iulii 2014 (UTC)

Lingua Gesticulatoriae[fontem recensere]

ciao, come va?? ho fatto qualche errore?? --SurdusVII (LIS) 16:50, 2 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

cari amici IacobusAmor e Jondel, allora vi dico che i numeri delle statistiche, purtroppo non è *perfetto*, perchè non è facile avere numeri ufficiali, ma solo su Istituzioni come la EUD o la WFD qualcosa sui numeri si sa qualcosa ma non sempre purtroppo...
quanto ai termini per favore non scrivete NON UDENTE in quanto è un termine offensivo, quindi propongo di usare semplicemente i termini come Deaf People, ok??
se avete dubbi o problemi da chiarire riguardo alla conoscenza della Comunità Sorda, chiedimi pure...
Ave Dux :D ciao a tutti e 2! --SurdusVII (LIS) 09:03, 4 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
Iacobe, if you feel interested in the sign language articles, that makes me happy and I'll leave them alone for a bit. There is definitely a need for one Latinist, but not necessarily two :) If, on the other hand, you'd rather not, just let me know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:29, 4 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
Language-related topics engage my keyboard in general, but the textual hiccups in question have elicited from the little gray cells about as much as they're likely to, at least for the moment. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:25, 4 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
Hi Surdus, so we should use deaf people not deaf? Homines Surdi or Homines surdium? For myself (To Andrew and Iacobe) I don't know if there is anything I can add now. So I'd be leaving the articles alone for the meantime. --Jondel (disputatio) 11:44, 4 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
As was implied before (on another page), homines surdium doesn't make sense: surdium isn't a word, and even if it were, it wouldn't look (in the slightest) as if it might be an adjective modifying homines. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:25, 4 Augusti 2014 (UTC)
@Jondel Homines Surdi :) --SurdusVII (LIS) 12:30, 4 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

Mana[fontem recensere]

Hi, Iacobe. I deleted the uncreated categories at Mana. If you intend to create them, then -- as always -- please revert my edits. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:30, 28 Augusti 2014 (UTC)

Diaboli parvi[fontem recensere]

Hi again. Could you comment at Disputatio:Aemilius Zola? You may well be right, but I don't see anything to justify it in our text, or in en:wiki, or even in the starred article at fr:wiki! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 1 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

No answer? Does that mean it was a mistake? You are nearly always right, so I would have loved to hear from you before reverting :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:26, 4 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

I have to add that I am full of admiration for your sourcing of the name Luguvalium (Pennsylvania) ... A great find. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:48, 1 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

When curiosities like that by chance come into view, Vicipaedia is a good place to document them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:44, 3 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

Better[fontem recensere]

I noticed your edits to Categoria:Collegium Smith and Categoria:Collegium Mount Holyoke. I think these were mostly bad changes because

  1. you removed two supercategories that all other comparable categories have, and left one blue and one red supercategory in their place, thus making the categories more difficult for others to find
  2. you added hidden text in English

We ought surely to aim always to leave pages (even category pages) in a better state than we found them in. I think (tell me if you disagree) that you left these two in a worse state than you found them in.

If this was part of a general plan to subcategorize the area of universities and colleges, again, do tell me: I'm happy to discuss it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:26, 4 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Essenus[fontem recensere]

I moved back to "Esseno". Tell me if I'm missing something, but this is just a modern surname, isn't it? and we don't change them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:09, 11 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

It's apparently an adjective posing as a surname. See the disputation page. ¶ However, the article is probably going to be deleted, so the point is moot. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:13, 11 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Good point :) But I must say that I moved back too quickly -- you hadn't had time to write your explanation on the talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 11 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Edit war around Ordo pro Merito Melitensi[fontem recensere]

You are, of course, correct to flag Usor:Mabelina's changes; she seems to be a beginner at Latin. But the edit history this morning looks a bit like an edit war -- is that really useful? I've been trying to clean up a bit of the mess she's left (she? with no user page I'm going by the username), and it may be more constructive to correct the grammar instead of just flagging the pages, time permitting of course (it's looking like one of those crazy semesters). I'm not going to do anything drastic here; verbum sapienti.... A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:19, 11 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I have no time for correcting today! It's enough to dispose of Alexander the Essene! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:22, 11 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Mabelina has responded to my changes the way (s)he has to Laurentianus's: either with gross innocence, or intent on edit-warring. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:24, 11 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Hello to you both & thank you for your concern re Pro Merito Melitensi. I can assure you that it is out of innocence & my definite rusty Latin (as if it were ever perfect!) that I am finding it difficult to perfect the Latin phraseology. My reason for introducing the article is because this Order happens to be among the few extant examples of Latin in usage today and which has no recognisable equivalent name in the vernacular, hence I thought it would be of interest to our Latin readers. What to do next? & thanks again for your help. M
PS. but it is not only me who has been editing this article, hence a bit of confusion on my part as to whose previous edits to follow/correct/etc... Thanks again.
They were all helping, or at least trying to. At bedtime, 17 of 54 words were problematic, and now at breakfasttime, 15 of 55 are. Jondel's overnight ministrations (not all of which were successful) raised the score from 69 to 73, on the scale I once experimented with: still a –5, but better! (The scale from minus one to minus seven, and the descriptions like "Latinitas huius paginae magnopere corrigenda est," predate my arrival in Vicilandia.) If we were to back-translate the text into English, you might be surprised at how bizarre the diction is, but no time is available today. For starters, ask yourself why, in the caption, you changed (the correct) Crux to Cruce ; since all captions lacking a visible verb are sentences fundamentally of the form "[This is an] X," it wants to be in the nominative case. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:17, 12 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Pathologia[fontem recensere]

Salve Iacobus, ut vales? Amabo te ponere dubsigs in re, ut soles. Gatias--Jondel (disputatio) 00:35, 12 Septembris 2014 (UTC) Etiam.quaeso, in Eruptio ebolae in Africa occidentali anno 2014 si tempus tibi sit. Jondel (disputatio) 09:12, 12 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

In Pathologia, for starters, qua means 'by which' (but don't you want it to mean 'which'?) and the chances may be at least 99 to 1 that tractat is in the wrong place. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:26, 12 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
It should be quae, you're right, thanks! OK, about the word order of tractat. I'll fix it now. Jondel (disputatio) 08:49, 14 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Ursule Mirouët[fontem recensere]

Salve Iacobus & thank you for your kind suggestion re eques Venerabili Ordinis Sancti Ioannis. I concur that it is a minefield trying to word some modern-day formal protocol satisfactorily in Classical terminology - but I guess it is worth it, otherwise our Latin readers could quite excusably assume that things which have (d)evolved continue as was to the present day!

The Order for Maltese Merit[fontem recensere]

I hope you approve of using in vulgare for Ursula Mirouet, and it is my intention to expand the UM article and others (where I know something about the subject), but since so many of my recent posts have been amended (notwithstanding that my Latin is/hopefully becoming less) rusty! it has been difficult for me sometimes to know whose edits are good ones to follow... Perhaps you could be so kind as to give a brief overview of Ordo pro Merito Melitensi? which I introduced being one current institution which has no recognisable name in the vernacular, & of course hoping that the subject itself is of interest to some! Thanks again & till soon M

Time is lacking, but if you really want to improve the text, start by learning something about declensions & conjugations. This is your text as it stands:
Ordo pro Merito Melitensi est ordo meritum Suprema Ordinis Melitensis (breviter S.M.O.M.) anno MCMXX condidit. Pro viris feminae non solum membrorum Æcclesiae Romanae qui sibi afferentit ut auxilioque operam det honore et decus Ordinem Melitensis retributur. Honores per decretum Summo Consilii sunt concessit motu proprio pro Magno Magistro ordinis.
This is more or less what it's saying, with each problematic word rendered in a similarly problematic way:
The Order for Maltese Merit is an order, a merit. The Funeral Rites of the Maltese Order (briefly S.M.O.M.) in the year MCMXX it founded. For men and a woman's not only of the limbs of the Roman Tchurtch whooch conveigheth to himself so that it might apply himself and to assistance by honor and a dignity to the Order of a Maltese is repayied. The Top of the Council has honors by decree. It granted by a motu proprio on behalf of the Grand Master of the order.
The wrong (or extremely problematic in context) words are:
meritum, Suprema, S.M.O.M., condidit, feminae, membrorum, Æcclesiae, qui, sibi, afferentit, auxilioque, honore, Ordinem, Melitensis, retributur, Summo, Consilii, sunt, concessit.
That's 19 words out of 49, giving a score of 61, which on the scale I devised long ago is a –6. Even this isn't as dire as –7, which indicates that a text isn't written in Latin, though it would be hard to argue on the basis of what the text is actually saying (see the translation above) that it belongs in a published encyclopedia. Two or three times the text has (perhaps generously) been marked –5, and several times you've removed that indication, in effect asserting that the Latin is satisfactory. Let's fix that right now (inserting –6). Meanwhile, see if you can figure out what's wrong with the words listed above. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:48, 18 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
As for which edits are "good ones to follow": almost all of them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:55, 18 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Quotation below altered to focus on the problem: IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:14, 18 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Is this any better? M
"Ordo pro Merito Melitensi conditus anno MCMXX a Ordine Supremus Militaris Melitensis (breviter S.M.O.M.). Ordinem meritorum pro viris feminisque non solum fides Ecclesiae Romanae pro honore et decus ad Ordinem Melitensis retributur. Honores concessit per decretum Supremus Consilii motu proprio pro Magno Magistro ordinis."
Yes: 14 errors out of 44 words (or 15 out of 44 if you count the verb missing from the first sentence) on the proposed scale would be a –5. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:14, 18 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Also, in the caption "Crucem pro Merito Melitensi" (not shown above), the first word is in the wrong case. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:14, 18 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Nine days ago, Usor:RHaworth asked "How long before you learn to sign?" IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:14, 18 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Donaldus Adamson[fontem recensere]

PS. would it be possible for you perhaps to make the appropriate correction to Donaldus Adamson just in case it might be considered vandalism by me? M

The system won't let me do any editing on that page. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:06, 18 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
OK [= Mabelina, commode signare nolens, 05:47, 19 Septembris 2014‎]

Ursule Mirouët[fontem recensere]

This article has only just been started & at least hasn't received a -7 Latinatus mark so, in addition to quite a few other areas where Vicipaedicia could be improved, is this going to be easy for me to do with messages such as the following! {{Non stipula}} Haec pagina nondum stipula est. Oportet inter 7 dies admeliorare. Paginis minimis Vicipaedicis necesse sunt: Titulus, in prima sententia litteris pinguibus repetitus Textus (e litteris 200 vel pluribus compositum) qui rem utiliter describat Nexus extra-Vicipaedianus (sive et fons bibliographicus) qui rem satis corroboret Nexus interni caerulei ex hac pagina et in hanc paginam; categoriae caeruleae (aut formula {{Dubcat}}); pagina annexa apud Wikidata (aut formula {{Nexus absunt}}) Aliquid maius, huic encyclopaediae congruens, e.g. textus (explicationes, historica, exempla); imago cum descriptione; nexus externi utiles plures; bibliographia.
I think a hiatus might be better than constant wrangling..? M [= Mabelina, commode signare iam nolens, 05:47, 19 Septembris 2014‎]

Statim autem adiecit commentario Ursule Mirouët hora 05:23 diei 20 Septembris 2014 priorum verborum auctor:
Rumoris huius exploratur atque Ursule innocentiem probitate.
Forsan exemplum conaminum ne falsorum quidem? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:32, 20 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

All that jazz[fontem recensere]

You raised a good point at Disputatio Categoriae:Musici Iaz but it would be better if at the same time we could make all the names agree. I see that at Disputatio:Jazz you suggested, long ago, "Iazensis musica" and cited a source. There was no follow-up, but I don't see anything better about the later alternative "Musica iazzica", so we could now go with "iazensis" as you then proposed. Or we could accept "iaz", quietly assuming that it is the notional base form of "iazensis". What would be your preference? You're our greatest musician, after all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 4 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

We were told that "z" always scans long, so a doubled "z" would imitate non-Latin orthographies and imply a weird pronunciation. Neander keeps warning about using unmarked order in lemmata. Putting these considerations together gives us musica iazensis or musica iazica. Declinable forms are always useful, and even English has jazzy. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:38, 6 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Then we'll rename the existing categories using "iazensis", since the single-z spelling of that word has a source (cited by you originally, I think). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:39, 6 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Comus (deus)[fontem recensere]

I have a feeling the first paragraph is all made up. The transvestite bit was what first made me suspect something, but actually it's hard to find any reliable source that says Comus was a god in Greek mythology. Can you find any? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 3 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

Not today. Other obligations loom! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:44, 3 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

Categoria:Conformationes terrestres ...[fontem recensere]

A while ago I was standardizing geographical categories across the world (I mean, the small world of Vicipaedia). Thinking about what kind of thing categories so named actually contained -- all sorts of geographical things that were not towns -- I renamed those that already existed to "Categoria:Res geographicae ..." and went right on and created categories under that name for all countries (for listing see here). But I didn't touch the ones you had created for single US states, because they were OK as they were and there was no reason to fiddle with them (for listing see here). Now that you are doing some more US geographical pages, it strikes me that it might be a good idea to change these too (e.g., Categoria:Conformationes terrestres Floridae to Categoria:Res geographicae Floridae) and then, if you want to make new ones for the remaining US states, they could follow the same pattern. We could change the existing ones automatically, if UVbot will help. Would you object? If you have a reason for preferring "Conformationes terrestres", please say so and we can leave them as they are -- it seemed to me too long and abstract a formulation, but you might view it differently! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:36, 1 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

Res geographicae is fine, but these and other permutations are sometimes too much for the little gray cells to keep straight—which is why the first thoughts that usually come to mind echo the formulations in enwiki. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:42, 1 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Yes, I saw (or heard) the echo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:51, 1 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
That change is all complete now, and if you want to create further categories "Res geographicae ..." for US States that don't have them yet, by all means go ahead. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:32, 21 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Defaultsort[fontem recensere]

I just noticed that Societas Avium Cohortalium et Ovorum Civitatum Foederatarum, one of your translations, retained the "Defaultsort" of the English page. "Defaultsorts" from an English page need to be deleted when you're translating, because they make the page file under its English name, normally wrong for us. This one made it file under "U. S. ..." although the pagename you chose (rightly I think) was "Societas ..." No one looking through the category page would understand why this title beginning with "S" was filing under "U".

There is the exception of people's names -- we need defaultsorts for those, adjusted from the English ones, to make pages file under the person's surname. But other defaultsorts need to be deleted.

I guess you probably know all this and it was just a slip, but I thought I'd better mention it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:32, 21 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledging the source[fontem recensere]

Thanks for your comments on the Taberna. I have created formula {{Attributio}} (example of use: {{Attributio|fr|François Hollande}}) to be placed on a talk page. I have to admit this has an advantage over the summarium method in that it links automatically to the history page of the original. And it is quick. So, anyway, as they say in American restaurants, enjoy! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:36, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Encouraging redlinks to go blue[fontem recensere]

Here's another thing I hope you may enjoy using. The new formula {{Creanda}} should be very little trouble and would help potential translators to get to work. When translating from en:, instead of simply making links which you know will be red, consider using this formula. Instead of

  • [[Collegium Amherstianum]] -- or
  • [[Collegium Amherstianum|Collegio Amherstiano]]

you write

  • {{Creanda|en|Amherst College|Collegium Amherstianum}} -- or
  • {{Creanda|en|Amherst College|Collegium Amherstianum|Collegio Amherstiano}}

I admit it's longer, but you have that name "Amherst College" in your text already, so it's not much longer. The result is this:

It gives your reader a handy link to the English page, from which the said reader could start creating a Latin page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:50, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll make an experiment of it, but I'm hard-pressed for time today (and for probably much of the year). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:59, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
The extra "(en)" makes it look cumbersome, and it doesn't link to the English page: it links to an editing box. See Regio Antarctica. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:15, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
I see: you have to click on "(en)" to get the interwiki link. Interesting, but too much for tomorrow's contributions. Surely not needed for Linnaean names? Maybe to be used just here & there? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:18, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I agree, with Linnaean names it's hardly worth the trouble. The most useful occasions would be (a) if you think creation is "urgent", (b) if (because the Latin name is a translation) it might be difficult to find the relevant page on another Wikipedia. I notice you sometimes include an original name in hidden text in such cases. Instead of doing that, you could now think of using this method.
As you already see, if you wanted to turn any existing redlinks into this form, you simply change the final ]] to }} and change the initial [[ to {{Creanda|en|Englishpagename|.
After the new page has been created and the internal link goes blue, it's easy for a bot to turn these formulae into ordinary bluelinks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

A devil[fontem recensere]

It might amuse you to know that Gerardus Depardieu, one of your tax rebels, started out in life as a printer's devil. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:37, 1 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

I'm easily amused. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:38, 1 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Nondum stipula?[fontem recensere]

Iacobe, cur commentationem de Concilio climatico Cancuniensi "nondum stipulam" esse notasti? Velim causam exactam indices, nam ex rerum "ameliorandarum" indice non satis bene apparet causa tantae severitatis. Neander (disputatio) 14:40, 3 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Pagina categoria caerulea et "aliquo maiore" caret. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:50, 3 Februarii 2015‎ (UTC)
Haec nuper videns categorias (quas alii corrigere possunt!) et imaginem (= aliquid maius) addo. Fontem iam observo in nota subiuncta positum. Igitur formulam removi: an recte feci? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:10, 3 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Recte fecisti! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:50, 3 Februarii 2015‎ (UTC)
Gratias ago ambobus, quia Christiana Figueres (cuius imago per serendipitiam repperi) feminam celebrandam mihi videtur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 3 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
The example of Steganographia, which you supplied at Disputatio Formulae:Non stipula) possibly shows the unwisdom of allowing "non annexa" pages to linger on for years (because that will be why nobody ever saw that page till now). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:58, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
I probably noticed its entry in Categoria:Cryptographia when I was translating Alanus Turing, but I don't recall whether I read its text. Can Vicipaedia's machinery generate a list of who reads (or at least opens!) a given article? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:55, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
The US and UK governments probably could. Let's ask them :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:23, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
I said so in that discussion, while knowing all the time that quite a lot of the "Non annexae" pages are your creations ... But I think it possible that the problem of the "non annexae" taxonomic pages could be solved by a bot, which could possibly put a Vide etiam on the nearest available higher taxonomic node. That's what I do, without wasting more time on reflection, when I see such pages, but, possibly, a bot could do it quicker! We might ask a friendly bot owner about that ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:58, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. That's not an ideal fix, but it'd indeed annexify all but a handful of the unannexed pages I've created (and some that others, including perhaps [is it] Hendricus under multiple anonymous IPs, have created), and it'd be much quicker than the progress I've been making along those lines, so it seems like a good plan. However, so I could continue improving the lot by hand, would there be a way of generating a list of something like "taxonomically ranked plants & animals not linked to an item at the next-higher taxonomic rank"? (I.e., species not linked to a genus, genera not linked to a family, and so on.) That might generate some surprises! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:55, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
I say hmm too ... Dunno. I don't run a bot myself, we'd have to ask Anne or UV perhaps. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:23, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Translated?[fontem recensere]

I think you were mistaken to say that Annecium is translated from French: I started it, and the history suggests it has just gradually developed from there (and hasn't reached very far yet!) Did you have a special reason for thinking that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 8 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Misreading {{Link FA|fr}} as a link to the page? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:24, 8 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
What does a link to the page have to do with it? A link to another wiki would most often mean the creator of the page is a tiro, but it doesn't in itself mean the page is a translation. To know that, I guess you'd have to ask the writer, or, if you really suspect copyright violation, compare the texts. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:30, 9 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
It's what the anonymous contributor did and continues to do, even today, just as I'd been doing for years. The likeliest default interpretation is that the link indicates the source of the text, not some random link that the author chose so as to tease the custodians of history. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:21, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
It had that special meaning to you, as you explained elsewhere, but generally it would mean that the contributor just hasn't learned to use Wikidata yet. We can't just assume that someone else is translating from any particular source: if they are, they should acknowledge. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
The anonymous user's IP number suggests the contributor could be our Swiss montagnard. Ask him? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:58, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
See, for example, the histories of wiki citations in the first published versions of Autrêches‎‎, Avilly-Saint-Léonard‎‎, Avrigny, Babœuf‎‎, Bachivillers‎‎. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:05, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Wait! The magic wikidata robot has already come by and wiped out the evidence. One has to be quick! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:05, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
That is all between you, Helveticus, and the anonymous IP. Doesn't interest me a whit :=) Let's just acknowledge our own translations, we don't need to guess at other people's. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
I was following your suggestion at Vicipaedia:Taberna#What's to be done with people to "start a talk page with {{Attributio||}}." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:23, 18 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
If you re-read, you'll see that your question there was about "people unfamiliar with wikipedia (perhaps in any language) who in good faith contribute translated articles without the acknowledgment discussed above". We do really have to look out for misguided copyright violation. Nothing to do with this. If you want to worry about the origin of these short stubs about French communes -- far too short to have any relevance to copyright issues -- you're a free man and can worry about it all you like, but it doesn't have anything to do with a suggestion of mine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 18 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
I often add things (especially bibliographic data),† adjust the structure, move images around, and so forth. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:21, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
†For example, just last night I translated an article from the English wiki that doesn't cite any of the published biographies of the subject, so I added those in, all three of them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:27, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't realised you'd written about everything. That's it, then. We can all go home now! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:36, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Non stipula[fontem recensere]

When you add "Non stipula" to a page, I think it's important not to mark the edit as "minor". It could be a final warning for the page, so to speak. The more Vicipaedians who are aware of it, the better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:39, 24 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

... but, in case I haven't said so clearly enough, I'm very much in favour of this work. We have many pages that ought either to be improved or deleted, and you are finding them. I am rescuing some, but selecting the ones that seem to matter more :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Universitas Gonzagae[fontem recensere]

I removed the hidden text you had added to this page.

  1. In one case (the Association of Jesuit Universities) I think there are two better ways to do what you did with hidden text: (a) adding the English name visibly, in parentheses, in italics; (b) adding the English name with the Latin names in a "Creanda" formula, as we discussed a little way above. That's the way I chose in this case.
  2. In the other two cases, there was a link in the text, which you followed with a suggested link in hidden text, marked "melius". I don't see why, if we think something is simply better, we wouldn't do it for real. Hidden text is only seen by the small minority of readers who open an edit window. So most readers won't see what you think is "melius", and those few who do see it will not know who it was who thought something else was "melius", or why he thought it, or, if he thought it, why he didn't do it. And I am one of those; so I just removed your hidden text in those two cases, not knowing its purpose.

I think there are a very few cases where hidden text may be useful to all (usually when it says "Don't break this formula"). Those cases aside, I'd say in general adding hidden text to a page you're working on is fine, if you afterwards remember to remove it. If you forget to remove it, or if you add it to a page that someone else is working on, I'd say it's usually a nuisance, because some other Wikipedian then has the job of removing it. Maybe you disagree -- I know you add hidden text often. Anyway, since I think it's generally a nuisance, and I happened to know this is a page on which new Vicipaedians are working (see my talk page) I removed it quickly from this page because I thought it set a bad example. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:53, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Hidden text is for editors, not readers. In Universitas Gonzagae, I've now unhidden it by applying the creanda to the rest of the links. To my eyes, the "(en)" doesn't help the readability. ¶ That's a good point about marking texts "m" in coniunction with "Non stipula," but the well-trained fingers sometimes forget. Long ago, when I created Cultura, Vicipaedia's longest page and surely one of the longest pages in all of Wikilandia, those fingers marked it "m" (an option no longer available at the creation of pages). ¶ Busy today. . . . IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:32, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your change to Universitas Gonzagae. I think that's a good solution, [but I've removed some less relevant/less helpful links.]
I see what you mean about the legibility in formula:Creanda. Some wikis using a similar formula deal with this by making the (en) a superscript [en] like a footnote reference. Might that help? We can easily vary the format.
Believe me, I know how easy it is to mark a major edit as minor, though I never yet did it with anything quite as major as Cultura. :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:29, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

To amuse you[fontem recensere]

Since you noticed a French commune with 8 inhabitants -- and I guess it will have pages in 25 Wikipedias, i.e. 3+ pages per inhabitant -- you might like to laugh over the fact that an English village (Broad Chalke in Wiltshire) with about 700 inhabitants, a 1000-year history and several famous past residents was represented on only 3 Wikipedias, till I added a Latin page today. And that's not unusual -- I have found many similar cases while gradually adding English towns and villages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 12 Martii 2015 (UTC)

And then I could have named a city of 3 million inhabitants still lacking a Vicipaedia page, en:Surabaya. There may well be others. It's lucky Vicipaedia is a work in progress! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:18, 13 Martii 2015 (UTC)
The biggest might be en:Shenzhen, with ten million! Lesgles (disputatio) 16:16, 13 Martii 2015 (UTC)
If we covered the world with as much thoroughness as we cover French & Italian hamlets, we'd have hundreds of thousands of articles from East and South Asia! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:31, 13 Martii 2015 (UTC)
According to the National League of [US] Cities, the United States are the home of about 20,000 municipal governments, with an average of about 15,000 people each. Extending that proportion worldwide would imply the existence of about 500,000 municipal governments. Throw in the hamlets and we'd be swimming in articles! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:45, 13 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Non stipula? Quod mihi facendum est?[fontem recensere]

Salve, vidi recensionem tuam... quod facendum est mihi? Hi, I've seen your edit... what should I do?'--Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 12:12, 7 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Vide titulum:
Titulus, in prima sententia litteris pinguibus repetitus : OK.
Textus (e litteris 200 vel pluribus compositum) qui rem utiliter describat. OK
Nexus extra-Vicipaedianus (sive et fons bibliographicus) qui rem satis corroboret : CARET
Nexus interni caerulei ex hac pagina et in hanc paginam; : CARENT?
categoriae caeruleae (aut formula {{Dubcat}}); pagina annexa apud Wikidata (aut formula {{Nexus absunt}}) : ???
Aliquid maius, : OK. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:20, 7 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Ok :) expediam. Gratias ago!--Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 12:29, 7 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Expedies? Menses habes sex. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:32, 7 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Sed... cur exspectaturus sum, si nunc expedire possum? ;) --Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 17:51, 7 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Addidi categoriam ac nexus, at fontes non invenio (in pagina e qua traduxi non sunt)... --Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 18:55, 8 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Fontes inveni et addidi. Lectoribus nostris (ut mihi videtur) utilius est fontes Latinos citare si possumus. Hoc autem casu artes grammaticae Graecae, Latine divulgatae, appellaverunt "primam et secundam declinationes" illam quam nos hodie "primam" nuncupamus. Propter hanc rationem fontem Anglicum insuper addidi, recentiorem, cuius terminologia cum tua consonat.
Iacobus noster recte fontem vel bibliographiam postulavit. Regula apud Wikipedias omnes est "Wikipedia non est fons fidelis". Ad notabilitatem et fidelitatem comprobandas necesse est fontem externum (aut plures) citare -- id quod paginas nostras lectoribus utiliores reddit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 9 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Ago gratias tibi quoque! --Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 15:00, 9 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Translating the interface in your language, we need your help[fontem recensere]

Hello IacobusAmor, thanks for working on this wiki in your language. We updated the list of priority translations and I write you to let you know. The language used by this wiki (or by you in your preferences) needs about 100 translations or less in the priority list. You're almost done! Please register on translatewiki.net if you didn't yet and then help complete priority translations (make sure to select your language in the language selector). With a couple hours' work or less, you can make sure that nearly all visitors see the wiki interface fully translated. Nemo 14:06, 26 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[fontem recensere]

Thank you for your attention to Academia Scientiarum Utilium. I hadn't realised a little edit war was going on! I think Giorno2 has got the idea now, but I'll watch the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:51, 21 Maii 2015 (UTC)

If it had been reverted once more, I'd have asked about it in Taberna. Maybe putting the attribution into the text is the way they do it in the Esperanto wiki; for most readers, it probably looks like mere clutter. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:37, 21 Maii 2015 (UTC)

Crimes of the Heart[fontem recensere]

Tibi gratias ago causa relecturae istae paginae! Vale! Rei Momo (disputatio) 11:55, 25 Maii 2015 (UTC)

De lexico Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok[fontem recensere]

Salve! Thanks for your emendations on the Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok. Just one questions: as you may have noticed, I referred twice to the preface of the book in the Notae. Couldn't they also count as fontes, because aren't they technically extra-Vicipaedian sources? Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 15:04, 29 Maii 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[fontem recensere]

... for glancing over the d. w. E. m. prime ministers. You always spot something to improve! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:21, 1 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Venceslaus I (rex Bohemiae)[fontem recensere]

Hi, you asked what "Grapilziensi" means. It is not "Grapilziensi", but two incomplete words. Whole legend would be WENCEZLAUS DEI GRA(tia) PILZIENSI(s et Budissens)IS DUX. Salve --Silesianus (disputatio) 14:18, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:53, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

ISBNs[fontem recensere]

Hi, Iacobe. Why do you take out the hyphens from ISBNs? They are irrelevant to machines, but I think they are useful to human eyes because they distinguish elements of distinct meaning and make the number easier to grasp -- and we are writing for humans. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 15 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

(1) The Library of Congress doesn't use them? (2) They're typographically inefficient? (3) Almost nobody reads bibliographies & footnotes? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:08, 16 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. 3 seems to be an argument for not bothering with bibliographies at all rather than for copyediting them, but, as it happens, I disagree on it anyway. I also disagree on 2. In general we don't follow the model of library catalogues in our bibliographies, so, although I don't dispute 1 (and thanks for the link!), I don't see it as strongly relevant. OK, I'll ask at the Taberna in case anyone else has a comment.
Melius erit regulam apud nos constituere ne editores futuri inutiliter labores aliorum mutent. De legibilitate, non de utilitate automatica, disputatur: apud machinas 0-19-860617-8 et 0198606178 idem sonant. Forma punctuata saepius in libris ipsis videtur (nisi fallor), forma soluta in catalogis bibliothecarum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 16 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Belavia &c[fontem recensere]

I have nearly completed a project whose aim is to make sure we have biographies of all current heads of state and lists of their predecessors. The last area I have to deal with is Oceania. At Duces civitatum Australianarum et Pacificarum hodiernarum the navboxes I still have to complete are listed but I'd be really pleased if you would look at the names of countries and pronounce (Oceania being an area of your expertise!) on whether the names we are using are ideal. I'm especially doubtful about Palau, which we seem to call Belavia, but I don't know why. Should we be happy with that name? (I notice that the adjective "palauensis" exists in taxonomy.) If we want to change, now's the time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:01, 22 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Since you haven't replied, maybe the name Belavia is a mystery to you too! The creator of the page was Rolandus, a figure from our past, but no sign of where he got the name from. Anyway, I've asked on the Taberna in case anyone can shed light on it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:54, 9 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
My encyclopedia was advised by indigenous people to write "Palau (Belau)." There seemed to be some feeling that Belau should be used by native speakers of Palauan, but foreigners should say Palau. Indeed, the latter fits better with the phonology of many Oceanic languages (including the Polynesian ones, which have no /b/). This Belavia looks to be derived from Belau, but what's the source of the Latin? Presumably the Vatican would know. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:08, 9 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
It's odd to say that all natives should say one thing and all foreigners another :)
The situation with Ivory Coast is more drastic: the country advised my publisher that Côte d'Ivoire was the only acceptable spelling IN ENGLISH. The publisher complied, and so does the U.S. Department of State. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:29, 9 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I fear oddity stretches far beyond Palau. Though "Myanmar" is officially preferred as spelling, how many know how to pronounce it? And indeed, how many casual speakers can get close to Côte d'Ivoire (French, Canadian or Ivorian accent) or to Timor Leste (Portuguese, Brazilian or Timorian)? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:39, 9 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
I found no source at all for "Belavia", not even apostolic, but if there really is one, of course we could follow it. Otherwise "Palau" seems to be practically universal in the Wikipedias, so we had probably better follow that trend. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:19, 9 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Eduardus Augustus Schneider ‎[fontem recensere]

The phrase I am looking to translate is "flew like a bird from coast to coast" can you translate it for me? Is there the equivalent of "template:infobox person", all I see is one for presidents. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (disputatio) 19:03, 1 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude! I added the infobox. It draws on Wikidata and needs no parameters here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:26, 1 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Categories for people by cities of birth[fontem recensere]

We've discussed this briefly, long ago, and I know it's a possibility that is still in your mind. In mine too. In fact we've both done it -- you for Bostonians, me for Monemutenses. The question is, should we do it wholesale?

I shied off not because of any rooted opposition but (a) because of the amount of labour involved, (b) because we haven't yet got articles about enough cities, or verified their Latin names. But, meanwhile, technology overtaking us, it could now be largely done by a bot. This information (where someone was born) is stored at Wikidata, from which a bot could extract it to add the appropriate category to each biography on Vicipaedia. If we afterwards correct or verify a Latin name, a bot could probably change the category name to match.

We would need to make some decisions: the form of category name (it would have to be something that could be applied automatically); whether it covers all cities and towns and villages down to the smallest, or, if not, where it stops; and whether we take over the bot-produced result to make our own changes and additions afterwards, or leave it permanently automatic.

Does this seem to you worth discussion? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 1 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

My default ideal has always been to follow the English wiki, so generally, I'd accept categories for cities (and surely Boston & New York would meet anybody's criteria for having enough wikified inhabitants)—but if bots can do it, so much the better. Discussion is better placed in the Taberna. Meanwhile, I have categories to bluify—but then we see in the disputatio for Erich Polz an implication that German and Germanic ‎‎are the same languages, and then we see that my edits in Ocelum Genuensium have just been reverted, restoring the blank sections and putting the Notae below the Nexus externi. (Maybe the Italian-hamlet style won't distract overmuch if it's confined to the peninsula and can be kept from infecting other lands.) As Roseanne Roseannadanna used to say, "It's always something!" IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:18, 1 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
You're right, we could transfer to the Taberna. The problem with city, internationally, is the lack of an international definition: in French for example both town and city are ville ... I'm not sure what's best. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:08, 1 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile my project for next year (having done enough world politicians for the time being) is to improve our coverage of world cities, I mean, those with considerably more than 12 inhabitants. This will as a side-effect confirm a whole lot of names which could then be applied to city-of-origin categories. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 20 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
That will most definitely be helpful. Btw, when you get to North American settlements, you'll find that many kinds of them—cities, towns, townships, boroughs, unincorporated locations, and so forth—have exquisitely precise definitions in the law. "Independent cities" (e.g., Fairfax, Virginia) may be located wholly within counties but are legally outside them. Correlating Latin terms with local concepts could sometimes be problematic. I've already added Oppidum Novae Angliae, a particular kind of town. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:26, 20 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

I'm about to create a few categories of this kind as examples. When those few exist, I'll ask for comments and possible adjustments before doing any more. Your comments will be eagerly awaited. Watch this space ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 27 Iunii 2017 (UTC)

OK, but my neighbors and I might be distracted for a couple of weeks—because the circus is coming to town! (http://www.festival.si.edu/2017/circus-arts/smithsonian) Expect a few new circus-themed articles! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:43, 27 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
I have created some categories for Categoria:Homines per urbes digesti. You can see them all there, mostly new, but including some miscellaneous ones that you, I and others had created already. They are worded "Incolae Romae" etc. Corresponding categories on other wikis are usually worded in English "People from Rome", in German "Person (Rom)", in French "Personnalité liée à Rome", etc.
I suggest that we follow a guideline of ensuring there is a category for the city (creating it if necessary) before creating a category for "Incolae" of the city. That way, we can be sure that the same name is used and that the categories will be easy to find.
I am building them up by incorporating subcategories for
It would be possible either to create subcategories for people who were born in the city and who died in it (French and some other wikis have done this systematically, see fr:Catégorie:Décès à Rome and fr:Catégorie:Naissance à Rome), or simply to include all such people directly as "Incolae" without subcategories. Do you have any thoughts about that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:19, 6 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
I wonder whether it is worth the effort to manually maintain "born-in-this-city" and "died-in-this-city" categories. Wikidata can give the answer if needed: here are two quick-and-dirty queries for people with an article on Vicipaedia that were born in Marseille and for people with an article on Vicipaedia that died in Marseille. (Note that these queries are quick-and-dirty in the sense that they currently only show persons for which Wikidata specifies they were born/died in "Marseille" itself, and currently do not show persons for which Wikidata specifies they were born in parts of Marseille, e. g. in the "2nd arrondissement of Marseille" - but it would probably not be too difficult to adapt the queries to include at least some parts of the territorial entity as well.) --UV (disputatio) 20:04, 6 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, UV, I had a feeling you would notice this discussion. Your point about the use of Wikidata is important, and your example searches are very interesting. Given that only a few readers will use CatScan queries directly, are you thinking that we could and should persuade a bot to use Wikidata to produce born-in-city and died-in-city categories? (I imagine that the French wikipedia did this.)
A major question is, how reliable would that information be? I had noticed that Wikidata sometimes gives a place of birth or death that is either more specific (a district or even a building) or more vague (a province) than we would like. Also, naturally, Wikidata sometimes takes an apparently false place of birth or death from a Wikipedia that happened to have inaccurate information. The false and too-vague data should eventually be improved on Wikidata, and in that case would eventually be corrected in a bot-produced category. On the other hand, as you say, the query used by the bot would have to be shaped as well as possible to deal with over-specific data, because such data will probably increase: general policy on Wikidata seems to favour it.
My current feeling is that in spite of imperfections it would be useful to create these two subcategories automatically for those cities for which we have an "Incolae" category (probably a growing number). This would save manual labour, while still leaving us free to add the simple "Incolae" category directly on pages for people who didn't study or teach or come into the world or die in the city, but notably lived and worked there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:21, 7 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
You are right that Wikidata encourages the use of very specific places of birth and death (e.g. hospital or road or urban district over city), and you are absolutely right that information on Wikidata is sometimes inaccurate and sometimes vandalized (just like information on Vicipaedia or any other wikipedia).
I have no objections at all against an "Incolae" category for people who notably lived and/or notably worked in a city.
It would surely be possible for a bot to produce and to update born-in-city and died-in-city categories, using information from wikidata. I, however, do not have the time to do this myself, and furthermore I am not sure whether such bot-generated and bot-maintained categories are the way we should go.
We might, however, consider creating a template that we could use on our "Incolae" categories and that provides two links very similar to the two links above: one link to the query for people born here and another link to the query for people who died here – either as a first step towards such categories or as a replacement for such categories. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:57, 7 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
For the record: I've gone to the circus and shall have no time for a few days. ¶ Too bad an encyclopedia can't always distinguish between a (legal) residence and a domicile. For example, a US citizen can be a resident of one state (for the purposes of voting, paying taxes, getting a driver's license, and being counted in the census) while spending most of his or her time (that is, "living") in another. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:17, 8 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes, an encyclopedia can make such distinctions in footnote-supported text. I can imagine citing news reports about British and European politicians who notably don't seem to live where they claim to, or seem to live in several places at the same time. Wikipedia categories, though, don't help in such cases: they are ON/OFF, and you can't footnote them.
I take UV's point. Perhaps the suggested template is a better idea. Although I see some value in the well-stocked born-in and died-in categories available on French wiki, I must admit that it is a limited value. The fact that I was born in Liverpool isn't notable to me or to anyone else -- the hospital happened to be in Liverpool -- and there are many other such cases. When writing short political biographies I say where the subjects grew up whenever it differs from the place where they were born: the place where they grew up, and the places where they studied and worked, are significant in their lives. Analogously, an "Incolae" category that editors have chosen to add in each case will have greater value than a born-in or died-in category. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:32, 8 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
I have made a start – see Formula:Incolae urbis, Categoria:Incolae Berolini and Categoria:Massilia. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:50, 8 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
Neat, but there's one problem, I think. It didn't strike me before. These queries result in a list of Wikidata pages that contain links to Vicipaedia pages. OK, but Wikidata pages are user-unfriendly: most readers would not understand how to get back to Vicipaedia from there. Is it possible to make queries resulting in a direct list of Vicipaedia pages? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:18, 9 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
Good idea, I have changed the queries accordingly. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 12:19, 9 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
… and I have now improved the queries: They should now include people born in hospitals, urban districts etc. as well. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 15:26, 9 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Lympha[fontem recensere]

Iacobus, how are you? Would it be possible to ask what you find incomprehensible or grammatically wrong? Thank you for your time in advance.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:01, 20 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Projected "supplementum" space[fontem recensere]

Please, Iacobe, if you have any further ideas or comments -- positive or negative -- chime in at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Spatium supplementorum. Thanks! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:32, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Geometria[fontem recensere]

Hello, a few months ago you uncommented a section in Geometria about axioms. Do you happen to know what axiom system it is? They're not the ancient Euclidean axioms, nor the more modern axioms of affine (or projective) geometry. If they're some unknown system, I'd like to replace them. Bavo C. Jozef (disputatio) 19:38, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Categories[fontem recensere]

Hi, Iacobe. I realise I was deleting redlink categories the same day you were creating categories. If I deleted any that you were about to turn blue, revert me without a qualm. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:25, 17 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. I'd intended to do the categories soon after adding the articles, but they must have slipped through the cracks. I've recently been working my way through categories for the batch added on 30 November, and am about halfway through. Unfortunately, this is a busy time of year. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:28, 17 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Then I'll leave the rest a bit longer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:04, 17 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

de sepia vel saepia[fontem recensere]

Salve Iacobe. Certe recte scripsisti sepia pro saepia. Sed animadvertimus Plinium Maiorem pluriens saepiam scribere et Ciceronem in sua Natura deorum l. c. in editione Teuberiana item de saepia agere. Qua de causa saepiam vocabulum non plane falsum iudicandum esse egoquidem puto. Vale. --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:18, 20 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Sinete, o amici, me intervenire sermoni. Equidem puto saepiam hypercorrectismum esse, quo librarii medii aevi usi sunt. De Plinio quidem nihil certi nunc dicere audeo, utrum hic hypercorrectismus ex ipsius an ex editoris manuscripta deteriora secuti calamo ortus sit. Quod attinet ad Ciceronem (Nat.deor. 2.127), solum in editione Plasbergiana (Teubner, 1917) saepiae scriptum esse videtur, quamquam editionem Axianam (Teubner, 1933) consulere nequivi. Ceteris in editionibus sepiae scriptum est. Praesertim editionem Josephi B.Mayor dico auctoritate gravem, quem H.Rackham secutus est in editione Loebiana (1933). Neander (disputatio) 19:35, 20 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Probe dixistis, amici, ac scitote nos in dicione immortalis Linnaei hic habitare, qui nomen ut videtur sepia scripsit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:31, 20 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
@Neander: Salve. Quid scriptum sit in editione Axiana anni 1961 (sc. in editione stereotypica editionis secundae 1933), cognitum habeo: saepiae, ut scripsi. In apparatu critico nullam invenio adnotationem pertinentem ad hanc rem. Sed non affirmo vocabulum saepia propabilius esse quam sepia. Immo - immortalis Linnaei praesidio - non mediocriter sum miratus legens saepia, non sepia. Valete. -Bavarese (disputatio) 21:51, 20 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

De iubilaeo Vicipaedianorum

Annum 2016 prosperum et felicem omnibus amicis Vicipaedianis opto! Apud Tabernam consentivimus annum 2016 (quem iubilaeum nostrum Helveticus nuncupavit) praecipue dedicare ad textum paginarum Vicipaedicarum augendum et meliorandum. Huic proposito consentiens (si tu consentis!) sic pro communi inceptu nostro agere potes:

  • Quando paginas novas legibiles, fontibus munitas, et non brevissimas creare vis, crea! Ne timeas!
  • Quandocumque paginam aut breviorem aut mendosam aut male confectam reperis, cura! corrige! auge!
  • Si paginam novam brevissimam creare in mentem habes, recogita ... An potius textum longiorem scribere oportet? An prius aliam paginam, iam exstantem, augere potes?

Quo dicto, Vicipaediani liberi sumus. Paginae etiam breves, quae inter veras "stipulas" admitti possunt (vide formulam "Non stipula"), accepturae sunt sicut iam antea accipi solent. Scribe igitur sine metu, sicut iam scripsisti! [en] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:52, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Non stipula[fontem recensere]

I found the page you wanted: Usor:Amahoney/Non stipula. The ones that have been marked for longest are at the bottom of the page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:27, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

A useful list!—but apparently not updated in almost half a year. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:44, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the winter break would be a good time to ask for an update. :) Also useful, however, is Specialis:Nexus_ad_paginam/Formula:Non_stipula, which I think is in order of page creation. I've deleted a few recently, but only those which I thought might never rise to stipula status. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:48, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I've done a few too, similar cases, tagged much longer ago than six months. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:49, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Quite a few them—Ahura Mazda, Aphrodite, and all other major godlike entities; Apostolus and all other consequential religious & philosophical terms; Carcharhiniformes and all other taxonomic terms at and above the level of ordo; Perotinus and all other historically indispendable composers, artists, and so on—are impossible for any respectable encyclopedia not to have and probably therefore shouldn't be deleted. Trivia like My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and out-of-the-way hamlets not so much! (Insert arguments about notability here.) Maybe there should have been a category like "non stipula, but must not be deleted" for those. Just kidding! A proliferation of these formulas may not be a good idea. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:05, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Well, we have the choice: either add non stipula, or add a cogent sentence and a source! It doesn't take much. But it's time to do one or the other, surely. A ten-word article about a major topic does us no more credit than the absence of an article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:13, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed this, Anne's list has now been updated. Earliest at the foot of the page. Hence, indirectly, Jondel's message on my talk page today. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:27, 27 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Losing articles[fontem recensere]

Wikipedia cannot afford to lose articles for silly reasons. If you see the grammar is poor, then you yourself should fix it instead of putting a deletion tag on it. Philmonte101 (disputatio) 23:28, 11 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Take it up with Andrew, who invented the augenda formula, and UV, who imposed the pessima formula. It isn't an article: the augenda formula tells you what it lacks and, if it's to survive, what it needs. Meanwhile, if you care to save it, you might want to improve the text, which at the moment stands thus, with a literal English translation:
North Coast Inland Trail (Anglice) est et sternet sibi Ohium.
There is (in English) the North Coast Inland Trail and it shall stretch Ohio out for itself.
That's the likeliest syntax that makes the grammar of the whole text work. Of course, variants of vocabulary are available: for example, "it overthrows Ohio for itself" (but that and others are even more bizarre than the one given above); also, se sternere is an idiom meaning 'to lie down', but "it shall lie down, Ohio" leaves Ohio unexplained, unless Ohio is undertaking the action:
There is (in English) the North Coast Inland Trail and Ohio shall lie down.
Was the original a machine translation? If so, you see, via literal English glosses of it, why machine translations are generally deprecated. For the question of how long impossible texts may survive, see various discussions in the Taberna, where talk is often in English so it may have the widest possible audience. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:19, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't directly involved in the point that Philmonte101 raised, because I didn't put the "Delenda" tag on the article. Mine was the "Augenda", which says approx. "improve within three months". But, to be frank, I was being generous and optimistic. If an article consists of 10 words (4 in English, untranslated, and 4 which don't seem to make sense) Vicipaedia can afford to lose it. It would be easier all round to delete it and start again. Hence I think "Delenda" was a practical solution. But if Philmonte101 wants to improve the article (there was no sign of that initially), that's even better.
Hmm ... afterthought ... I'm no oracle, but does the "101" by any chance imply "US student beginning Latin"? If there's a class that wants to work here, we can happily work along with that and help. The teacher just needs to speak up, and we can discuss. Articles can be marked {{In progressu}} "please leave alone -- work in progress" or {{Succurre}} "please help". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
A North American beginner's attempt, especially if guided by a teacher, is likelier to have the syntax of
X est res in Ohio.
That it doesn't here could be suggestive. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:21, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a student of Latin. In fact I honestly don't know much Latin at all. Philmonte101 (disputatio) 00:38, 15 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, Philmonte -- and thanks for your involuntary hospitality Iacobe :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:13, 15 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Iacobe and Andrew for your hospitality and being accommodating. To Philmonte , please understand that there is a lot of things that need to get deleted in any wiki, really. We do want quality articles here don't we? Allow me to beef up the North Trail as best as I can, although, I do need to study more Latin. I highly recommend Latin yourself Philmonte, it would be good for your.Jondel (disputatio) 12:56, 15 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Ligeti[fontem recensere]

Hi. Thanks for your edits to the article I created. What do you mean by the maxdubium sign? I'm not exactly sure! Do you mean the Latin's bad (it seems OK to me) or that the article is (it is getting off the ground!) Knucmo2 (disputatio) 20:47, 23 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Toth[fontem recensere]

Iacobo si tibi placeat qua videtur dubium sit et emenda si possis. Gratias tibi ago.Jondel (disputatio) 13:15, 1 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Selfie[fontem recensere]

Hi Iacobus, how are you? Kindly you indicate what you feel is wrong or dubius and allow for discussions.Thank you. --Jondel (disputatio) 02:37, 20 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

In your sentence
Saepe monstratur in interretiale retio? congregabilio? situ sicut Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, et Tumblr.
This reti(us/um) is not a word, and congregabili(us/a/um) is not a word. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:04, 20 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
It was meant to be rete and congregabile. Thank you for your time!--Jondel (disputatio) 16:00, 20 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

De "re" quadam[fontem recensere]

Iacobe, I'm not sure if I understand your question (regarding arcus caelestis): "But is it really a phenomenon (and not a res)?" What I'm wondering in particular is how definig arcus caelestis as "res" (instead of "phaenomenon") would add to our understanding of the definiendum. Neander (disputatio) 13:23, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I do either, but as long as it's linked to phaenomenon to show that it's not a noumenon, it's probably OK. Cantius himself contrasted rain (a noumenon) with a rainbow (a phaenomenon). I wasn't sure that you actually wanted to go there, and a general term (like res) would avoid the philosophical allusion. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. One of the reasons I didn't provide "phaenomenon" with an internal nexus was that I wanted to hold to everyday use (like in the English wikipedia and elsewhere) instead of swamping into Kantian questions. We can't have any empirical knowledge of noumena, except that they (must) exist. It's my understanding that rain and its causal relation to rainbow are all phenomenal. Neander (disputatio) 15:00, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)
"Phaenomena": appearances in the air or sky (Lewis & Short, citing Lactantius and alluding to the Latin versions of Aratus) -- as I expect you both know already. It doesn't appear to me that Cicero used the word "Phaenomena", but Germanicus [if it was he] probably did. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:23, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)

More positive? also more ominous?[fontem recensere]

You were right to tag Hilarius Putnam, of course, but (forgive me if you really knew this perfectly well already) for new pages in 2016 the best tag to use is {{Augenda}}. This is because it can be dated e.g. "Augenda|2016|03" and because it allows just 3 months' leeway rather than 6. Fewer of them are appearing, month by month, thank goodness. It will be easier to shepherd them, tend them, and even slaughter them if they can't be saved, in monthly cohorts ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 24 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot. Busy for a while. ¶ Met him once or twice in the 1960s, when he was perceived to be quite the radical in a political sense. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:38, 24 Martii 2016 (UTC)

Michael Fred Phelps[fontem recensere]

This is one of your very old pages. There was a lot of English still in it, which I've tried to clean out (I suspect you never really finished it off): therefore the count goes down, and it's among the 10,000 pages. Thought I'd mention it in case you have a spare moment to add some nice Latin to it :) If you want that English back as a basis for further work, just revert me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 2 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Spare moments are few & far between these days (aside from times when coffee is being sipped and the little gray cells are resting, able to do little more than add the NS formula without thinking), but after your ministrations, the text still has 7,840 characters, which times 1.07 = 8,389, still above the intermediate (8,000) cutoff for the 10K list. The higher cutoff is 16,000, unlike the 1K list, whose cutoffs are 10,000 and 30,000. (The authorities like to confuse us.) So perceptions of urgency are not required! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:02, 2 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

De nominibus constellationum[fontem recensere]

Hi, Iacobe. Please don't move any constellation pages without checking the official Latin name. The Latin names are international, easily checked on any serious astronomical site, and I think all our pages agree with them till the two you moved today. The anonym who is adding. names and references maybe doesn't know this, and the references and added names do no harm, but they shouldn't Trump (if I may use the expression ) the modern official names ... Which I will source myself if necessary when I am no longer limited to the editing that an iPad can do ... Greetings from beautiful Tenos. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:30, 11 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

No problem. It was a chance event, not part of a broader program. Enjoy the isles! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:15, 11 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Iacobe! My daughter and I did a lot of hill-walking but no astronomy. Now that I'm back, I'm adding sources for our Latin names of constellations.
Interesting that our anonymous editor went on to alter the Latin names on the German article de:Liste der Sternbilder in verschiedenen Sprachen (mentioning in an edit summary that you had moved the relevant Latin pages -- hence was evidently watching you carefully). Also that in adding footnotes to our page Dorado (constellatio) this editor pretended that the sources support only "Xiphias" whereas in fact those sources, now that I've checked them, support the official name "Dorado" as well! These clues suggest that the editor has an agenda which doesn't simply favour encyclopaedic Latinity; or, at least, should be persuaded to get an account and explain. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:04, 20 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Parallel 5 N[fontem recensere]

You may have seen my latest comment in that discussion: if you care to add a source and a few words of text, then of course the page becomes a self-respecting stipula and there's no earthly need to delete or merge it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 22 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Officina[fontem recensere]

Salve Iacobe. Iamne consonamus cum verbo 'Officina' significante anglice 'office',tibi?--Jondel (disputatio) 02:52, 1 Maii 2016 (UTC)

I'll put in my twopenn'orth if you gentlemen permit. The senses of office and "officina" may overlap but they are far from identical. For the head office of a large business, my old dictionary suggests "sedes" or "domus". For the office as the section of any business where they do correspondence etc., maybe "scriptorium" (but it's not a classical term in this sense) or "tabularium". But what will Iacobus say? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:07, 1 Maii 2016 (UTC)
Both Cassell's and Traupman define 'official' only as publicus. Traupman amplifies that by adding the example domus publica for 'official residence'. For websites, that would seem to be the most appropriate way to go; however, I've sometimes used proprius in the sense 'personal, individual, special, his/her very own'. Officialis is postclassical; see L&S. ¶ According to Traupman, a place of work is an officina, a political office is an honor, and a duty is an officium. In the case of officina, the element of work is apparently the key point: some sort of labor must occur there, as the term can be glossed 'shop, workshop, manufactory, laboratory', and even 'place where fowls are kept', presumably because the work done there is the laying of eggs and the hatching of chicks (L&S). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:25, 1 Maii 2016 (UTC)
The only sense of 'office' relating to 'a place of business' given in Cassell's is "tabularium (= record-office)." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:31, 1 Maii 2016 (UTC)
According to Ainsworth's (the early-19th-century dictionary), the navy-office is the curia navalis, the place where you'll find a prince's master of ceremonies is a salutatorium, and the place where you'll be tortured & executed ('the hangman's office'!) is a carnificina—but otherwise, the welter of examples given illustrate only senses having to do with things that must be done (duties, functions), by their silence perhaps implying that we use the term office in reference to a location much more readily than our ancestors did. That, in turn, might be a caution against looking for a single, general way to translate the term. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:55, 1 Maii 2016 (UTC)
... agreed: but, yes, "curia" is worth considering. Hadn't thought of that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:12, 1 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Your insights are valued, Andrew and Iacobus. You are aware that in Vatican/Catholic Latin, 'dicasterium' appears? Anyway is 'tabularium' ok for 'office for daily business transactions'? The future article will leave out 'function' or 'role' meanings.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:33, 1 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Eliana[fontem recensere]

Lectiones, quas mihi Usor:Spqv proposuit, fortasse ad te mittere debuit? Haud scio! Maiuscula adiectivorum ethnicorum hodie rursus correxi; de aliis rebus curare potes si vis ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:05, 4 Maii 2016 (UTC)

I've seen the discussion in several disputation pages but haven't had the occasion to add anything. Certainly the Loeb Library edition capitalizes adjectives (and adverbs!) derived from proper nouns. If you want an example, here's one I found in quite literally three seconds: Reatina rura 'the country about Reate' (Suetonius, vol. 2, p. 302). Also, in dates, I should think writing III. Kal. ian. for III. Kal. Ian. would look strange (Ian. there being an adjective), as would graece and latine and such. (Both Cassell's and Traupman capitalize them all.) Certainly capitalizing proper adjectives & adverbs has been the mos Vicipaedianus since the beginning. ¶ Generally, when contributors pop up to push a particular theory, they work on one particular item or set of related items and then disappear, so the damage to consistency is negligible. An example of that is the fellow who changed every (attested!) televisificus to (unattested!) televisivus—with extensive disputing about why the latter is better—and then vanished. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:05, 4 Maii 2016 (UTC)
That reminds me: one thing that lowercase-loving writers don't appreciate (or should we say not value highly) is the distinction that variable capitalization can make between, for example, mos Vicipaedianus 'the Vicipaedian custom' (referring to the Latin one) and mos vicipaedianus 'the wikipedian custom' (referring to the whole enterprise, the collection of wikipedias). This is the same point as Africa Orientalis 'East Africa' (a formally defined region) and Africa orientalis 'eastern Africa' (some vague area, perhaps accompanied by hand-waving). But I digress. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:05, 4 Maii 2016 (UTC)
Granted: the original question is about ethnic adjectives only; but as the response implies, that can be construed part of a larger question. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:20, 4 Maii 2016 (UTC)

De litterarum maiuscularum usu in gentilicios: Scriptura romana distinctionem inter maisculam et minusculam non cognovit. Scriptura mediaevalis cognovit distinctionem, sed non habuit regulam certam. Vide quodlibet manuscriptum mediaevale. Unde haec regula oritur? Ex lingua anglica. Eruditi anglici opera latina, grammaticas et thesauros secundum propriam ortographiam scripserunt. Propter linguae anglicae potentiam hic mos hodie servatus est etiam ab multis scriptoribus hispanis, italicis et lusitanis (qui non habent hanc regulam). Conclusio: lex non est, sed mos. Tu, more anglico, scribes “Romani”; ego, more hispanico, “romani”. Sed nec fiat mos regionalis lex universalis. Latinitas longa, vita brevis.

De nomina moderna transferendo in latinum: Ego non video “José Plácido Domingo” versatum in linguam anglicam: “Joseph Pleasing Sunday”, ne quidem “Joseph Pleasing Domingo”. Nec “George Walker Bush” in linguam hispanam: “Jorge Peatón Arbusto”, ne quidem “Jorge P. Bush”. Et cetera, et cetera. Spqv (disputatio) 18:40, 5 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Tell it to Laurentius Rabe (1465–1527), the Silesian scholar & poet, who called himself Laurentius Corvinus. Tell it to Heinrich Schütz (1585–1672), the preeminent early Baroque German composer, who called himself Henricus Sagittarius (auf Deutsch hic). Tell it to Philipp Schwartzerdt (1497–1560), the German theologian, who called himself Philippus Melanchthon ('Atra Terra'): he changed "his surname from 'Schwartzerdt' (literally 'black earth'), into the Greek equivalent 'Melanchthon' (Μελάγχθων), a custom which was usual among humanists of that time" (emphasis added). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:16, 10 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Haec deformatio vel pervertio aperte risu (vel irae) dignum est. Homines romani et mediaevales latina nomina habebant. Homines moderni (praeter summos pontifices vel raros viros illustres) sua nomina in propria lingua maneant. Spqv (disputatio) 18:40, 5 Maii 2016 (UTC)

De regulis ad nova vocabula latina fingenda scribam in extenso alio loco. Parire monstrua sicut: “teleiussibulum”, “laophorium”, “chamulcus”, “diamesolabeta”, et cetera vitandum est. Spqv (disputatio) 18:40, 5 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Salve Spqv! Conversio praenominum, multum alibi disputata, statum regulae apud nos accepit. Hic etiam est mos multorum qui hodie extra Vicipaediam Latine scribant, ut in Vaticano (Rainerio Mariae).
Recte dicis vocabula recentia saepe utilia esse. Sin bonum locutio vel vocabulum classicum classicum exstat, eo uti malumus. Exempli gratia, in pagina disputationis Andreae de vocabulo "mercatus, -i" scripsisti. Fortasse haec declinatio apud scriptores Medii Aevi reperiri potest, sed cur non "mercatus, -ūs", quod apud Ciceronem, Livium et alios reperitur? Lesgles (disputatio) 23:39, 9 Maii 2016 (UTC)
Similiter, in Eliana he/she had written "mercatos . . . aspiciebat," and thinking it was a typo, I corrected it to "mercatores . . . aspiciebat," but he/she has reverted that change, going back to mercatos. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:23, 10 Maii 2016 (UTC)
Verbum q.e. "mercatus -i" (meá paginá disputationis propositum) nullo fonte reperire possum. An fontem adducere potes, Spqv? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:00, 10 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Salve, Spqv, maiuscularum usum Anglicum tibi displicere non miror, cum mihi quoque alienus videatur, nam in terris septentrionalibus idem fere mos maiuscularum scribendarum est ac apud Hispanos. Multi tamen sunt qui credant urbanum esse usui Anglico morigerari. Paucis ante diebus titulum "Bésame Mucho" iam octo fere annos conservatum in "Bésame mucho" mutavi. ¶ Ut dicis, "lex non est, sed mos," et de moribus non est disputandum. Cum quidem aliqua uniformitas praeferenda sit, ego pro mea parte ex auctorum Romanorum editionibus philologis (Bibliotheca Teubneriana, Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis, Les Belles Lettres) rationem scribendi deprompsi. Dicat quispiam, ne horum quidem morem sibi consistere. Fortasse ita, sed "pictura grandis" uniformitatem satis bonam exhibet. Neander (disputatio) 08:11, 10 Maii 2016 (UTC)

A cautionary note: remember that were talking about coding here, not about how texts appear on readers' screens. Coding texts in uppercase/lowercase style enables readers who wish to see nothing but lowercase text—or nothing but uppercase text, in the antique Roman manner—to use gadgets to do so (while it enables readers who wish to see uppercase/lowercase style to do so); coding texts in lowercase style prohibits readers who wish to see uppercase/lowercase style from doing so. The former enhances individual liberty; the latter squelches it. Those are the potential extremes. What seems to be in play here is the degree to which uppercase/lowercase style should be hard-coded. Expressions of anguish over the evils of English, which have explicitly appeared in talk pages from time to time over the past ten years, are't necessarily free of the appearance of what used to be called a cultural cringe. Ironically, they sometimes ignore actual English style, which, for example, has the Great Pee Dee River and the Little Pee Dee River, but together the Great Pee Dee and Little Pee Dee rivers (lowercased because rivers isn't part of the name of either entity). Or, to cite a possibility where a preference for lowercasing adjectives leads into logical error: Virginia Occidentalis (a state west of Virginia) and Virginia occidentalis (an area in Virginia): those are not the same things, though universally lowercasing adjectives makes them so. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:50, 10 Maii 2016 (UTC)
In case it's of interest, Captain Grammar Pants [sic] laid down these rules in Facebook just twenty-nine minutes ago: <<If you are located in the South, you may capitalize the word because it is a place. You might live in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, but you can still have friends in the East. However, when someone travels south to Brighton or north to Darwin, do not capitalize the direction. A key memory trick is to note that if it’s “the West,” with “the,” then capitalize. If it’s “driving west,” do not capitalize. As for the adjectives southern, western, northeastern, etc., capitalize them when they refer to a cultural identity (e.g., “Western thought”) but not when they are just regular adjectives (e.g., “the southwestern states”).>> Note the "key memory trick." Latin lacks this the, and therefore can't make this distinction with a word, but it can do so with a capital letter. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:37, 10 Maii 2016 (UTC)

“Mercatus, -us” habet sensum vetus (locus ad quem mercatores emendi vendendique gratia conveniunt) et sensum modernum secundum modernam scientiam oeconomicam. Igitur melius est: “agricultura elianensis mercatus aliarum nationum aspiciebat”. “Mercatores” error non est sed in hoc casu melioris electio non est. De usu maiuscularum: In omnibus linguis semper possibilitas confusionis est. Scriptores et lectores italici, hispani et lusitani proprias linguas comprehendere possunt, quamvis anglica regula de gentilicio vocabulo non utuntur. Quod ad me attinet, ego bene intelligo “civitas Graeca” et “civitas graeca”, “rex Persarum” et “rex persarum”. Optasne forsan universalem grammaticam? Pulchrum propositum; sed cur, casu, anglica grammatica universalis est? De nomina moderna: Post s. XVI multi nomina latina sibi imposuerunt, velut Renatus Cartesius (René Descartes † 1650), et cetera, et sic legimus opera latina qui iidem scripserunt. Alli non mutaverunt propria nomina, velut Immanuel Kant († 1804), qui scripsit latine dissertationem “De mundi sensibilis forma” et nomen germanum non mutavit. Vide opera eius. Sed illo tempore multi de philosophia eius latine scripserunt et nomen eius mutaverunt: Emmanuel Kantius. Quoque Thomas Hobbes († 1679) in Hobbesio mutaverunt, et cetera. Ergo hodie licitum est haec nomina latina uti. Sed qui ipsi nomina non mutaverunt neque nullam relationem ad linguam latinam habent, cur mutare? Omnes linguae (Vide Vicipaedia) dicunt “George W. Bush”; sola Vicipaedia latina in “Georgio” mutare audet, etiam “Bushius” uti. Omnes dicunt: “José Plácido Domingo”; sola Vicipaedia latina: “Iosephus Placidus Domingo”. Pessima sors evenit praesidenti Barack Obama, cum Baracus euphemismus anglice (= bad ass) etiam est, hodie toto orbe notissimus, et omnes actoris “Mister T” memori sunt. Et cetera et cetera. Ridiculus mos delendus est. Num sola nomina latine scribere scimus? Utrum encyclopaediam an rem comicam Vicipaediam latinam esse exoptamus? Spqv (disputatio) 10:31, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Brevissime (si permittis, mi Iacobe) verba mea interpono. Vicipaediani hic, sicut in aliis linguis, a fontibus externis incipiunt. "Baracum" scribimus non e mente editoris cuiusdam, sed quia fontem Latinum habemus. Praenomina, quae formam Latinam traditionalem habent, convertere solemus non quia consuetudinem e novo invenimus, sed quia scriptores Latini temporis nostri (e.g. scribae Vaticanae, editores qui titulos Latinos divulgant, oratores universitatum, etc.) eandem rem faciunt, morem maiorum sequentes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:58, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)
Non quidem omnes scriptores, mi Andrea, nam scriptores Nuntiorum Latinorum praenomina missum facere solent. Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, John Kerry, Sergei Lavrov scribunt, quamquam, si opus est, Vladimirum Putin declinant. Ut iam antea monui, morem nostrum nimis orthodoxum esse puto, nec hos laudo Vicipaedianismos: Kevin Costner apud nos Coemgenus Costner, Tamara Smirnova apud nos ex arcanis Thamar Smirnova, Brigitte Bardot apud nos per miram metathesin Birgitta Bardot, etc. Veniam da, si insolentius haec profero. Neminem offendere volo. Neander (disputatio) 12:57, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)
Me non offendis! Neque Coemgenum neque Birgittam (tamquam nomina) amo. Usum nominativi nativi casuumque obliquorum declinatorum iamdudum suasi et ego, si recte memini. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:12, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)
In the world at large, translating forenames into local languages appears to be the default, not the exception, and it cannot therefore surprise anyone. Certainly the world has millions of boys formally named (in Spanish) Juan Pablo in honor of the man whom we call in English John Paul but whose proper name was Ioannes Paulus. Indeed, the Polish wiki, in his native language, translates his name into Jan Paweł. The Samoan wiki calls George III Siaosi III and Elizabeth II Elisapeta II. Plenty of similar examples can be found, even in the rarefied atmosphere of Wikilandia. The practice called ridiculous above may in modern languages be the norm; at the very least, it's not at all unusual. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:48, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)
An norma sit, i quaere! Sed, sicut dicis, saepe fit. Graeci hodierni qui syngraphos habent ibi duo nomina praebent, Graece (stylo classico) et Anglice. Insuper praenomen demoticum habent. Igitur Georgius Papandreu est Γεώργιος apud situm parlamenti Graeci, Γιώργος in diariis, "George" apud Anglos, "Georges" saepius apud Francicos: in syngrapho suo, si recte intellegi, praenomina habebit Γεώργιος et George. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)
Iacobe, papae et reges/reginae hypocoristica quadam vi et sensu a vulgo distingui videntur. Licet Jan Paweł inter Hispanos Juan Pablo sit, Jan Matejko inter Hispanos non Juan Matejko appellatur. Neander (disputatio) 15:20, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Rosa Viterbiensis[fontem recensere]

Gratias, Iacobus. --Cláudio José Aarão Rangel (disputatio) 14:40, 8 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Correction[fontem recensere]

Could you please correct the text in Iacetania? I am not sure if thre is any mistakke --Katxis (disputatio) 21:03, 21 Maii 2016 (UTC)

I found some. The notice is to put links like this Regnum =>[[Regnum]]. I think it is ok and removed the notice.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:46, 22 Maii 2016 (UTC)
Well, almost. The Augenda formula was because the article wasn't complete, with sufficiently long text and reliable external sourcing. The Vicificanda formula was because some of the styling wasn't quite right; it's mostly OK now, but a few quirks remain, like the number 18.664, which is in the wrong form (Vicipaedia follows ISO). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:12, 22 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Jamaican creole[fontem recensere]

Hi! Sorry to bother but could you please explain me the template {{Latinitas|-2}} and the word "Stipula". --Katxis (disputatio) 18:33, 23 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Stipula = 'stub', which Vicipaedia defines technically according to criteria specified by the {{Non stipula}} formula, less completely by the (new) {{Augenda}} formula. Latinitas = 'Latinity', a judgment of (mostly grammatical) quality from 1 to 7, where 1 is best. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:39, 23 Maii 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying it and for your help. :) --Katxis (disputatio) 19:25, 23 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Num opportet omnes subscriptiones puncto concludere?[fontem recensere]

Salve Iacobe, cordialiter te invito, ut istam quaestionem nobiscum in Taberna diputares. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 20:15, 26 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Have you a moment?[fontem recensere]

... if so, please glance at Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby#Litterae Asturianae and maybe give Katxis some hints. I have to break off here. Of course I know you're busy too ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:06, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

Time to break off here too, but categorizing the new articles is probably more urgent. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:14, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

Litterae Asturianae[fontem recensere]

Hi! I've made some changes in Litterae Asturianae. Could you please take a look at it? I hope it is better now. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:12, 2 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

Not just yet; still fixing the categories in articles added yesterday, and no time left today to complete even that task. :/ IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:30, 2 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
No worries. Whenever you have time, please check it out. If you need a hand with categories, just ask me and I'll try to help you. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:55, 2 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Estoria de España, is there any template to indicate that I am still writing the article? --Katxis (disputatio) 14:13, 2 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Happened to see this. Fixed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:25, 2 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby#Cultura Romana antiqua etc.[fontem recensere]

It's quite a long conversation now, but if you cared to add a comment just at the end it would be welcome :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 20 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

Articles[fontem recensere]

Could you please correct the words that are wrong? --Katxis (disputatio) 02:15, 22 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

Ut ait noster Andreas: "I want to be helpful but I cannot spend time on your pages every day. I am only one user, like you, and I have my own work to do. I suggest, if you want help with each page, that you ask each time at the Vicipaedia:Taberna. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:41, 22 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

familiariter utitur[fontem recensere]

Iacobus I just want to express that I appreciate your research about this usage and hope you continue doing this kind of research here at wikipedia.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:55, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Transplantatio organorum[fontem recensere]

Hi Iacobus, I realize you are busy but could you help me out with this article, what you find dubius or incorrect. Thanks in advance.--Jondel (disputatio) 15:42, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm busy, but worse: I'm not even here! You might find me on the Mall. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:08, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Ow knock yourself out, PARTY!!! Anyway, tonight we dine in HELL! I will be posting the English version and hopefully Neander (and you would help me out :) ).--Jondel (disputatio) 00:14, 4 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

I have cousins in Sta Ana and Orange County and stayed there. They drove me all the way to Las Vegas.--Jondel (disputatio) 00:16, 4 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

hymni[fontem recensere]

Salve, Iacobe. Inspicias quaeso paginam hymnus eiusque indices omnes fere rubricatos. Hi cantus, ut mi videtur, nullo modo hymni possunt dici. Sunt, ut tu ipse in pagina discussionis affirmas, res aliae. Nonne delendi sunt? --Bavarese (disputatio) 14:56, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

dubsigs[fontem recensere]

Salve Iacobus, ut vales? May encourage you to continue placing dubsigs, they are very useful both for learning and fixing the latin. I may be working to fix the nympha marina, for example to replace ascitur with collegitur or additus.Thanks and best regards.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:10, 7 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Salve Iacobe, gratias (Oxazepamum). hoc mei auxiliarissime sentio. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 12:54, 23 Martii 2017 (UTC)

Bili ape[fontem recensere]

Hi Iacobus , kindly be more specific about what is incorrect or vague with this article. Thank you.--Jondel (disputatio) 15:21, 24 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

De latinitate maxdubia[fontem recensere]

Iacobe, ethicam deontologicam tantis erroribus scatere vidisti, ut commentationem latinitate maxdubia scriptam esse iudicares. Cum tu et ego soli textum ediderimus, nec credo te textum a te ipso editum vituperare, fieri potest, ut meam latinitatem repudiaris. Itaque rogo, ut errores in textu repertos indices. Neander (disputatio) 13:21, 31 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

I didn't deliberately add that marking and I don't know why it's there! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:40, 31 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Wait! I've figured out how it happened! I was copying the image
{{Latinitas|-3}}[[Fasciculus:Jeremy_Bentham_by_Henry_William_Pickersgill_detail.jpg|thumb|200 px|Ieremias Bentham.]]
from the page on Ieremias Bentham, and as you see here, the "Latinitas|-3" came along for the ride. I didn't notice it! Since your Latin is far better than mine, you can be sure that I wouldn't intentionally mark it maxdubia! (I'll go and delete that rating now.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:45, 31 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
OK, to tell the truth, I had to rub my eyes a few times, but it didn't go away! :–) Neander (disputatio) 15:58, 31 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Bono[fontem recensere]

By the way, you might want to think about rephrasing "Rectum Bono praefertur." It's perfectly good Latin, succinct & clear, but impressionable teenagers are going to snicker that it means 'A rectum is preferred to Bono.' (!!!) Maybe lowercasing bono would help. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:52, 31 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

As you certainly have realized, I have a near-compulsory dislike of initial majuscula. :–) Now that I for once used this stylistic gimmick, the result is deplorable: comparing Bono with rectum, and preferring the latter! Phew! Maybe it's better, indeed, to return to my old habits. Neander (disputatio) 15:58, 31 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Abrahamus Bloteling[fontem recensere]

Salve, Iacobe. Jacobsdr. (Jacob dochter) valet "Iacobi filia". --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 17:59, 1 Septembris 2016 (UTC)

Edwinus Atherstone and Stropha regalis[fontem recensere]

Salve, please forgive me using international language instead of Latin, but I did not have much Latin at school. Thank You very much for reviewing my articles. I think Edwin Atherstone should be in Latin Wikipedia, as he wrote chiefly about ancient wars, battles and disasters. Perhaps another, more detailed, article about The Fall of Nineveh should be made and - one day I hope - will be written. Another thing is about Stropha regalis. I had no source for Latin name of the stanza, it is just a translation. I do not know, if somebody ever wrote about the form in Latin. You surely know that the strophe is called also Chaucerian strophe or Troilus strophe, but I did not find any text written in Latin with such terms. I just thought that Kynaston's work should be appreciated. May be, his translation is the only example of the use of rhyme royal in Latin. Although non sum dignus, I would like to write something else for Latin Wikipedia, but I am afraid I will work very slowly. Thanks once again (Anagram16 (disputatio) 23:20, 3 Septembris 2016 (UTC))

Any honest attempts to contribute are welcome, so please feel free to continue, and good luck! One of the best Latin poets of the nineteenth century is said to have been Walter Savage Landor. He got into legal trouble for some of his Latin insults. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:02, 17 Septembris 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the Muisca additions[fontem recensere]

Hi IacobusAmor, thanks for the Muisca articles you translated into Latin. For me it's too long ago and too far down in my brain to actively use Latin, but nice to see. What about adding a category Muisca, to have the (hopefully) future articles organised in one category? The detail I am building in en:wiki may be too much for now, but 1 cat for "Muisca" would be good? Keep up the good work and I will hopefully add more Muisca soon. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Cheers, Tisquesusa (disputatio) 00:35, 17 Septembris 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Our category maven is Andrew Dalby; I prefer the category structure of the English wiki, but it gets adjusted over here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:02, 17 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
First time in my life anyone's called me a maven!
Of course a category can be added as soon as anyone's sure Vicipaedia will have a plurality of articles on the subject. A category that remains populated by only one article is at some risk of being eventually merged or deleted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 17 Septembris 2016 (UTC)

Alta Franciae[fontem recensere]

Salve Iacobe, rogo te, ut responsum meum in pagina disputationis Alta Franciae [1] legeres! Spero valeas! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:41, 3 Novembris 2016 (UTC)

Secretary of Labor[fontem recensere]

I noticed the Latin equivalent you cited, "Secretary of Labor = Minister Laboris". What do you think about this yourself? I asked myself the question just recently when making navigation boxes for other US "Secretaries". Eventually I saw no reason not to use the word "secretarius". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:29, 20 Novembris 2016 (UTC)

I suppose they're both OK. I've been treating governmental departments as ministeria, and so their heads might just as well be ministri (of whom the chief is of course the primus). For the political sense of 'secretary', Traupman gives the generic term (ad)minister—but then he gives six examples: secretary of agriculture, commerce, education, the interior, state or foreign affairs, the treasury = agriculturae provehendae, commercii, eruditionis, rerum interiorum, rerum externarum, aerarii praefectus. So that's not one, not two, but three possibilies! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:50, 20 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
For a governmental agency (distinct from a department), I've been using agentura, which seems to be unclassical. The distinction has just become urgent in the United States because Donald Trump apparently wants to hire his son-in-law to work for him in the White House, but a federal antinepotism law forbids such a thing in governmental "agencies"—and so Trump's apologists are now arguing that the White House isn't an agency. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:56, 20 Novembris 2016 (UTC)

Categoria:Pagi Samoani[fontem recensere]

A propos, you might care to glance at your pages in this category. Some are currently marked "augenda". All they lack, I think, is an external source. It may even be that one source would serve for all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:52, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking of tidying them up, alongside certain Oceanic languages, as part of a December cleanup. So much to do! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:27, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

NexInt[fontem recensere]

Nesciebam de elegante nova formula {{NexInt}}, mi Iacobe! --Xaverius 08:40, 9 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Multae res fiebantur te absente, amice! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:09, 9 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

De nexibus rubris[fontem recensere]

Why you put link with page that don´t exist? That is unnecessary, and hurt the seeing.--Al-Baco (disputatio) 16:59, 27 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Mos vicipaedianus. Maybe you didn't notice that I inserted two correct links whose bad versions you'd deleted (if you'd tried harder, you might have found them: gens Iulia for the wrong [[Iulia (familia)]] and Bucolica for the wrong [[Bucolica (Vergilius)]]); one of the other red links will be turning blue today because of an article that's about to be added (because the red link enticed me to work on it). Also, the page in question (Aeneis) is one of the 10,000 officially most important pages, and for purposes of the competition at Meta, longer is better. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:33, 27 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Iacobus. Red links are often very useful, because they encourage people to create needed articles (compare the English guideline at en:WP:RED). Lesgles (disputatio) 18:01, 27 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Papuan languages[fontem recensere]

It's really good to have some articles about languages of this group. How about the suffix -ana? Do we need to do that (given that e.g. English doesn't)? Should we do it without a source for the adjective? My feeling would be that "Lingua Angal", like the English, works OK and means that we aren't inventing anything. But what's your view?

Happy New Year, incidentally :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 1 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Well, unless you have a source, I'll move those pages. Several years ago I verified all the names of language pages, moving those whose "Latin" name couldn't be verified. Let's keep up that standard: nolemus fingere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:01, 26 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Ah, what? (Sorry; missed this.) It seems like a productive suffix to me. (Indeed, it's officially so in botany.) The English Engan languages presupposes Latin linguae Enganae, not linguae Enga. Similarly Papuan and Papuana. And so forth. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:34, 26 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Consider the pagenames Lingua Angaliana, Lingua Engana, Lingua Huliana, Lingua Ipiliana, Lingua Kewana, Lingua Kyakana, Lingua Lembena, Lingua Neteana, Lingua Samberigiana. I haven't seen any parallel outside Latin for those names: I think they are made up. If there are parallels, please, by all means cite them! Otherwise, these seem to be unnecessary inventions. We're not supposed to do that, and we don't need to.
What I mean is, we could just say "lingua Angal" etc. and that means we're not making anything up. Isn't that better? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:27, 27 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine, but the English does warrant a differentation between lingua Enga ('Enga language') and linguae Enganae ('Engan languages'), the anus suffix serving a linguistic function; compare the icus suffix for protolanguages. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:35, 27 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that, and I think the English names for the groups, containing that Latin suffix -an, indeed give us just the precedent we need for names in -ana. You pointed this out above, incidentally showing that my initial comment wasn't perfectly clear (I was probably rushing to save the page before dinner). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 27 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Nystalus Obamai etc.[fontem recensere]

I'm enjoying learning about an unexpected aspect of the Obama legacy. Thank you! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 27 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. One or two more biota named after him have no entry in any wiki yet, and I haven't had time to compile an article on them de novo. Feel free to do so, if you like! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:24, 27 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to get Teleogramma obamaorum (a fish named for the whole family) done soon. There's a Cuban bee with no separate article (of genus Lasioglossum) and a parasitic worm (Paragordius obamai). So that's ten items. Will Trump have more? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:33, 27 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Note the genitive seen in obamai‎. Do zoologists know that they're using an archaic form here (obamāī)? They've probably decided to form genitives universally by adding i to proper nouns. With names ending in a, botanists wouldn't do that, would they? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:43, 27 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Mandarins[fontem recensere]

You were right to reinstate the "FD ref" against "Lingua Mandarina normalis" -- I carelessly deleted it while preparing a version of the beginning of that article to go on our pagina prima. Do you have anything to add at Disputatio:Lingua Mandarina? All comments welcome! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:49, 31 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

But I hadn't noticed your deletion! I was just wanting to prompt people to search for a source. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:51, 31 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

[...]²[fontem recensere]

Yes, and you can tell me what my page interferes on the other articles? I'm not causing any problems on other pages, you just go to my page if you want, no one is forcing you. --HunteWinchester123 (disputatio) 21:31, 12 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about interference. I was just trying to be useful in suggesting ways you might help with the project. That, after all, is the central question: how can we improve scope and the Latinity of Vicipaedia? I'm not an administrator, so feel free to take your questions elsewhere. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:57, 12 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation in captions[fontem recensere]

You might want to comment at the Taberna? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:25, 21 Martii 2017 (UTC)

de partibus frumenti[fontem recensere]

Salve amice! Ut video, in pagina fascis heri laboravisti. Certe eam partem frumenti, e qua fasces fecisti, caulem appellare licet. Sed usitatius et testibus melius probatum mihi vocabulum culmus videtur esse. Tu quidem de ea re quid sentis? Vale! --Bavarese (disputatio) 10:27, 2 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

Qua pro causa definitionem in Wikipedia Anglica iam in paginis privatis converteram ut commentarium de culmo in Vicipaediam mox inonerarem. Ideo ambo texta nunc misceo. Manent autem haec verba:
In the production of malted grains the culms refer to the rootlets of the germinated grains. The culms are normally removed in a process known as "deculming" after kilning when producing barley malt, but form an important part of the product when making sorghum or millet malt. These culms are very nutritious and are sold off as animal feed.><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.fao.org/ag/AGA/AGAP/FRG/AFRIS/Data/467.HTM | title=Malt culms, malt sprouts, malt coombs | publisher=Animal Feed Resources Information System}}</ref>
Gratias! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:02, 2 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)

Timothaeus?[fontem recensere]

Hi, Iacobe. I doubt that "Timothaeus" is a usual spelling: I think the name comes from Greek Τιμόθεος, which converts normally to Latin "Timotheus". The spelling "Timothaeus" is fairly rare on Google. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 25 Maii 2017 (UTC)

Oops. Well, let's change it back then. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:08, 25 Maii 2017 (UTC)

Poets[fontem recensere]

It is distinctly useful to have lists of poets by country. I'm really glad you're doing that! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:51, 7 Iunii 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. A few have problematic nationalities, so they're being left for later. It's surprising how many countries have no poets. Sadly, one is finding that many of these articles, especially those that date from the early days of the project, were typed with characteristic sloppiness, and their coding wantonly includes extra spaces, extra blanklines, unnecessary italics, gratuitous instances of "right" and "250px" in illustrations, the use of "mortuus est" where "mortuus" is better, and so forth. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:25, 7 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
So many of those pages copy-edited, so many still to do. Let us praise the Vicipaedian who gave us such entries rather than no entries at all, but I only wish that, having typed them, he had paused for a moment to read them :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 7 Iunii 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but that's the least of our worries (says someone who lives a mile from the White House). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:02, 7 Iunii 2017 (UTC)

Lien[fontem recensere]

Thank you for your help in analysing the article. Please feel free to provide constructive advise or even correct it. I will be making some corrections. Thanks in advance.--Jondel (disputatio) 07:01, 28 Iunii 2017 (UTC)

Imagines bis datae[fontem recensere]

When we have a duplicate image because of the addition of an infobox, there's sometimes another way to deal with it. If the image is not a mugshot (I hate the term, but they use it as standard on Vicipaedia Anglica these days), it may be better to insert a mugshot as the preferred image at Wikidata, and to retain our image on our page ... which will (a) with luck, have an informative caption, and (b) no longer be identical with the image that comes through from Wikidata. This is what I have done at Guillelmus II (rex Siciliae) and Lucius III. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

OK, but note the problem with bibliographical formulas that random recasting turned up in Lucius III. The best way to handle bibliographic entries might be to use a formula that will produce text in a style chosen by readers. Sometimes one sees hard-coded styles or formula-produced styles that make one say "Ugh," but some of these formulas are obscure enough not to be modifiable without bothersome research. This is an ancient problem. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:47, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
...err.. I wasn't talking about bibliographical formulas but about the infobox. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:13, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was acknowledging the problem of twice-given images and then raising another issue. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:05, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
That's good.
I don't know what the bibliographical issue was (was it on those same pages?): my general response is that we ought really to be able to agree on a bibliographical format, but it would require discussion and compromise. If that happened, we could keep to the agreed standard in future, and all formulae could be adjusted to match, quite easily in most cases. I don't think anything's hard-coded. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:15, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Gualterus Ophamil[fontem recensere]

Hunc effectum produxit interventio tua: Delle Donne, Fulvio. 2003. {{{3}}}, "Gualtiero" in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (Romae)? 60: 224–227. Auctoris nomen D.J.A. Matthew minime redarguisti, quia Dalby id fecit? Et quid sit de latino disputando? --Enzian44 (disputatio) 00:40, 13 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

I just happened to look at that page this morning. I removed your hidden text in English: surely it's bad to add hidden text, especially if not in Latin, to a page that is in a good state? It makes the page worse in general. Specifically it makes it more difficult for other editors, especially those who don't use English, to edit. I notice that the hidden text was about the problem you raise in our discussion just above. Always happy to discuss bibliographical formats, but let's do it where others can join in :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:41, 13 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Zubin Mehta[fontem recensere]

It was an almost empty page to which I added some curriculum vitae. So, what made you then add "ScDub"? Was it some terrible mistake of mine? Do tell ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:57, 28 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

He's a conductor, not a concentus magister. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:39, 28 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you couldn't remember the Latin for "conductor", why didn't you at least say what was wrong? A tiny bit unhelpful to put a tag like that, without explanation, on a page which has two inaccurate words. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:40, 29 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
In rebus musicis variae notionum confusiones esse solent, sicut hic. Herbert von Karajan "concentus magister" appellatur, et Leonard Bernstein "dux orchestrae", quoae appellatio invicem in "concentus magistrum" dirigitur. Equidem lexicon Vilborgianum secutus illos homines (nec non Mehtam) moderatores musicorum dixerim. Neander (disputatio) 11:06, 29 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
Gratias ago. Id nunc scripsi, formula {{ScDub}} deleta. Tibi placet, Iacobe? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:30, 29 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

"Fixed typo"[fontem recensere]

I was looking through your recent contributions, hoping to spot a potential pagina mensis, and this caught my eye. You're 100% right, needless to say. Maybe you are aware of what I'm going to say already, but just in case you're not: there is an anonymous user who quite frequently inserts low-grade vandalism with edit summaries like "fixed typo". Curiously, in this case, it wasn't exactly vandalism: a reasonable person might really feel that Michel Temer is not among the must-have illustrations for an article on Brazil. However, whether this means that the said anonymous user has suddenly come out as left-of-Genghis-Khan, or has a politically active twin sister who uses the same edit summary, or it's a complete coincidence, isn't clear, at least to me ...

If you have any recent long articles that you'd like to suggest as pagina mensis, please say at once! now's the time! I have left this a bit too long. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:45, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know that, about low-grade anonymous vandalism, but now that you explain it, it seems likely—and human nature being what it is, we can predict with a fair degree of confidence that the world has produced more than one such perpetrator. (I hadn't noticed it here before; maybe you're speaking about other wikis?) ¶ As for paginae mensis, have we done Petrus Seeger? As you probably know, you can find my contributions in the series of annual pages of which this is the current one. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:03, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I was trying to remember the name, of course I'd seen the Pete Seeger article. It will surely be used. I'll put a comment on the Pagina mensis page asking for other suggestions. Don't hang back. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
That article has a thickly revelatory historical photo, showing the First Lady of the United States being entertained by a U.S. Army soldier who at the time was (secretly) a member of the Communist Party, surrounded by blacks & whites in a city where the mixing of the races at social events was generally prohibited. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:24, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Ecclesia Sancti Ioannis Baptistae in Pulchra Villa[fontem recensere]

Tibi gratias ago, vale!!! Rei Momo (disputatio) 14:33, 16 Augusti 2017 (UTC)

Two formulae or one?[fontem recensere]

Hi, Iacobe. I notice that you continue to use both "Non stipula" and "Augenda". And why not? Both exist! But I was wondering whether both of them need to go on existing, or whether we can merge them. What do you think? The advantage of "Augenda" is that it is dated (to the month) automatically, making it easier to see when a page is out of time. A substantive difference between the two is that "Augenda" offers three months, "Non stipula" six months, but that's really just history and I don't believe there's any reason to continue with two different deadlines.

Anyway, I'd be glad to hear your views. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 20 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

I thought we'd agreed that inadequate articles contributed before some fixed date (July 2016, perhaps) were to get the "Non stipula" formula, and any such articles contributed after then were to get the "Augenda" one. Maybe the agreement was unclear. ¶ Many times, however, I've asked myself if especially the older "Non stipula" ones shouldn't be sent to some sort of limbo, rather than the death row (so to speak) where they now live, subject to random execution. After all, some of them are in the 10K---or even 1K---list, and Vicipaedia can't afford to go without them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:55, 20 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, I feel sure you're right and we did say that initially, but I am wondering if the distinction continues to be useful.
As to being on death row, I see what you mean but I regard these formulae as being the "limbo" rather than the "death row". I don't think I have ever deleted a page that was in the 10,000 (or maybe there was one, consisting of nine totally useless words) and even with other pages I'm sure we all often improve them, to push them over the bar, rather than let them fall. If we're worried about this, incidentally, we could agree that six months is a better deadline than three months. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 20 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
A propos, but a very minor point, I couldn't see what made Libatio a "Non stipula" so I took out that formula. Please put it back by all means, but maybe with a helpful hint :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:24, 20 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
Ha! I was just intending to remove the expired "succurre" formula; so you did right. As a rule, all pre-breakfast edits should be subject to more scrutiny than properly caffeinated ones! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:55, 20 Septembris 2017 (UTC)
A useful rule, I'll remember it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 20 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

Beneharo[fontem recensere]

What it means is: That Beneharo accepted the Spanish conquest of the island. In all the Latin articles of these Guanche kings he speaks of this, of the kings who fought against the Spanish conquerors and the kings who peacefully accepted the conquest.

Adjoña, Añaterve, Beneharo and Pelinor accepted the conquest peacefully.
Acaimo, Bencomo, Pelicar, Romen and Tegueste II did not accept it and war with the Spaniards.

Greetings.-- 08:21, 25 Septembris 2017 (UTC)

De pagina prima mea[fontem recensere]

Pagina mea habebat magnos erroros, quaeso adiuvatis me corrigere hos erroros, sed scio Latine male. Debeo scribere: nescio Anglice item. Scribitisne Russice? P. S. Nolite delere paginam meam, Товарищ герцог Мальборо [die 11 Novembris 2017, hora 13:58)]

Ne te crucia: paginas delere nequeo. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:06, 11 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
Intellegisne quid scribam in pagina de signis? Товарищ герцог Мальборо [die 11 Novembris 2017, hora 13:58)]
Intellego. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:14, 11 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
Num haec pagina habet grammaticos errores? Товарищ герцог Мальборо [die 11 Novembris 2017, hora 13:58)]
Errorus non est verbum Latinum. In dictionario vide mendum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:03, 11 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
Error est verbum diclinationis tertiae. Товарищ герцог Мальборо [die 11 Novembris 2017, hora 13:58)]
Ita vero, error est verbum Latinum; erroros tamen non est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:30, 11 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
Videbam huius verbum in vocabularo Dvoretscii. Tamen, quaeso corrigere mea munda in pagina de signis diacriticis. Товарищ герцог Мальборо [die 11 Novembris 2017, hora 13:58)]
Tempore hodie careo. Vale. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:30, 11 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
Intellego hanc phrasam. Gratias.

Usus declinationis[fontem recensere]

Salvete! Habebam usum diclinationis antiquae in verbo error: alternatio o et e in principio huius diclinationis erat (legebam de historia morphologiae Latinae) Et nota vestra exacta est. In Latina Classica (et Latina vulgaris item) "error" est verbum diclinationis tertiae. P. S. Gratias, commilito. Cognitiones vestrae in Latina magnae sunt, sed meae malae sint. Товарищ герцог Мальборо

Si de historia morphologiae Latinae legebas, optime, o amice. Sed hic scribenti, adiumenta petenti, tibi melius erit consilium accipere: linguá Latiná "erroros" error est :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 12 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
Gratias, Andrea! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:15, 12 Novembris 2017 (UTC)
Ubi est linguá Latiná in historia huius linguae? Non videbam haec verba in libro. Videbam tantummodo alternationem diclinationis tertiae. Товарищ герцог Мальборо
Hmm, melius mihi erit in pagina disputationis tua respondere. (Ave, Iacobe!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 12 Novembris 2017 (UTC)

Non tua, sed vestra. Respicite meam personam, quaeso[[Disputatio Usoris:Товарищ герцог Мальборо

De Dundate, politico Anglico[fontem recensere]

Salvete! Si vultis, potestis corrigere meos errores huius paginae.Товарищ герцог Мальборо (disputatio) 16:17, 9 Decembris 2017 (UTC)

Double infinitive[fontem recensere]

Happy New Year Iacobus!! This is an example of a double infinitive(Ita hac opinione fretus tuto se facere posse existimabat.) with which you created so much attention. Best regards.--Jondel (disputatio) 02:09, 7 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me for intruding -- I have no idea of the context of your discussion, Donald Trump and Michael Wolff must have monopolized my attention -- but double infinitives are quite often seen in the context of an accusative and infinitive construction (with main verb of saying or thinking, existimabat in this case) if the leading verb within the construction (posse in this case) would regularly demand an infinitive anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 8 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)
Mysteries abound! Maybe someone will supply a link? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:20, 8 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, I can't seem to find the link, I'm obviously mistaken. Although I've been avoiding this usage. Thanks Iacobus and Andrew for clearing this up.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:30, 9 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)

I reverted ... momentarily ...[fontem recensere]

... at Septentrio, because by removing the old interwiki links you demonstrated that, for some strange reason, no Wikidata link had taken their place. So I created a Wikidata link, and then restored your edit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 9 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[fontem recensere]

WMF Surveys, 18:41, 29 Martii 2018 (UTC)

Apple or not[fontem recensere]

Thanks for deleting the stultitias at Malum.

I noticed you rephrased an existing hidden argument about the fruit in the Garden of Eden. I've deleted it now, because surely disputes are for the talk page and the best thing to do with hidden text is, almost always, to remove it.

As to the point raised, there's not much wrong with the Latin sentence as it stands, is there? Some people do call it an apple, and some artists have painted it as such. I guess one could expand the sentence to say that the texts don't support this identification and there are many others. Would that be your solution?

But I guess what's really needed is a Latin page corresponding to en:Forbidden fruit. The identification is discussed at length there, and illustrated with a Breughel/Raphael painting in which it certainly is an apple, though Adam seems to be looking at the wrong (pair of) fruits. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 6 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)

Iocozuna[fontem recensere]

Asashorius has not been "solus Iocozuna" of sumo for a decade now. 22:41, 8 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[fontem recensere]

WMF Surveys, 01:39, 13 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[fontem recensere]

WMF Surveys, 00:48, 20 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)

Formula:BE-WLX[fontem recensere]

Hi, Iacobe. Your edit to this template was maybe a slip of the pen? I reverted it. A template (formula) isn't an encyclopedia page, needn't be wikified, and shouldn't be lengthened. It wants to be as short and efficient as possible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:47, 5 Maii 2018 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't notice. Thanks for fixing it! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:45, 5 Maii 2018 (UTC)

Gosh[fontem recensere]

Gosh, here am I reverting again. That move to Syndroma Skuminianum: the rule is to cite a source when you move a page, unless you do it to improve poor Latinity. In this case you weren't improving, because (a) syndroma is feminine (if I mistake not, Watson) (b) "Skuminianum" seems to be a made-up word. Tell me if I'm wrong.

I found and cited a source for "Syndroma Skumin", see the footnote, but I'm not satisfied with it: it's a wild wiki and could well have been written by our own contributor immediately before our page was created. However, if there is eventually no good source to be found, "Syndroma Skumin" contains no invented words and would therefore remain acceptable as a translated term, if I understand our guidelines correctly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 9 Maii 2018 (UTC)

Since the time of Caesar at the latest, a syntactic transform functional in the living language has been (and in botany formally remains) freely to add (i)anus to make an adjective from personal names. See formuala illa Einsteiniana (by Stephen Berard) and Oratio Bushiana (at Ephemeris) and de administratione Trumpiana (also at Ephemeris). ¶ Syndroma could well be feminine (and as such it does get hits via Google), but examples of neuter exist, both on the internet (e.g., "cum signis syndromatis Arias-Stellae," and in Vicipaedia itself (e.g., in Antiarrhythmicum). Something to be investigated! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:08, 9 Maii 2018 (UTC)
Well, go ahead, but it's borrowed from classical Greek συνδρομή, 1st decl. feminine, already used by medical authors to mean 'concurrence of symptoms' etc., so I'm thinking those people have made a mistake.
I agree -ianus and -ensis are actively used in classical-to-current Latin to form new adjectives. If I encounter apparent neologisms of this kind in our text, and they read naturally, and I can understand them, I generally leave them alone. But in pagenames our rules surely don't allow us to make up such words. Since our pagenames are (willy nilly, via Google) an almost universal source on the Latin name for things, and it's good that Vicipaedia (willy nilly, via Google) is taken seriously on this, we should be careful with pagenames and follow our guidelines.
Of course it's just great if Ephemeris, or the Vatican, or the Linnaean nomenclatura, or a university oration, or any recent Latin publication, gives us the word. That's quite different: we use the word and cite the source. Others can see where we got the word from, and judge the name accordingly. We don't help anyone if we make up words in pagenames. Let's face it, it is common in classical-to-modern Latin to borrow foreign names in an unchanged or transliterated form, and most modern languages do the same. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:11, 9 Maii 2018 (UTC)
Who writes syndroma, -atis commits an understandable mistake called hypercorrection. It's true that the shape of syndroma suggests a neuter noun for anyone with some knowledge of Greek, but ultimately, each word has a life of its own. The natural Latin counterpart of Greek συνδρομή is syndroma, -ae like the counterpart of Greek κόμη is coma, -ae. Neander (disputatio) 16:15, 9 Maii 2018 (UTC)
As far as I understood the a-declension in ancient greek for singular (nom., gen., dat., acc.) is: συνδρομή, συνδρομῆς, συνδρομῇ, συνδρομήν; plural: συνδρομαί, συνδρομῶν, συνδρομαῖς, συνδρομας. Would that be correct? Further, I read, it may be possible in latin to use to form of declensions, a latinized and a greek version:
Latin: syndroma, -ae, -ae, -am, -ā; -ae, -ārum, -īs, -ās, -īs.
"Greek" forms correct?: syndromē, syndromēs ?, syndrome (/-i?), syndromen, syndromē; plural: syndromae, syndromon?, syndromīs?, sydromās, syndromīs?
Apud varias dissertationes inaugurales I found several forms of συνδρομή, f. with greek declensions: nominativi "syndrome", accusativi "[2]syndromen", ablativi "syndrome". Somehow it appears to me, the greek derived forms could the preferred ones. What do you think?
Andreas Raether (disputatio) 19:30, 11 Novembris 2018 (UTC)

à propos[fontem recensere]

It's amazing how often a chance edit of yours lays bare the fact that something deeper may be wrong with a page. I have now tagged Syndroma Skumin for deletion. On the disputatio page see my references to the repeated deletion discussions on en:wiki. And please comment, either way :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:54, 9 Maii 2018 (UTC)

A mystery! The doctor's bio in the English wiki does cite the syndrome, but with a link to the French wiki. The Russian has a suffix that seems to make the term Skumin's syndrome or the Skuminian syndrome. No more time today. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:26, 9 Maii 2018 (UTC)

Civitate Italus[fontem recensere]

Salve, Iacobe! Conlator "2A02:A03F:5050:C100:69F0:9420:F30D:545B" maluit civitate Italus &c scribere, et quidem recte; cf. Cic. de legibus 2.5 "ortu Tusculanus ... civitate Romanus". Neander (disputatio) 11:39, 15 Maii 2018 (UTC)

Ubi? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:00, 15 Maii 2018 (UTC)

US of A[fontem recensere]

Thank you very much for struggling to keep this in its proper place. I have blocked the other user. I notice that the version I restored has L-3. It's a pity that such a busy page is marked thus (though it's not the only one!) Could you possibly try to judge what might be wrong, and, if you can't put it right yourself or the problem is too general, indicate briefly on the talk page where work is needed? That would be really helpful. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:22, 7 Septembris 2018 (UTC)

No time at the moment for any major work, but my memory is that parts of the text are more or less L-1, but some sections are L-3 or worse. Maybe the average could be raised to L-2. As for the renaming of the page: I defended the lemma but thought it best to let a magistrate handle the redirects, lest I inadvertently do something to make the situation worse. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:49, 7 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
It looks as if yours truly on 11 Iulii 2011 raised the rating from L-4 to L-3 (where it's remained ever since) but had earlier lowered it from L-2 to L-4. Clearly something to check when time becomes available! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:03, 7 Septembris 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that already gives useful clues. I'll have a look myself. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 7 Septembris 2018 (UTC)

Mass creation[fontem recensere]

As with the Big Bang (but unfortunately Wikimedia was not functioning at that epoch, hence the mess the universe is in right now) a mass creation can be mass deleted. As soon as I saw your alert I did that. Another time, no need for you to edit them all: the single message was enough. But thanks for your tireless vigilance! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:30, 20 Septembris 2018 (UTC)

It's good news indeed that you have a reset button—as long as it's applicable globally. What if 100,000 different IP addresses more or less simultaneously added 100,000 articles each? Could that kind of attack be instantly undone too? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:06, 20 Septembris 2018 (UTC)

Mohamed Salah[fontem recensere]

I restored the text (which maybe you never saw) just in case the creator wants to emend it: otherwise "delete" will certainly be the answer. In the meanwhile, note the term "ius-winger". How would you go about explaining to Google Translate that it doesn't quite work? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:58, 6 Octobris 2018 (UTC)

The article when it came into view on my screen consisted of a blank page, which naturally wanted to be deleted. "Ius-winger" LOL. Not even "ius-alator" or "alaficator." :D IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:38, 6 Octobris 2018 (UTC)

Three templates are too many?[fontem recensere]

I suggest that adding three templates all at once, even to a highly unfinished page, is too much: it's like three punches in the nose. If the "augenda" template is attended to, "delenda" will become false; if the "augenda" template is ignored, deletion would follow. Hence, logically, use "delenda" only if the prescriptions given under "augenda" would not cure the problem. Does that work?

It is, probably, impossible for unfamiliar users to create a fully satisfactory page via a mobile, but the system encourages them to try. We're mopping up the mess. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:55, 20 Octobris 2018 (UTC)

OK, now that (as chance had it) I'm about done with this basket of hiccups posing as articles! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:01, 20 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
Wait! It might be said that the Augenda formula doesn't require the text to have a lemma. Novices need to be told precisely the kinds of changes they should make. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:05, 20 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
I can say "wait!" too. I think I really mean, roughly two templates plus {{Nexus desiderati}}. We have to have interwiki links. But that one is a small template at the foot of the page, more like a dig in the ribs than a punch in the nose ...
Yes, lemma is true: this user omits lemmata. We could addd that point to the "Augenda" formula. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:16, 20 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
It could be said to be there in the phrase "textu, qui rem definit," but novices may take the rem as being the title, rather than the (boldfaced) subject of the first sentence, so the wording of the Augenda formla might want to be more explicit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:48, 20 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
I added the need for a lemma. One is compromising between the perfect and the possible: not all tirones know how to do boldface (but any subsequent editor can add boldface for them, so I didn't demand it); but then, not all tirones know what a lemma is ... Still, it may help! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 20 Octobris 2018 (UTC)
Macte! Sed in "cum nomine paginae congruens" melius congruente? Sive quam speciose congruente paginae nomine (the model syntax in Bradley's Arnold being vera animi magnitudo 'true greatness of mind')? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:29, 20 Octobris 2018 (UTC)

LZ 129 Hindenburg[fontem recensere]

I noticed your helpful edits to this page. I changed the order of the supplementa to "Notae, Bibliographia, Nexus interni, Nexus externi" as we discussed and fixed it in 2011 and confirmed it in 2016 ... Easy to forget, I know! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:02, 21 Novembris 2018 (UTC)

Ricardus Simmons[fontem recensere]

It's maybe worth explaining, incidentally ... I see now the history of "Ricardus Simmons" with all your reverts and all your improvements, but I never saw any of them at the time when you made them because you marked them all as "minor". You're a highly trusted, highly experienced user, so I don't check your minor edits, and I don't suppose any other magistratus checks them either. That's why your capitalized appeal to sleeping MAGISTRATUS was never seen by me, nor, probably, by any magistratus, even when we woke up. By ticking the "minor" box you were saying "No one needs to look at this", and that included the edit summary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:37, 3 Decembris 2018 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't know that. My screen shows all the minor edits, where much of the action is! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:27, 3 Decembris 2018 (UTC)
And I'm very glad you do watch them. It's amazing how many undesirable small edits you catch and correct. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:22, 3 Decembris 2018 (UTC)
I shouldn't have reverted you today -- Jeff Dunham's Latin was worse than I thought. This happened because I had improved it and had then carelessly reverted myself. 31 December resolution: no more reverts. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 31 Decembris 2018 (UTC)

Seleucia ad Tigrim[fontem recensere]

I noticed your much-needed improvements, also the move of an image to the top of the page. I moved it back again -- here's why. There was already one image at the top (a map); if we put multiple images at the top of any page, it means, on a mobile screen, you have to sweep downwards some way before you see any text at all. Half our readers, or more, are on mobiles, and many of these with short attention spans, and it's better if they see at least some text before flicking on impatiently. In fact the Wikimedia people who do the mobile design recommend no image before the first paragraph of text. Personally I think that would be pointless or counter-productive -- and an enormously laborious change on all the Wikipedias -- but only one image before the text is probably a goodish idea.

As to which image should come at the top, that's quite another question, one that is well worth pondering, if we hope to catch the eyes of the same mobile readers. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 5 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

How about putting all such files but the first immediately after the first paragraph, as I've just done with Petropolis (Dacota Meridiana)? Since we don't know how they're going to sort themselves out later, when articles will be expanding, often by a huge factor (five! ten! twenty! forty!), we might as well just put them in one place and let later graphic designers choose their best locations. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:00, 5 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
For the same reason, and for general design reasons, it's surely better still to sprinkle them through: one at the head of each section or each paragraph ... Which is roughly what we normally do anyway ... A big bunch of images at any point suggests a badly designed article. If starting a stub one might add a couple of extra images that seem essential so as to have them ready when expanding, but why more? Those who come along afterwards to enlarge the article will want to choose, and will have more and different images to choose from than we have, and can look at en: and other wikis to get more ideas: to spend time choosing for them would be a waste, wouldn't it? ... But I must admit, life is short, the art of writing a Vicipaedia is long, we merely do our best :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 5 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)
On another matter, I hope you don't disapprove of the "page-of-the-day" idea for the Vicipaedia:Pagina prima. In the nature of things, choosing among recent pages means choosing yours as well as others ... No harm in highlighting them, I feel. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:47, 5 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Shorter way?[fontem recensere]

Not wishing to divert a discussion that's going on elsewhere, I comment here: everything else (as in Lord High Everything Else) is crying out for use as a descriptor either of the set of humans who are potentially relevant to that association, or of the set of humans who are not potentially relevant to it. But I'm hanged if I know which. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:52, 16 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)