Disputatio Usoris:PEDCPR

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

On your changes[fontem recensere]

You have been making changes to pages, adding names that are not correct Latin and substituting well-attested Latin versions. I have reverted them all. Please refrain from making such changes unless you have sources to back your additions.--Xaverius 18:53, 6 Iulii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly, anonymous individuals have no standing to change binomina taxinomica. See Maine Coon and other cat-related pages, where catus is right and PEDCPR's cattus is wrong. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:00, 7 Iulii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block[fontem recensere]

You've been blocked- You've been making changes to pages, deleting good Latin and adding terms that were wrong (like capite, or Statis Unitis). There is room for discussion with ficatum, which is later Letin or with Medium Aevum Hibericum even if all ceoval documents refer to Hispania not [H]Iberia, but there are discussion pages for that.

Si lo prefieres te lo explico en Castellano, pero de momento estás bloqueado por un día.--Xaverius 07:25, 7 Iulii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain[fontem recensere]

Please explain why you reverted my edit to Communitas civitatum Lusitane loquentium. My edit

  1. gave a Latin title which makes sense
  2. noted a minor improvement in Latinity (mine) which means that the page is not threatened with deletion

It would be better to accept this edit, even if someone may eventually suggest an even better title! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:31, 3 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title must be this, we do not need an archaic title, but one that be recognisable. For the other things you change, I Thank you PEDCPR (disputatio) 17:35, 3 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who "we" are, but a Latin title on Vicipaedia must make sense in Latin. The one I have suggested means "community of states that speak Portuguese". The previous title made no sense.
Edit wars are a waste of time, so I have blocked you for a day. To be unblocked, please reply and indicate that you are ready to discuss. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:41, 3 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if it is this one, Communitas Patriaeae Linguae Portugallicae? PEDCPR (disputatio) 17:51, 3 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second word needs to be plural, because there are many countries: so "patriarum" or "civitatum" or "nationum".
"Patria", however, is a problematic word for an encyclopedia because it is sexist (like German Vaterland): it is better to avoid it in my opinion. Países is not sexist.
The third and fourth words need to be singular, because it is a single language. Yes, "linguae Portugallicae" or "linguae Portugallensis" are possible, but the name for the language is usually "Lusitanica" or "Lusitana" in Latin. The term is well known in Portuguese also, as in the word lusófono -- and Lusíadas! Eu canto o peito ilustre lusitano -- id possumus etiam Latine facere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:12, 3 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion has in consideration the initials "CPLP" (Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa), Communitas Patriarum Linguae Portugallensis/Lusitana, just because of the initials, but if you think that it is better that words, what you think about "Communitas Civitatum Linguae Lusophona" because, i think that "Lusitana" or "Lusitanica" express an idea of exclusive language of portugal/Lusitania, but this is just my perception, maybe are wrong. PEDCPR (disputatio) 13:34, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Communitas Civitatum Linguae Lusophona doesn't make sense here, as it seems to say 'The Lusophone community of the states of language.' Andrew's Communitas civitatum Lusitane loquentium looks apter, as it means 'The community of Portuguese-speaking states'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:57, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact Vicipaedians sometimes prefer it when names of languages and names of countries do not exactly coincide, and that was one reason why "Portugallia" for the country and "lingua Lusitana" for the language were convenient choices.
Thank you for your comment, Iacobe. "Lusophonus" is not a common word in Latin. But, all by itself, it means "of Portuguese speech/language". So, if we use it in a slightly different form from PEDCPR's suggestion, only three words are needed: "Communitas Civitatum Lusophonarum". I could accept that: what about others? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:01, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanations, in my opinion, i prefer first one option "Communitas Civitatum Lusitane loquentium". PEDCPR (disputatio) 15:42, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Vicipaedia is currently using pagus as the equivalent of Portuguese país (English 'country'), so Communitas Pagorum Lusophonorum would be more consistent with the rest of the encyclopedia. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:47, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Latin "pagus" does not mean an independent state, it means a small region or district -- smaller than a "provincia". Portuguese país means an independent state, and that's what we're talking about. So I would say we cannot use "pagus" in this context. I propose to retain the name "Communitas civitatum Lusitane loquentium" which PEDCPR also prefers. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:04, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ita, sane, but our article "Pagus" links to English "Country," whose definition bears reading. ¶ Humans, not countries, speak languages, so civitatum X loquentium could be a problem. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:55, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. A good point. But "civitates" are not expanses of land, they are groups of "cives", citizens ... Citizens talk ... Does that help? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:11, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a logic that works in the USA, where the Supreme Court has decreed that corporations are persons! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:24, 5 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unio Europaea[fontem recensere]

I reverted your recent changes because their main effect was to substitute an absolute image size (such as |209x209px|) for a relative size (such as |upright=0.8|). If it is necessary to specify an image size -- more often it is not necessary -- a relative size should be used because it responds flexibly to various types of platform and equipment (phones, tablets, laptops, etc.): thus it makes the page more accessible. If you want to substitute a better image, that's fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:36, 5 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A good point, not least because I had the same thought yesterday (but never got around to saying so)! The default is that fasciculi will print flush right at the size of |upright=1|. Left-printing ones can displace headings (whose default is to print flush left), so, to minimize this kind of disruption, I tend to make them |upright=0.8| or smaller. Simple designs—flags, logotypes, and such—can usefully be made smaller, say, |upright=0.8| or even |upright=0.6| on the right and |upright=0.6| or even smaller on the left. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:34, 5 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reason, I think that what is in deficit are the script informtion, and not a excessive images information. I thank you for your dedication. PEDCPR (disputatio) 16:05, 5 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this massage it is not supposed publicate here, but in another local. PEDCPR (disputatio) 16:07, 5 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Portugallia[fontem recensere]

Generally it is not a good idea to add picture galleries in the text. If a page already has illustrations, it is likely that galleries added without a good reason will be deleted -- and if the images lack captions, or the captions are not written in real Latin, that makes deletion even more likely. Our general rule is that "Vicipaedia is not a picture gallery". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 5 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I spent maybe fifteen minutes fixing these and other things in "Portugallia" yesterday, but when I clicked to publish the result, Vicipaedia was offline for repairs. It came back online within a few seconds, but all was lost. [Insert an unhappy emoticon here.] IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:41, 5 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for that, and I appreciate your dedication in the corrections. PEDCPR (disputatio) 16:02, 5 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reason, I think that what is in deficit are the script informtion, and not a excessive images information. I thank you for your dedication. PEDCPR (disputatio) 16:07, 5 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]