Disputatio Usoris:Nickshanks

E Vicipaedia
Salire ad: navigationem, quaerere

Vide etiam Usor:Nickshanks/Delenda.

Regarding Delenda[fontem recensere]

OK, let's start this page then. Nickshanks, I disagree with the long list of delenda you have been making. I assume your reasoning is that they are too short to be entries, but this is simply something we have to live with on la.wikipedia because of the paucity of people writing in Latin. On en:, fr:, and so on there are so many people writing that if you delete an insufficient entry, odds are that someone will eventually rewrite it with more info. For Latin we cannot count on that, and it is often useful to have a stub article just to hold the place, especially for entities whose Latin names are not widely known. --Iustinus 19:15 aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Si paginae, quae modo minima continent, delendae essent, la.wicipiaedia maxima parte delenda esset. :-) Sergius 19:49 aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Justin, I've been going through the list of pages that link to urbs - any of them that don't have more than the name and the country, I've been marking delenda, any that have more info, stipula. Substubs are discouraged even in the larger languages.
The second thing I'm doing is deleting the rather useless vide etiam: sections, with a broken link and links to urbs and geographia.

I intend, prior to their deletion, to collate all the names into lists of red links, by country, preserving the lesser known names that way. People aren't going to just drop in and add info to their home town like they do with other languages, what is needed is translation of the English/Greek/Japanese version of the city's description wholesale, or at least as much as can be translated, on a city-by-city basis (possibly as an exercise for Latin students at school — Homework today is to translate an entry of your choice in Wikipedia to Latin).

Without this the Latin version will always be vastly inferior. Better IMHO to have a few well written articles than a thousand stubs.
By eventually removing them we will also get a truer picture of the state of the latin wikipedia, and a much clearer grasp as to which articles are fleshed out.

I will finish going through the cities, since i've done half of them already, and should we decide to keep them, we can add more info, otherwise they should be listed but no stubs created.

Again, I am generally in favour of stubs, and I have {stipula}'d any city with more than just the name in a few languages.

Please comment. — Nicolus

Intellego, quid tibi in animo est. Tamen dissentio. Vicipaedia latina opus insigne erit, si modo brevissimae paginae hic exsistant. Praeterea: Equidem anglice scribere repudio. Si hoc voluissem, hic non essem. Sergius 20:06 aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
I have no idea what the above means, but let me just add something more: People are going to use their native language the learn about the topic of the article. People are going to use the latin version to practice their Latin. It is for this reason that having good articles is much more important than having lots of little stubs. Even if they are expanded to the size of Athenae, they are still stubs, but that's about the length that starts to become useful to learn from. — Nicolus
He said "I understand what you have in mind. Nevertheless I disagree. The Latin Wikipedia will be an important project, if only very short pages should exist here (Hocine vis dicere, Sergi? Non habeo pro certo me intellexisse). Furthermore: honestly I refuse to write in English. If I wanted to do this, I wouldn't be here. (-Iustinus)
Profecto argumentum mea theoriae! Etiamsi latina erroribus affecta usus sim, alius (sc. Iustinus) mea verba intellexit! Laetitia exsulto. :-) Sergius 20:28 aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
But I know well done! when i see it :-) — Nicolus
Eh, I dunno, I think I still disagree with you. But let's let others weigh in and see what the consensus is. (It is true, though, that the "vide etiam" links seemed rather pointless.) --Iustinus 20:20 aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
I apologise that my latin is not good enough to hold a conversation in. It's been ten years since i last did any and I'm trying to learn afresh. Since I have not the ability to write much in the was of sentences, I have been doing housekeeping tasks, reading as I go and learning vocab here and there. Could one of you two please create a link to this discussion so that others may find it easily, and contribute? — Nicolus
I have no idea where to link this for you, sorry. But since you want to do housekeeping tasks, here's one I (for one) would really appreciate: could you add some images? Specifically, a lot of the unillustrated articles we have here already have ready-made pictures on the English and other Wikipedias. It's basically just busy-work to transfer them to la:, but I think it will really improve the appearence of the articles. --Iustinus 16:53 aug 25, 2004 (UTC) (ed. 21:34 aug 25, 2004)
I know substubs are discouraged, but one of the arguments against substubs (and indeed the first one listed on en:Wikipedia:Substub) is "Substubs are usually no longer than a dictionary definition, and usually contain information that anyone would know." The point for la.wiki is that, Latin not being anyone here's native language, something like "Corcyra urbs in Ionia, Graecia est (Graece Kerkyra, Anglice Corfu)" isn't information that just anyone would know. Certainly there may be better ways to present such information, but... I guess until those better ways are already in place I'd like to see these pages continue to exist. —Myces Tiberinus 01:37 aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
But I was suggesting collecting this information in one link list, rather than having many one-liners. The information would be preserved, and would be easier to disseminate/assimilate in relation to other places in the same area. — Nicolus
Yes, but is this list on the wiki yet? Or will there be an interval between the deletion of these articles and your posting of this information, during which there is opportunity for you or it to fall off the face of the earth? If your list is already on the wiki, then you have an extra reason for the pages to be deleted: the information will be needlessly duplicated. Otherwise I don't see them being deletable yet. —Myces Tiberinus 16:07 aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
I intended whoever was to delete them (maybe me with temp admin status or whatever) collate the list as I go through the delenda, so they will happen simultaneously. Well that was what i was thinking. I can create the list beforehand if you'd like. It seems you guys don't want to delete them, which is fine by me. I was just going by the wikipedia rules, or so i thought http://web.nickshanks.com/images/emoticons/smile.png Not deleting them would be much easier than deleting them anyway, but I personally would prefer to have the info in a few pages (one for each country, perhaps). — Nicolus
Well of course Wikipedia rules vary from wikipedia to wikipedia, and are determined essentially by the user-base, right? I'm not sure whether it is better to keep the substubs, compile them into lists, or (frankly) both. I suppose the main advantage to keeping them would be the possibility of interwiki.

The complete contents of all of the stubs originally linking to urbs which I have since marked {{delenda}} are now located at Index civitas mundi Urbs/Index stipularum. As I have not yet gone through all of the stubs, the list is incomplete, but all the articles marked delenda can now be deleted. Nicolus 23:30 sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

The list is now finished and has been moved to Urbs/Index stipularum. Nicolus 17:29 oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Nottingham[fontem recensere]

You write: It is given as 'Notingeham' in the latin Magna Carta, rather than 'Notingehamia', the only authoratative source I've found, but it cannot be declined. Nottingham was founded in saxon times c850. OK, I admit that I invented Notingehamia, but it seemed a likely form. Now, many "barbarian" place-names have both declinable and indliclinable forms depending on the source (and this is especially true in the middle ages). Where possible it is usually best to use the declinable version, simply because it makes for easier parsing. For that purpose I'll check my sources.

  1. Burke, Edward W., A Hand-List of Latin Place Names with their Modern Equivalents gives Notingamia, Notinghamia and Nottinghamium.
  2. Egger, Karl Lexicon Nominum Locorum gives Nottingamia
  3. Martin, Charls Latin Names of Places in Great Britain and Ireland gives Nottingamia
  4. Smith & Hall, English-Latin Dictionary gives Nottinghamia
  5. White's Latin Dictionary gives Nottinghamia

No other source I have handy gives a listing. You can, I suppose, take your pick of those. --Iustinus 21:25 aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

  • Nomen Nottingham venit de Anglosaxonico "Snotingahâm", quod dicit "domus populi hominis nominati Snot". (Anthony Appleyard)
  • Interesting research, thank you - I think I'll leave it as Nottinghamia. I also made up Brigladia Occidentalis (West Bridgford) based on entries in Index locorum in Regno Unito with 'bridge' and 'ford' in them, and Callunacampus (Hatfield) is a literal translation of the entomological roots of Hatfield (i used campus for the alliteration :-) Perhaps though your input would be useful for Hertfordshire (bear in mind there is a major town called Hertford too)- I originally translated it as Hertfordiensis, based on the index locorum entry Bedfordiensis comitatus (Bedfordshire) but the link you gave above (Google cache only) gives these names for counties with names ending 'shire':
    • Angulia: Flintshire.
    • Aruonia: Caernarvonshire.
    • Barcsciria: Berkshire.
    • Bearrocscira: Berkshire.
    • Berceia, Berceria: Berkshire.
    • Bercheria: Berkshire.
    • Berkeria: Berkshire.
    • Buksiria: Buckinghamshire.
    • Cestrescira: Cheshire.
    • Cestrisiria: Cheshire.
    • Claudiana provincia: Gloucestershire.
    • Derebisciria: Derbyshire.
    • Deuania: Cheshire.
    • Deuenescira: Devonshire.
    • Deuonia: Devonshire.
    • Dumnonia: Devonshire. See Damnonia.
    • Glamorgania, Glamorgantia: Glamorganshire.
    • Hantonia: Hampshire.
    • Isuria: Yorkshire.
    • Lania: Lancashire.
    • Lunia: Lancashire.
    • Merionithia: Merionethshire.
    • Meruinia: Merionethshire.
    • Nicolesciria: Lincolnshire.
    • Norhantescira: Northamptonshire.
    • Salopescira, Salopesiria: Shropshire.
    • Sudhamtonia: Hampshire.
    • Suthamtunensis Provincia: Hampshire.
    • Venantodunia: Huntingdonshire.
    • Vilugiana Provincia: Wiltshire.
    • Wiccia: Worcestershire.
    • Wiltesciria: Wiltshire.
    • Wirecestrescira: Worcestershire.

-scira seems a common ending, should I use that? — Nicolus

OK, this is a bit involved, and it will take me a while to answer. I may have to save it for tomorrow. In the meantime, try some of the other links from fontes nominum locorum --Iustinus 22:34 aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
there is also Cassi, Cassii: A tribe in Hertfordshire and Heortforda: Hertford so perhaps Heortfordescria or Cassisciria?
I don't know who the Cassii were, nor do most people, and there is a limit as to how antiquarian we need be in resurrecting names of old Celtic and early Saxon tribes. In York Minster cathedral an inscription on a tombstone about 250 years old refers to modern Yorkshiremen as "Trinobantes"!!! :-) . (Anthony Appleyard)
OK, you've raised a number of issues, and it seems my knowledge of UK geography is about as rusty as your Latin, so it's kind of the blind leading the blind here. But let's get started:
  • Bridgeford: (no luck)
  • Hatfield: Hatfeldia, Hertfeldia
  • Hertford: Herudfordia; Harfordia (adj. Harfordiensis); Hertfordia
  • Hertfordshire: Harfordiensis Comitatus
  • -shire (in general): well, this suffix basically means "county" and that's why Bedfordshire ended up as Bedfordiensis comitatus (i.e. "The Bedfordian County"). Since you left off comitatus the adjectival ending confused me, and not knowing English geography that well I didn't immediately conclude you were trying to distinguish Hertford from Hertfordshire. Sorry about that. As for how you should form new -shires, frankly I prefer the adj+comitatus construction. It is more in line with the classicizing way Latin has been written since the Renaissance.
As a rule, any place in the Old World (and a ridiculous number of places in the New World) already have ready-made Latin names, so for the most part you should avoid coining your own. (Of course I just admitted to doing the same myself >ahem<) --Iustinus 23:54 aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

OK, not sure I approve of your latest changes to this, but we'll have to talk maybe later today, when I have time to go into detail. --Iustinus 18:06 aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship[fontem recensere]

Hi Nick, we actually do have a requests for adminship page - Wikipedia:Petitio magistratus (it's linked from the Recent changes page). You could move your request there and we'll have a vote. Adam Episcopus 15:14 oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Gallilean Moons[fontem recensere]

Gallileo himself called the new moons of Jupiter the "Medici Stars" or something similar. This summer I read his original description of them, and the Latin was something like "Stellae Medicae"... unfortunately I cannot find this text to verify the expression at the moment. I'll keep looking. --Iustinus 16:09 oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

  • I think though that we should latinize the term Gallilean Moons (lunae Gallilae ?) as that is their modern usage. The term Stellae Medicae sounds confusing now that we know they are not stars. What does that finnish news site (nuntii latini, I think it's called) use? Nicolus 16:15 oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what the best word for Galilean is. Perhaps "Lunae Galileanae"... of course there is this whole issue about whether Luna can be used generically or whether satelles is to be prefered, but "Satellites Galileani" looks like it means "Satellites of Galileo."
As for Galileo's expression, it was "Medicea Sidera." Now, it seems to me you shouldn't worry if Latin doesn't consistantly distinguish "star" and "planet", but even less so if the word is sidus rather than stella, because sidus seems to be an especially vague term. It's often translated as "star" or "constellation"... but I think it can refer to pretty much anything up in that "layer of heaven." Of course "Medicean Stars" is not in use anymore, but I like it because it is an original Latin expression. You can read more about it on the following pages: textus Siderei Nuncii, En:Sidereus Nuncius, En:Galilean moon. --Iustinus 20:01 oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

recensiones minores[fontem recensere]

Hi! Please don't mark substantial edits as minor edits, especially such as your most recent edit to Abecedarium, which involved both inventing a word, and leaving an English word untranslated. —Myces Tiberinus 03:59 ian 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry! I have minor edit and watch page on by default in my preferences since most of them are minor. I Often forget to clear it. I will make more of an effort to do so. I am certain though that that is the only page on which I have either invented words or left something untranslated. The only other edits of mine I am concerned may be incorrect are {{flumen-stipula}} (should it be {{fluma-stipula}}?) and {{bio-stipula}} which contains a word I made up, 'biographia' (the English is of Greek origin, I think, not Latin). Not having a dictionary is a pain! Could you please correct this too. Nicolus 12:01 ian 1, 2005 (UTC)
Nick- Your new stipulae do need some corrections, but I'm not sure which. I just wrote a summary on the disputatio page. --Iustinus

Numbers and years[fontem recensere]

Happy New Year, Nick! (People who prefer to use only Latin need not read further.)
Found your note on my Talk page. A Rare event. Ta. Puzzling, though, your reference to "number" pages. Have you missed the definitive paragraphs of the style guide referring to numbers and years? It was hard work, but I think I eventually found the current consensus and have been applying it on my spasmodic visits.
The English version seems to match the Latin version, so please have a look at Wikipedia:Auxilium_pro_editione_(anglice)#Use_of_numbers. Our 2000 article (as with 476), is for the (A.D.) year; it can refer to an article about the number if there is one.
Robin Patterson 02:49 ian 9, 2005 (UTC)

Maori[fontem recensere]

I would be delighted to have you learn lingua Maorica, to help with what is still virtually a one-man band after 200+ articles - but you could help with that before doing much learning; for example, you could have done most of mi:Rōpū_ripanga_pūmotu. Anyway, there are some online tutorials. Try the "external links" on mi:Te_reo_Māori - or their external links.
Robin Patterson 02:49 ian 9, 2005 (UTC)

Categoria:Linguae artificiales[fontem recensere]

Actually, I created this one but then changed my mind and called it Categoria:Lingua artificiosae. It is empty and should be deleted. --IOHANNES DE SAXOMONTIUM 15:44, 7 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Salve[fontem recensere]

I don't want to sound annoying, and you don't have to do this if you don't want to, but I'm very much a beginner in Latin, so if you could translate this that some anonymous user left on my talk page, that would be great:

W. B. tibi salutem dicit Noli, quaesumus, nomina articulorum iamiam exstantium mutare. Vt et alii iam scripserunt, praenomina libenter latinizantur, quae res imprimis ad usum eorum meliorem pertinet. Sic enim casus melius indicantur. Sin autem indicem nominum hodiernorum nexibus ad latinizata ornatum facere vis, grati tibi sint omnes. Vale.

Revolutio (disputatio) 00:49, 21 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

"Greetings from W.B. Please do not change the names of already existing articles. As others have also written already, first names are happily Latinized, especially because it facilitates their use: the cases are better indicated in this way. But if you wish to make a list of modern names with links to the Latinized ones, then everyone should be grateful to you. Goodbye." --Iustinus 07:09, 21 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Inactivity and administrator rights[fontem recensere]

Dear Nickshanks, it has been a while since you last contributed actively to Vicipaedia. Recently, it was discussed on Vicipaedia that, as a precautionary measure to reduce the risk of an admin account to be compromised (as has happened on en.wikipedia on at least one occasion), the administrator rights of inactive administrators could be temporarily suspended until the admin returns and wishes to resume activity.

So, I would like to invite you: Do come back and continue to contribute to Vicipaedia, a free encyclopedia in the Latin language! Even if you do not have much time to spare for Vicipaedia at the moment, please just log in to your account and reply "hello" to this message on your user talk page, and your admin rights will be secured for the next couple of months.

If we do not hear from you, your administrator rights will be temporarily revoked one month from now, but this should not hinder you to come back later, say "I'm here again" and get back your administrator rights instantaneously.

(If you do not intend to contribute to Vicipaedia any more, which we would regret very much, you can request removal of your admin status on the appropriate page on meta.)

Please do not hesitate to contact me or anyone in the Vicipaedia:Taberna with any question on Vicipaedia you might have. Thank you for all your past service, and hope to see you soon again! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:55, 14 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

e-mail notification not possible: not enabled.

Dear Nickshanks, your administrator rights have now been temporarily suspended. Please do come back to Vicipaedia whenever you would like to (and you will be given back admin rights immediately if you like). Again, thank you for all your past service, and hope to see you soon again! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:46, 17 Octobris 2012 (UTC)