Disputatio Usoris:Lesgles/Tabularium II

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Vide etiam paginam disputationis principalem.

de Krull Felice[fontem recensere]

Salve. Bene fecisti eum fraudatorem denominans. Ad initium anni quaecumque sunt in votis tibi optans te salutat: --Bavarese (disputatio) 14:41, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Lesgles te quoque salutat. :) Ab omnibus fraudatoribus liberi simus! Lesgles (disputatio) 15:47, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (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) 18:36, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Einigkeit und ...[fontem recensere]

Cur, mi Lesgles, litteras dicti lemmatis obliquas scribendas putavisti?--Bavarese (disputatio) 14:56, 23 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Duabus de causis: quia verba sunt linguá aliená scripta, et quia titulus operis scripti est. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:10, 24 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Itidem ergo et God Save the Queen mutandum est. --Bavarese (disputatio) 09:49, 24 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Mutavi, gratias tibi ago. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:59, 24 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Fortasse erravi; vide recensionem recentem "God Save the Queen" a Iacobo factam. Nunc video, haec etiam est norma The Chicago Manual of Style, quod famam bonam apud editoribus Americanis habet: “La vendetta, oh, la vendetta” from The Marriage of Figaro. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:28, 25 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Bonam quidem famam habet: opera breviora "quotanda," opera longiora italicizanda sunt. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:13, 25 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Mantodea[fontem recensere]

Salve! Mihi non liquet, utrius numeri vocabulum Mantodea sit: singularis an pluralis. Nam si dicimus "Mantodea sunt ...", nonne nomen huius bestiolae (et lemmatis) opportet esse mantodeum? Sin numerus singularis mantodea est, nonne rectius "mantodeae (numerus singularis: mantodea) sunt ..." dicendum est? - Si etiam in aliis linguis ad speciem mantodeae(/i?) similiter alluditur (e. g. Gottesanbeterin), fortasse talia nomina addere deceat? --Bavarese (disputatio) 09:18, 22 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Mantodea sunt ordo insectorum. In taxinomia Linnaeana, omnia nomina supra gradum generis sunt pluralia, ne uno quidem excepto. Solum nomina generum (et graduum inferiorum, sicut specierum et varietatum) sunt singularia. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:58, 22 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)
Recte dicis, amice. Qua ratione nos nomina pluralia Latina his casibus ad nomen paginae nostrae statuendum accipimus. Nominibus Latinis biologicis per omnem terrarum orbem apud eruditos receptis, rarissime necesse est nobis nomina Theodisca, Anglica etc. etc. addere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 22 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

restoration[fontem recensere]

Hi Lesgles, how are you? I would appreciate it if you restore the Flexor digiti minimi brevis and the page Signum manipuli and allow me to complete them. Thanks in advance.--Jondel (disputatio) 00:15, 23 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Done! Just remember that they will need to be long enough and have sources to prevent getting deleted in the future. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:19, 23 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Lesgles. I will also try to work on the others.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:01, 23 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)

Asteroids[fontem recensere]

I added lists of asteroids to the pages Thamar Smirnova and Iohannes Palisa but I can't remember how to make the lists format in multiple columns. Can you? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:20, 3 Maii 2016 (UTC)

If this is just a request for how to make columns, Vicipaedia has several methods. The one I find most convenient these days is
{{div col|2}}
Text
Text
{{div col end}}
where the number of columns is specified after a pipe ("|") in the first command. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:00, 3 Maii 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Iacobe, that's just what I needed,. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:45, 3 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Bellovarium[fontem recensere]

Salve Lesgles! My Latin is not very good, thus I simply copied the content from the source. Since the source is free from copyright I thought it was OK.

The source is written in Latin in 1829 by Ludovico Nagy, a Hungarian, so I really do not know what he meant to say. He wrote those lines, I simply used from the source, word by word.-- Knixnik (disputatio) 17:53, dies Veneris, 6. Maii 2016. (MMXVI) (CET)

Thanks, Knixnik. The copyright is not a problem, but if you copy from a public-domain source, it's still a good practice to identify it as a direct quotation. I looked again and after a lot of searching, I think I can understand most of what it means:
"Belovarinum, Bellovár, headquarters of two border infantry regiments, of St. George, or Szentvar?, and Crisium. It shines bright [is noted] for its parish basilica of St. Theresa, and another church of the Greek, not the Uniate rite. It excludes from the dwelling [apart from the houses there is?] a miliary prefecture, a field war commissariat, and an office of military exchange post, noted for an minor literary institute and marketplace."
Perhaps someone else has a better idea of what "excipit domicilio praefecturam militarem..." means.
Also, what are the sources for the other sentences you added: "Hubertus Diviss Piarum..." and "Historia parochialis Domus Bellovariensis"? Lesgles (disputatio) 19:05, 6 Maii 2016 (UTC)

De elementis chemicis[fontem recensere]

No need to go on marking them "non stipula". I am bringing them into line as a series of short articles. It seems an obvious case because they have Latin(-ish) names, are on the list of 10,000, and a fun external source is easily found. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:24, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! I've been marking a lot of NS's recently anyway, so maybe I ought to take a break... :) Lesgles (disputatio) 15:47, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)
I've done them all now. Not that I'd want to discourage anyone from making them into long articles :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)
Excellent! Lesgles (disputatio) 17:04, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Restaurationis[fontem recensere]

Salve Lesgle, ut vales? Velim te rogare ut restaures Nirvāṇa, Zona dearmata. Gratias tibi ago in antecessu.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:48, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Factum est! Lesgles (disputatio) 02:16, 29 Maii 2016 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago!--Jondel (disputatio) 01:29, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

De rebus a fratribus Albrecht gestis[fontem recensere]

I never noticed this before. The fact that you (giving a good reason) deleted ALDI and that I (giving a good reason) restored it don't appear in the page history at all. Nor in the "acta huius paginae". Only perhaps in the general "acta deletionum", which is a very long list. Or is there some other way to rediscover this historical detail? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:22, 23 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

The only way I know is, as you say, to look at the "index deletionum," which can be searched. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:45, 23 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
The deletions can be seen not in the "acta huius paginae" of Aldi, but in the "acta huius paginae" of ALDI ([1]), which was the (capitalization of the) lemma at the time of the deletion and undeletion. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 11:48, 26 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Ah! I never thought of that. Thanks, UV! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:06, 26 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Good to know! Lesgles (disputatio) 16:37, 26 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

Formula:Annus[fontem recensere]

After your latest adjustments this formula wants a category "Annus" to be created (i.e. PAGENAME). We could just create the category and not worry any more, or we could try to stop it demanding this. Whatever you think best! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:46, 25 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I just did a very inelegant solution that removed the category: I substituted the template in 1984, replaced PAGENAME with 1984, removed the category bit, and copied over all of the code. Does it look OK now? The template still has the problem that it is asking for a decade when no decade is displayed. I'm not sure how to solve that. 16:38, 25 Iunii 2016 (UTC)
Well, that was something I'd never have thought of! And, no, I admit, I don't know how to solve the decade problem. Ah well ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 25 Iunii 2016 (UTC)

Scylaceum[fontem recensere]

Notice that I have blocked Usor:Driante70 for edit-warring on that page. We could possibly take this opportunity to improve Scylaceum, currently very brief, as a model of how small Italian cities should be described: is that a good idea, do you think? Or maybe you have no time? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:07, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

For goodness' sake, tell them to label their Italian-hamlet images more specifically than "Imago Scyllacei"—a pattern we see in many of those pages. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:26, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think the biggest problem is reverting without participating in the discussion page, but there's also our usual problem of a page that mostly lacks useful content. I might be able to add some things over the next couple days, but if anyone else wants to, go ahead! Lesgles (disputatio) 17:48, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Urbs Bacolodensis[fontem recensere]

Hi Lesgles, could you rest this page? I will be adding fonts and material.Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 22:17, 25 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

OK, I restored it. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:16, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Lesgles. --Jondel (disputatio) 22:44, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

dubsigs[fontem recensere]

Salve Lesgles, 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) 01:13, 7 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Cotabato Australis ‎ and Urbs Calamba[fontem recensere]

Hi Lesgles, could you restore this pages? I will work to place the sources and expand them. Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 18:58, 10 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Done! Lesgles (disputatio) 01:33, 11 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Lesgles. I will start working on them.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:46, 11 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Metamorphosis (biologia)[fontem recensere]

Hi Lesgles, how are you? Could I ask that you restore this page? I will put effort that the Latin is correct and supply sources. Thank you in advance.--Jondel (disputatio) 05:21, 23 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Restitutum est; good luck! Lesgles (disputatio) 18:29, 23 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Arigato gozaimasu! (err... wrong language)--Jondel (disputatio) 03:33, 24 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Cuminum cyminum[fontem recensere]

I butted in because I am in the course of spreading my {{Fontes de plantis}} to all taxonomic plant pages, and at the same time including them all in [[Categoria:Species plantarum]], or whatever rank is appropriate. The formula adds a range of external sources automatically via Wikidata (which is incidentally helping quite a lot of pages that had no external source till now). The formatting is maybe not ideal, but it would be easy to change. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:15, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's a good addition. I wonder if something similar could be used on pages about animals and fungi as well. I notice that your template would already produce four good links on Marmota olympus, for example. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:25, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
I naturally like the tidiness of this, but having an undifferentiated category for all species of plants is eventually going to populate an almost impossibly large page, there being about 200,000 described dicots alone. Something like 1.5 million insects have been described, and expert estimates of the number of beetles that remain to be discovered are said to be in the range of four to eight million. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:43, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
To Iacobus: oh, I know. But I think it could be useful for housekeeping, so that we can immediately find all articles that are about species (genera, families, etc. etc.) And the alphabetical order may possibly be handy occasionally.
To Lesgles: I hadn't decided whether it's better to make this same template also cover animals (... fungi, viruses) or whether to make different templates for those. The overlap that you found suggests that one template for all might be the better way. It will be a simple matter to add further sources. As you see, each source only appears if Wikidata knows of a relevant entry in that source; e.g., in any particular case, if Tropicos doesn't have the taxon (or if the Tropicos entry hasn't yet been added to Wikidata) Tropicos will not appear on our page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion: add a link to Wikispecies if it exists. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:08, 10 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying we shouldn't link to Wikispecies as a related project -- on many pages we do already -- but I don't see it as being on a level with these external scientific/taxonomic sites. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:12, 10 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of species, a hint[fontem recensere]

If you're running out of time in your one-article-a-day quest, try generating an article about a species, with a text something like "X is a flowering plant of family Y, endemic in countries Z1, Z2, Z3." That plus an imported taxobox and Andrew's {{Fontes de plantis}} could be all you need! If the result earns an Augenda note, you can add a sentence of description later. At least you'll have gotten the page up in time! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:15, 14 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have found that the taxinomic pages are among the quickest to create. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 13:16, 14 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum etc.[fontem recensere]

From Elisha Cuthbert I notice the useful verb "guest-stellatum", though of course if the machine had been more alert it would have chosen the active voice, "guest-stellavit". I also notice "erat sit amet", a giveaway phrase from Lorem ipsum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 3 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was using that as a key word to find machine-translated pages. It seems that Google Translate has also occasionally thought that "lorem ipsum" is real Latin! Lesgles (disputatio) 11:45, 4 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
Around 2007 it was pretty simple to add words and translations to Google Translate. I myself fed in a few "lorem ipsum" phrases. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:01, 4 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
And here I thought it was an ancient Roman meditation... StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:26, 7 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Too quick[fontem recensere]

I didn't realise at Gasto (dux Aurelianensis) that I was moving a page you had just moved twenty minutes before. Sorry. If you disagree with my edit and move, feel free to revert them! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:46, 19 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know; the present title seems enough to disambiguate him. There are a few results for Gasto Franciae, so maybe that should be mentioned. I don't know what fr-wiki exactly means by "Gaston de France, connu dans l'histoire sous le nom de Gaston d'Orléans." Lesgles (disputatio) 17:51, 19 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
Quite right, I missed that. I added one of those citations in a footnote and restored "Franciae" to the lemma. If you decide to restore it to the pagename, no objection. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:38, 19 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
If I may: I think the idea is that formally Gaston was a prince of France, given that his father was Henri IV of France. Hence "Gaston de France" is formally correct. But somewhat parallel the idea that Charles and William tend to be known as the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge, rather than as "Prince of the United Kingdom", so, too, Gaston tends to appear in histories as Gaston, Duc d'Orléans (or just Gaston d'Orléans), not Gaston de France. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 19:12, 20 Iulii 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I think so too, and I think some Wikipedias push the country name into the pagename in such cases against the evidence of what people normally say. But in this case, after all, Lesgles is right that the form "Gasto Franciae" is actually found :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:43, 20 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Veterior[fontem recensere]

Sit "vestustior" magis Ciceronianus, manet tamen "veterior" non illatinum verbum. --2A02:A03F:1686:F400:DC03:5853:BBFD:F152 14:41, 22 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Fortasse, sed vide corpus librorum antiquorum PHI: vetustior aut vetustius: 69 exempla, veterior aut veterius: 2.
L&S: "class. vetustior; archaic form veterior." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:17, 22 Iulii 2017 (UTC)

Моя статья[fontem recensere]

Прошу исправить ошибки в моей статье. Заранее Вам, Ваше Высокопревосходительство, спасибо-с. Vos petestis videre commentarium meum Vel possum scribere vobis Latine. Intellegitisne hanc?Товарищ герцог Мальборо (disputatio) 18:20, 9 Decembris 2017 (UTC)

К сожалению я ешё не достиг чина действительного тайного советника :), но я посмотрю на статью. Что касается vos/tu, может быть Вам будет интересно смотреть на Distinctio T-V. В классической латыни, которую мы употребляем здесь, формальное обращение на Вы не существует. Вспомните, что даже гладиаторы императору сказали «Ave imperator, morituri te salutant!». Lesgles (disputatio) 19:41, 12 Decembris 2017 (UTC)