Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina prima/Tabularium2

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Vide etiam Taberna Nuvola apps kuser.png

Index

praepositio "super" in titulo paginae primae[fontem recensere]

Salvete, "super" non id denotare posse quod lingua Anglica "more than" dicitur mihi quidem persuasum est. "supra duo milia vel "plus quam duo milia" propono.

Fortasse quidem supra melius esst, sed supra adhiberi potest. Cf. e.g. Taciti Germania 33.2: " super sexaginta milia non armis telisque Romanis, sed, quod magnificentius est, oblectationi oculisque ceciderunt." --Iustinus 18:42 ian 8, 2005 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago, quod mihi illum locum in Taciti Germania -quem libellum nuper cum discipulis meis perlegi- in memoriam reducis. Haud facile cum Tacito contendam, licet sit auctor "Latinitatis argenteae" ;-). Sed haud scio an "super" ibi revera praepositio sit. Opinor Tacitum, adverbio potius quam praepositione "super" usum, per ellipsin super (quam) sexaginta milia dixisse. Sed utcumque res se habet, tibi consentio: "supra " melius, "super" fortasse non omnino adhiberi non potest ;-)

ro.wiki: 10.000[fontem recensere]

Please update in pagina prima: Romanian Wikipedia has 10.000 articles. --Danutz Certe non latine videri viditur praepositio "super", quisque expertus latinorum librorum cernet facile. Multo melius mihi viditur "plus quam" et accusativum, vel numerum quoddam LATINE scriptum. Enim, cumparando neolatinis linguis, praepositio aequaleis anglico "more than" est, italice "più di", et gallice "plus que", ad breve dicendum.

Disputatio disputationis[fontem recensere]

Sorry, no more Latin... But the *title* attribute on the 'disputatio' tab at the top of every page reads 'dispuatio', which seems to be a misprint.

Brian Chandler

Fixed it, and a couple other instances of "dispuatio" in the system messages. —Myces Tiberinus 06:19 ian 11, 2005 (UTC)

Infinitives vs. imperatives[fontem recensere]

I find it rather strange that all actions in the Latin version of Wikipedia are written in the infinitive. Shouldn't they be in the imperative, like they are in most other languages (that I can read enough to see the difference)? Take, for example, the English version of Wikipedia. It does not have actions like "To go", "To search", "To edit", "To submit" and so forth.

A number of other languages use the infinitive as well, e.g. French, Spanish, German (partially). I kind of wonder if even the English is historically a "supine infinitive" (which is what English grammarians call an infinitive without the "to"). When you think about it, should buttons and links really be commanding someone to do something? Well, I suppose you read the command as comming from the user to the computer. But really the infnitive makes just as much sense, if not more, to me. --Iustinus 17:49 ian 13, 2005 (UTC)
The buttons don't command you to do anything. You command the buttons to do them. I take them to be "click this button if you want to issue this command," so the word on the button is issued from the point of view of the user, not of the website. Does that make sense? 128.239.162.187 15:32, 12 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
When I translated the language file, I wasn't sure what to do with them because the English infinitives and imperatives look the same. But as Iustinus said, other languages use the infinitive in this case, and I looked at French, German, and the other Romance languages as a model. Adam Episcopus 18:18 ian 13, 2005 (UTC)
And if we'd really want to use imps. how would you translate "Go"? Would you really want to have a button with "I" on it?
I've just looked at the German page: It uses substantives ("Artikel"). "Suche" is ambiguous like in the English language. --Roland2 19:35, 8 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Memento francogallice infinitivum quoque in imperativo sensu uti. Exempli modo, in publicis tabulis: "Non fumare", "Hic sistere", etc. Aut in lista rerum agendarum, saepe in usu est: "Salem piperemque parare; carnem coquere; etc.". Titus Cucuneus Aelurus, 12 mar 2005.

Hoc sensu Latine adhibetur imperativum futurum: "Pultem Punicam sic coquito. Libram alicae in aquam indito, facito uti bene madeat. Id infundito in alveum purum, eo casei recentis p. iii. mellis p. s. ovum unum, omnia una permisceto bene. Ita inispito in aulam novam". (Cato, De re rustica, 85 [86]).

Propositio Salutationis[fontem recensere]

nunc: Ave! Vicipaedia cooperandi opus est ut creatur Libera Encyclopaedia. Omnes ad participandum invitati sunt. Nunc sunt xxx articuli.

propositio: Ave! Vicipaedia cooperandi opus est in multis linguis ut componatur (sive creetur) encyclopaedia libera. Omnes ad participandum invitati sunt. Nunc sunt xxx articuli, qui ab unicuique augeri et corrigi posse.

--Wolfgang1018 23:07 feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Cum Wolfgango assentio --Marc mage 16:30, 14 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the last phrase, "qui ab unicuique augeri et corrigi posse." The "qui" should be "quorum" unless there is only one article (which there certainly isn't), the "ab" is unnecessary, and the "posse" should be "possunt." Unless I misunderstood what you wrote, of course. Kwoww 02:38, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Qui is masculine nominative plural. Not sure why you want a genitive. The ab is definitely necessary--agent, not means--but requires an ablative uno quoque. You are right about the verb forms. But all this is unneccessary, as the text has long since been changed to something more suitable (and, Deo gratias we have dropped the use of articulus for article). --Iustinus 02:43, 25 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

[fontem recensere]

Am I the only one for whom our remotely-hosted logo on the front page no longer shows? —Myces Tiberinus 00:51 mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

nope. --Iustinus 06:58 mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Nexi paginae primae[fontem recensere]

Cur pagina prima non habet nexus vicipaediae anglicae? Juppiter 21:08 mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Non intellego, cur nexus vicipaediae anglicae non est, sed per exemplum nexus vicipaediae poloniae est. --Wolfgang1018 10:07, 14 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Aperitur[fontem recensere]

Cum ineo, dicitur: "Conventum tuum propere aperitur est." Nemo cognoscet vocem passivum? Melius: "Conventum tuum prospere aperitur." Vobis gratias ago.--Faustus 02:45 mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Id mihi molestiae dudum fuit, sed nunc denique rescripsi (tempore autem perfecto). Sed vera ut confitiar haud scio an etiam nunc, cum sententia grammatica sit, haec sit versio optima locutionis angicae. --Iustinus 03:24 mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Possum inire "English Wikipedia" cum meum conventum anglicum. Sed la.wikipedia adhuc dicit "Aperire Conventum." Si tum conor aperire, dicit meum conventum non est. Estne necesse me aliud conventum habere pro la.wikipedia? (Paul Glezen on English Wikipedia) 64.134.79.126 05:03 apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Est. --Iustinus 05:06 apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Pagina Mensis[fontem recensere]

List of featured articles[fontem recensere]

There's an "article of the week" on the main page, but I did not find the "featured articles" section... 193.56.40.253 15:59 apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

There is none. The consensus has kinda been that we don't have enough articles good enough to justify a whole "featured" category. This is why the "article of the week" is officially an "article of the month." But the article that's currently up there was put up on January 29th, so it's long overdue to be replaced, but I haven't been able to get people interested in voting on it.
For more discussion on this topic, see Template talk:PaginaMensis. --Iustinus 18:46 apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Iterum Iterumque Imago Catharinae[fontem recensere]

Salve , amicae amicique,

si ista pagina visito , iterum imaginem catharinae uxoris videre debeo , vobis rogo , mutate eam , quod molesta est !

Salve, amica amiceve ;)
Si vis statum mutare, da consilium tuum hic. Ut supra scripsi, valde volo "paginam mensis" mutare, sed nullis vicipaedianis iuvantibus! --Iustinus 16:46 mai 15, 2005 (UTC)


In animo hodiernos res inserere habeo .Quia Pars de Catharinam valde antiquus est .Metuere non possum ,quod ut metuere non scio. Fortasse scis , quid metuere potest. D.K(in Vicipaedia Germani)

Nova Pagina Mensis[fontem recensere]

Denique mutatum'st. Nisi vis iterum multos menses novam exspectare, sententiam tuam hic dato!

At last it's been changed. Unless you want to wait several months for it to change again, give your oppinion here! --Iustinus 20:49 iun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Albi vs Alba (Pagina Aprilis Mensis)[fontem recensere]

In Pagina prima Aprilis mensis hoc scribitur: "Luditur a lusoribus duobus super alveo continenti 8 columnas et 8 ordines, ergo 64 quadrata colorum (saepissime albi nigrique) alternorum." Malim " albA nigrAque" quia significat, ut mihi videtur, "LXIV quadrata quae saepissime alba nigraque sunt" nonne?

Commons[fontem recensere]

Would be great to have the First Page linked to Commons and other possible projects with pages in Latin. --193.77.242.89 18:56 iun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dialecti Italiani et Barbari[fontem recensere]

Possumus immittere in Linguis Aliis dialectos italianos et barbaros, veras linguas sunt. Si ibi est Sicilianum, possunt esse Longobardum, Latialis, Campanum, Apulianum et cetera.

Vide linguam Siculam, et linguam Neapolitanam. Ego tecum consentio, ita paginas has creavi.--Ioshus Rocchio 00:59, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Automata[fontem recensere]

Lately the mutationes recentes page has been swamped by bots, e.g. Yurik, Zwobot, Chobot. We could solve this problem by having a steward such as Andre Engels mark them as bots.

I am a bit worried though, that since la: has such a low population of users, it would be easy for a bot to run amock. One simple solution is to assume that if en: counts a bot as safe it's probably safe for la: as well. Of course there can be problems with such bots as well, especially if their owner doesn't speak Latin (recall the problems we had with Suisui's bot.)

On the other hand, in the final analysis, I don't think most people keep careful track of what bots are doing even when they do appear on the recent changes list, so by removing them we're honestly not increasing the risk that much. We just need to be vigilant of the changes they make to aticles we work on, I suppose. --Iustinus 07:03 iul 28, 2005 (UTC)

quam interesans hic est[fontem recensere]

latinum studiabam, sed multus tempus habet pasatus. quod, latinum meum debet esse malissimus.

(In other words, my Latin stinks. it's been awhile.)

sed, quam interesans est videre vicipaediam in latine...

de articuli auctore[fontem recensere]

I have made one rather long contribution in Latin, see Ursus maritimus, which some contributors are fashioning into a rather handsome contribution by adding all the formatting I was incapable of producing. Their contributions are terrific. As my article was my own essay rather than a translation, I inserted my Latin name (Adelbertus Michiganiensis) near the foot of the article; my name was subsequently deleted by a later contributor. What is Vicipaedia's policy about signing articles?

I think articles should not be explicitly signed in the text itself for obvious reasons. Anybody will know who contributed what by looking in the "Historia" and comparing (diff) the versions. You have done a good job contributing to the ursus maritimus article, but if you wanted to be credited you should have created an account in this wikipedia (look at "aperire conventum" on top of each page). That's how I think people should be credited for. --Mafrius 17:29 aug 4, 2005 (UTC)
It is basic Wikipedia (and Vicipaedia) policy to never sign articles. Just log in in the future; all your contributions will then be tracked automatically (see, e.g., mine; just click the '(diss)' links to see what changes and additions I made). Having names on the article pages, while possibly a point for accountability, shows a kind of proprietary interest that may be discouraging to the merciless editing that helps wiki to grow as well as it does. (It also suggests it may be original research, which is frowned upon.) —Myces Tiberinus 21:09 aug 6, 2005 (UTC)
The best way for you to claim your authorship credit now is to mention your IP number 80.216.66.232, together with a remark that the contributions coming therefrom within particular date range are yours, on your user page. When you create account on the Latin (!) Wikipedia, you can obtain and then edit your user page, for example, by clicking on your login name almost anywhere where it starts to appear on this (!) Wikipedia. I cope with marking my authorship on “foreign” Wikipedias by signing the summary field of every edit with a link to my English user page before submitting it to the site. The format is: language shortcut followed, without space, by :User: (would be :Usor: if I had a Latin Wikipedia account instead), then by login name, all of this then enveloped in double square parentheses. The result looks like this: en:User:6birc.
en:User:6birc, 193.122.47.170 19:27, 29 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource[fontem recensere]

Wikisource:Main Page:Latina >>change to>> s:Pagina prima

Rogatio grammatica[fontem recensere]

Nonne "omnes ad participandum invitati sunt" tempus perfectum est? Nonne debet "omnes ad participandum invitantur" esse? --Angr 19:51 sep 23, 2005 (UTC)
Invitatio iam dicta (vel potius scripta) est, ergo tempus perfectum mihi aptum videtur. W. B. 9 Kal. Oct.

Si aspectum temporis exprimere velis, "invitabantur" sive tempus imperfectum aptius esse censeo, quoniam haec invitatio iam exstat. Tempus perfectum sive "invitati sunt" equidem aspectum temporum actorum exprimere credo. Anglice "are invited" atque latine "invitati sunt" inter se differunt: Noli similitudine extranea decipi! jw

Pagina praeferentiarum[fontem recensere]

Apud paginam praeferentiarum, num scribendum est "Servare praeferentiae" et "Reddere praeferentiae" sed "Servare praeferentias" et "Reddere praeferentias"? --Angr/loquere 12:24 sep 26, 2005 (UTC)

Categoriae in pagina prima?[fontem recensere]

Nonne utile esset si haberemus omnis subcategorias Categoriae:Omnia in pagina prima? Forsitan ita:

--Angr/loquere 23:26 oct 8, 2005 (UTC)

Mihi placeret --Tbook 15:10 oct 9, 2005 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago. Administratores? --Angr/loquere 11:28 oct 29, 2005 (UTC)

Somebody fix the commons logo on the Pagina prima[fontem recensere]

It needs to be "commons-logo.SVG" not "commons-logo.PNG". The page (sorry, pagina) has been locked, otherwise I'd do it myself.

    • This is why the page must be unlocked. This is a small encyclopedia, unlikely to receive much vandalism. Revolutio (disputatio) 01:36, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
Alas, Latin speakers always have to be on the lookout for Vandals... User:Sum0 22:45, 1 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Fix wikibooks link[fontem recensere]

[[s:Main Page|'''Vicilibri''']]<br />Tractatus enchiridiaque

and not this

[[Wikibooks:la:Main Page|'''Vicilibri''']]<br />Tractatus enchiridiaque

Thanks. --Accurimbono 13:45, 21 Novembris 2005 (UTC)

News[fontem recensere]

There needs to be a "News" or "current events" section on the Pagina prima. Revolucion 07:42, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

These are found at novissima --Iustinus 16:30, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
Why can't you put a Current Events section on the front page like on the English Wikipedia? Revolucion 23:03, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
I made a template Formula:Nuntii and put it in the Taberna if you're interested. It's only temporarily there, I would put it on the front page but I don't have admin powers. Revolucion 00:03, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Vicipaedia[fontem recensere]

Why Vicipaedia instead of Vikipaedia?

Essentially because k is so rare as to be virtually nonexistant in classical Latin. Where it does occur it is virtually always the first letter of a word, and is immediately followed by a.
Vicipaedia may not have been the best Latinization, though, as not everyone uses the "Classical" pronunciation. In Italy, for instance the pronunciation we call "Ecclesiastical" is almost universal, so Italians pronounce the name *vee-chee-pay-DEE-ah*. This problem could have been avoided by spelling the name "vichipaedia."
That said, this same case has been made to me before, and I usually tell people "That's true, but that spelling has been around for a long time. Well before I arrived. To change it now would be a difficult and unrewarding labor." You are welcome to try to make such a change, but in my oppinion that spelling is more-or-less official now. --Iustinus 16:35, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

I agree, actually. Vichipaedia or Vikipaedia. The letter k is rare in Spanish but that doesn't keep them from spelling it Wikipedia instead of Wiquipedia. Revolucion 00:04, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

I ment it because Vicipaedia in pronounce I commonly use would be vee-tsee-pE-dee-ah (that's so called traditional pronounce of the German school), and I think that vee-kee-pE-dee-ah would be more proper. Never mind. :)

Here in France the official prononciation is more "Wee kee pah eh dia", so fine for me :)

sidebar[fontem recensere]

Porta communis on the sidebar should be changed to Taberna. I moved Novissima to Nuntii, so that needs to be changed. Adiutatum has been changed by someone to Auxilium pro editione and Donationes doesn't even exist. Revolucion 23:52, 17 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Roman numerals[fontem recensere]

In my honest opinion I don't think we need to use Roman numerals. I think it should be 2005 instead of MMV. Revolutio (disputatio) 00:09, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Some users feel more comfortable using them, apparently. Personally I agree with the use of more modern numerals, as, people being more unfamiliar with Roman numerals, errors are more likely to be introduced (and then, having been introduced, to carry on a long time without notice, as people mayn't try to "decode" them unless they need them). However even in publications where Arabic numbers are used, Roman numerals appear occasionally, whether in dates (MDCLXI), certain kinds of enumeration (e.g. chapter headings) or in disambiguation (XI and 2 instead of 11 and II, in typefaces where the numeral 1 is identical to the I). —Myces Tiberinus 00:41, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Adjectives[fontem recensere]

What is your position on the position of adjectives? To be consistent I suggest we have a standard of adjective after the noun. so Libera encyclopaedia would be Encyclopaedia libera Revolutio (disputatio) 00:15, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Use natural grammar, don't try to invent new rules. Even the Romans put adjectives before nouns sometimes. —Myces Tiberinus 00:34, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Translating names[fontem recensere]

There's a real big problem with name translations of names. It seems it's just adding -us to the end of mosts parts of the name. One example, the President of Peru is Alejandro Toledo Manrique. It was translated to Alexander Toletus Manricus. Honestly I don't think such a translation is necessary, or beneficial to this encyclopedia. Spanish names like Juan aren't translated into English as John, so why translate Alejandro into Alexander? Revolutio (disputatio) 01:10, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

These translated names are all over the place! It's getting annoying. Nobody cares enough to give input, so I wrote a new guideline to not translate names of people unless there is an official Latinized name for them (e.g. popes) Revolutio (disputatio) 01:44, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
*
I really would like input please. Revolutio (disputatio) 03:14, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
*
Dear Revolutio!
Revolutio wrote:
Spanish names like Juan aren’t translated into English as John, so why translate Alejandro into Alexander?
Short response: Because Latin names are translated into Spanish.
Long response. Foreign names can be and are translated into English. For example, you don’t say Ioannes Paulus II or Józef Konrad in English, do you? Similarly, you don’t say Liszt Ferenc in German, do you?
The last example is especially revealing about the absurdity of the prevalent custom of non-translating names into English. Because most, that has been said or written of this composer, has been done so in a culture where they did practice translation of foreign names, it appears as if Franz Liszt were this man’s native name. Now, add the mentioned English custom—and what we’re getting is a really funny show where the English don’t translate the composer’s name into English, yet they do it into German... in their own language!
The same can be said of Nicolaus Copernicus, with the situation reinfornced by the astronomer himself, who hasn’t left any cues as to which language was his primary one, so that you must translate his name, whether you want it, or not. What you currently use in English, is Latin translation of his name, a clear show of real value of the predominant custom and a situation as ridiculous as in the former case. English people ended up violating the custom (of keeping names in original language) simply by strict following it.
Now, why not to switch to Nikolaus Kopernikus? Why not to be consequential and keep using German translations of names in English language once we had done so with Franz Liszt? Apparently, because it would be absurdal. So why is it not absurdal to use German name of the Hungarian composer when refering to him in English speech? Well... whoever has stated so, it wasn’t me, so don’t ask me such question.
Spaniards and Poles, for this purpose, go clever and do translate. (Nicolás Copérnico, Mikołaj Kopernik.)
Interestingly, Estonians use the Polish translation of his name, Mikołaj Kopernik, in their language and apply Estonian inflection principles to the Polish word. Is it also in the name of non-translating? Non-translating from what, exactly? And why not to apply Polish inflection then, while using the name in Estonian, too? And why not to use Mikołaj Kopernik instead of Nicolaus Copernicus in English? (It would make more sense, really.) It’s very kind of them, towards Poles, but this sacrifice of own language is excessive for a mark of respect.
I maintain that the custom of non-translating names, when observed with a strength of a language principle, is a manifestation of certain silly phobia. (A phobia of one’s own cultural expansion.) I find it acceptable to enact it when it is temporarily inconvenient to perform a translation but unacceptable when people attempt to put it forth as compulsory or universal. Because this is when it becomes political rather than rational. Have irrational phobia if you please so but stop trying to enforce it on others.
After all, what’s there inherent in English language that would make an English-translated name a violation of language? Nothing.
The same must be realized about Latin.

en:User:6birc, 193.122.47.170,
23:04, 29 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Why do you translate your own Wikipedia name from Revolucion to Revolutio??? (Your signature wiki code is: Usor:Revolucion|Revolutio.)
P.P.S. As for the argument that translating is annoying, my only advice to you could be to stay within the domain of your native language with everything that you do in life and keep at distance from anything whereof speaking might require translation... if it will be less annoying.
P.P.P.S. Other examples easily serving against your case include English translation of many geographic names in everyday practice: Moscow, Warsaw, Cracow and even simply such a name as Germany! Why not to say Berlin is the capital city of Deutschland? The answer is childish simple: because we speak English while we are saying that!
*

Or perhaps just translate first names if there's a Latin equivalent? Perhaps that's a good compromise. Revolutio (disputatio) 03:28, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Umm... calm down. I can't always be staring at WIkipedia all day, much as I'd like to be (and in fact may be away a lot the next two weeks). For my opinion on this matter, see here. If the first name CAN be Latinized, I think it definitely should be: indeclinables gum up the works too much. --Iustinus 09:22, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Request to unprotect the main page[fontem recensere]

Please unprotect the main page, there isn't much vandalism and I want to improve it. Revolutio (disputatio) 01:47, 18 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

What would you like to do to it? I would be happy to make any changes suggested, but am not the one who would have the say-so to unprotect it. Let me know on my talk page. Nicolaus 00:37, 21 Decembris 2005 (UTC)
If you could do it that would be great, but I somehow want to incorporate Formula:Nuntii as shown in the Taberna into the main page as on other language versions of Wikipedia. Revolutio (disputatio) 00:45, 21 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Syntax[fontem recensere]

Please, pay more attention to the correct Latin syntax.

4,000[fontem recensere]

We now have over 4,000 articles. Revolutio (disputatio) 17:13, 28 Decembris 2005 (UTC)

Nederlandice[fontem recensere]

Would you like to update Nederlandice to 100.000+ articles?

Thanks,

User "Dgb".

Look of the main page[fontem recensere]

do you think we should keep the "Classic" Roman feel of the main page or change it to a more modern look like on some other wikis, I tried to translate it into one of them: (feel free to change it) Usor:Revolucion/categoriae Revolutio (disputatio) 03:34, 5 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

I personally would vote for making it look even more ancient: Using "Times New Roman" at least. :-) However, the layout Usor:Revolucion/categoriae is a nice modern design and I know that most people prefer a modern design. Ancient and modern, both are ok for me. --Roland2 21:11, 9 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Translatio hebdomadalis[fontem recensere]

Meo animo, haec pagina creandast. Incepi primam translationem hodie, ab en:E=mc², finiamque aliquando hac nocte. Quid putatis?--Ioshus Rocchio 21:46, 9 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

I was doing the TOTW before, but the recent selections havnt really been interesting me so I havn't bothered. If you want to take it up, feel free, be bold! Even if just for this week :p —Myces Tiberinus 22:11, 9 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
Where are your opera located? I followed a false link from it.wikipedia to translatio hebdomadalis.--Ioshus Rocchio 23:27, 9 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
They are not collected anywhere. But the previous TOTWs I worked on, to some extent or other, were Insurrectio Ibera Texaliae, Moresnet, Muixeranga, Varadinum, Rafael del Riego, Memela, Aquilo (Kalevala), Manatus, Tria Regna Coreae, Cassim, Panda maior, Pyramides Guimarenses, Manama, Lacus Volsiniensis, Bellum Lapponiae, Henricus Valor i Vives, Aeroplanum chartaceum, Umm Kulthum, Nadia Comaneci, lingua Ainuana, Antonius Grabowski, Arsenius Kotsoiev, Basho, en:Black-faced Spoonbill, Micatio Sinensis, Bombyx, Index linguarum sollemnium Indiae, and Transsilvania (which already existed, but I added some to). There might be more. The older ones in particular I'm sure must be horribly rough Latin ><
User:Iustinus has also done a couple, notably Imperium Cossanum, and also trisceles. —Myces Tiberinus 01:52, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha, don't be so hard on yourself, good work if you ask me. I think we should set up a hub for TOTW for vicipaedia. Since so few of us in the world actually communicate with this language, it seems to me that translation is a major part of what we do, and thus a center for the promotion and record of translations of the week behooves us. --Ioshus Rocchio 02:24, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Added la to Translatio hebdomadalis. Would someone glance at it, and correct what needs it?--Ioshus Rocchio 23:15, 13 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

One more thing...can someone change the template for translation of the week to direct towards the latin meta one, instead of the english, or direct me how to do so myself, thanks.--Ioshus Rocchio 23:28, 13 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

paginae creaturae[fontem recensere]

Pro quo non possum paginas novas creare? Mihist materia pro pagina usoris mea, translatione hebdomadale, paucisque alteris.--Ioshus Rocchio 02:34, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Ignorate nuntium pristinum. Probabiliter fuit parvus error cum wiki anocte.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:16, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Somebody please change the logo that appears at the top of the page. That doric column has ugly colors and is lo res. Also the blue font doesn't show up very well.

Broken link to taberna[fontem recensere]

Please fix Wikipedia:Taberna, it points to an empty page in the English Wikipedia. Thanks! --Roland2 13:13, 23 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Arca ferramentorum: "Permanent link"[fontem recensere]

Bottom of the left-hand column; needs to be translated. --71.141.166.169 17:53, 24 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)

Why?[fontem recensere]

Why is there a Latin wikipedia?--68.170.86.111 00:31, 3 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

For all the native speakers of latin...jeeze don't you know ANYTHING? Alexanderr 01:19, 3 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

but none speak Latin (WITH A CAPILTA "L")....--68.170.86.111 02:35, 3 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

User 68.170.86.111: Present us with good reasons not to have a Latin wikipedia. That none speak it is not a good reason, but an inconsequential, and furthermore quite recent, coincidence. The main reason is we want it. If it offends you, just don't stop by. See general wikimedia policy on not being a dick.--Ioshus Rocchio 03:28, 3 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Well, the jury's still out on whether he's being a dick. Let's assume good faith for the time being. Why there is a Latin wikipedia might not be immediately obvious to everyone, and it's possible this question was not meant to offend. --Iustinus 06:21, 3 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I just didn't like the tone, especially criticizing a very active member's capitalization on a talk page. Good faith assumed.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:45, 3 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

I R NOT A DICK I JUST WANNA KNOW WHY U HAV THEIOS UNNESCESRRY PROJECT. NONE SPEAKS THIS LNAGUA NATIVLY, ADN ANYONE JSUT USE WIKIZ IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE I JUS WANNA NO Y U DO IT!!!!--68.170.86.111 23:57, 3 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Some people are even speaking Klingonese. ;-) What language do you prefer? --Roland2 00:02, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

There's no good reason, I suppose. At the risk of speaking for others, I'd say that we who are here derive some sort of pleasure, bizarre as it may be, from Latin itself, and some sort of dismay from the fact that it has ceased to be a lingua franca. The bulk of the world's knowledge was largely written in this language(not necessarily originally, I'm not saying the Romantic are the only cultures who made intellectual advances by any means), and I believe that we here want to see that tradition revitalized, and continued now and into the future. A lot of us are students of this language, in college, high school, doctorate, ecclesia, or life, and this is a great place to hone composition and comprehension skills. A lot of us are linguists, too, and just want information to be available in any language that exists or existed, and this happens to be a language in which we are, some more readily than others, knowledgeable enough to author. As I said, before I called you a dick, for which I apologize, we just like vicipaedia. We may be dorks for that, but that's really all it is.--Ioshus Rocchio 00:57, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

1, KLINGONOMGWTFH4X!!!!!!!!!!11111111

2, I never said I didn't like Latin. I just wanted to know why you wanted to make a wiki for it. Thanks. I to think it's cool and want to revive it.--68.170.86.111 01:45, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is that since other wikis, like en, are huge, close to a million articles or something. La has 4,000ish. There's a much more likely prospect here that an author can create new pages, rather than edit existing ones. Further still, it's cool to have articles on antiquated matters in antique languages. History of latin authors, and Rome in general is much more vibrant in Latin.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:48, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
Actually, one of my favorite things about writing for Wikipedia in Latin is writing about things that take place over several periods of time. For a short but illustrative example, check out Gades. That covers roughly 1200 BCE to 1799 CE, and incluides the Latinized form of the cities Punic name, attested in Pliny, and the Latin names of Francis Drake and Admiral Robert Blake, both of whom I had found mentioned in Renaissance Latin sources. It's fun to work in such diverse material into a more-or-less coherent article. --Iustinus 06:40, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. THat's what I'm saying, it got used for over 2 millenia until very recently. Late mathematical works, and other science written in Latin, the Principia, etc., are all great to read. Contemporary works like Winnie ille Pu, Harrius Potter (not that I like Harry Pottedr, honestly =]), Cattus Petasatus, and the like are all awesome too.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:41, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

If you want to get an overview about what is going on here, visit the taberna. If you are considering to take an account, just do it! ... and maybe let us know, that you have been user 68.170.86.111 before. :-) --Roland2 10:41, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

I would like to join, thank you, but I cant contribute because I don't know Latin.

Sorry. =(--68.170.86.111 19:35, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Just put {{usor la-0}}

la-0 Hic usuarius nullo pacto aut aegre Latine intellegere potis est.


on your user page and you'll be safe. ;-) --Roland2 20:15, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

What's the point if I'm incapable of adding anything (usefull)?--68.170.86.111 21:35, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

You can add pictures, external links (nexus externi), internal links (vide etiam), interwiki links, cleanup formatting, follow English discussions, maybe learn some Latin by reading, ... --Roland2 22:14, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
What the hell, i'll do it to. Don't know Latin (yet), but it'll be fun.205.201.71.136 20:40, 12 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Native Speakers[fontem recensere]

You know what though, while I was joking above I don't see why there couldn't very easily be a native speaker of latin. All you'd need to do is get someone with enough knowledge to teach the language speak it around a child long enough, and help with grammar, but in the end they'd most likely think and speak in Latin along with whatever language is native to where they are. That's why I can't see how there can be endangered language....just have some of the inhabitants of a region adopt children who'll grow up to speak it. Alexanderr 15:48, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

I agree! It would be cool if this language is revived! I wonder how you come up with new words for this ancient language. ;)--68.170.86.111 19:34, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Freely. That's what language is about. See Disputatio:Google for example. Keep it in check, use classical methods of coinage, but certainly apply new roots. See Etymologiarum Libri Viginti for example, I don't know of a translation... Perhaps Iustinus can help. Feel free to ask me for any help or questions you might have in learning latin (as long as you calm down about its capitalization =]).
As far as Alexanderr's point goes, if I'm lucky enough to have kids, I fully plan on making sure they speak latin. And whatever else I know by then.--Ioshus Rocchio 20:42, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
Besides, come on. Take your pick. For example, grab words wholesome out of Italian and "back-import" them into Latin. Listen to me -- Hebrew was dead two thousand years, and we revived it...
The greatest obstacle to the revival of Latin as a secular language would be the Catholic Church, which worships it and purports to own it. --69.244.123.182 05:03, 10 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
I count 9 languages so far ... --Roland2 21:26, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
Well I want to keep it simple myself - German, Latin, Norse, and maybe a little french French (for school). I'd also like to learn some dialects and such, but right now I'm working on the first two :) Alexanderr 21:59, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

I think Latin is more alive then many of the languages that do have native speakers. It's the most likely one to be revived, and I think this is cool, because this Wiki will encourage Latin in the world! Latin is much more likely to become useful than Klingon.--68.170.86.111 21:37, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Well on one hand if you get transported back in time to ancient Rome Latin is the language to know, however if klingons abduct you - yes you can see where I'm going with this can't you :) Alexanderr 21:59, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)
How can someone learn Latin outside a school course? Unless one of you guys wants to teach me, I'll have to wait until college to be able to do serious contributions, maybe an online course...KAMERONUS MAXIMUS 21:17, 12 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I learn Latin outside a school course - autodidactly. Surely, it's hard to reach in this way a good level, but if you have enough will and interest you'll make it easily; there is enough materials (wikibooks, wictionary and so forth). I had my own strategy, wich I recommend to everyone: I began to learn "Latino sine flexione" (also known as "Interlingua de Peano"), an auxiliary language created in 1903. You'll surely find some websites. It's a simplificated Latin, just without inflections. So you'll get a feeling for Latin vocabulary and Latin itself. Then I began to learn all the inflections and now I speak fairly Latin.

I don't know. I think if you want to learn latin you should learn latin, not interlingua. There are plenty of very simply written books for beginners, as well as plenty of neo-latin literature aimed at children or beginners. Trauppman, the Tunbergs, and Barocas are three(4, really) authors I'd check out to start with. Back to Interlingua, it is not properly simplified latin, in the sense that simple english is simplified english. Interlingua is completely different from latin in many ways:
  1. Its vocabulary is comprised of Slavic, German, and Romantic roots, with many direct latin borrowings. Many of these roots, and many of the borrowings from latin are arbitrarily mutated, while others are retained entirely in their modern form. Then there are countless untranslated loan words.
  2. Phonologically it is very similar except that it has some fricatives that classical latin had not imagined.
  3. It's grammar is a mess. Nouns not only don't inflect save for genitive and plurality, but they have no gender, and there isnt even noun adjective agreement. There is a definite article, also undeclined, like in English. And word order is exactly like English SVO. There is no subjunctive mood, and there is use of an auxilliary verb for compound tenses, like in english and late romance languages.
But the worst part about Interlingua is the Tolkien critique. It has no natural history, no native speakers, and thus no life. There is no history, no mythology, no legal documents that define its modes of expression and frame its semantic inventory. It borrows from all, and as such, can only really be used as a means of communication between two willing participants. It can not be used as a means to teach something about a language that evolved naturally. It can only give you a crash course in northwestern indoeuropean vocabulary.
If you want to learn another language first, learn one of latin's biological not artificial progeny. Learn Sicilian, or Catalan, or Spanish, or Italian. They will give you real insight into Latin as they themselves are its flesh and blood.
I repeat, though, the best way to learn a language is just to go ahead and learn it. Get a dictionary, start reading latin and looking things up. Get a grammar book, go from start to finish, do all the exercises, make vocab lists, decline noun adjective pairs on countless sheets, write out paradigms for verbs in all persons, tenses, voices, moods, participles, etc. Read texts and parse every word. Come here, start writing, make mistakes, get corrected, learn.
I'm not telling you not to learn Interlingua, I'm sure it has some use, even if I don't particularly recognize/understand that use, but I'm absolutely certain: If you want to learn Latin, learn Latin.--Ioshus (disp) 19:38, 3 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
  • only recently got into looking at wiki and was delighted to see one in latin (unfortunatly ive lost most of the latin that i had from school, and when i get the time i'll try and get bak in on it....) but jus taught id say its great thats here....

and in relation to the above debates and remarks("The greatest obstacle to the revival of Latin as a secular language would be the Catholic Church, which worships it and purports to own it") ....the Catholic Church is one of the few (or many i could be wrong) world wide institutions that actively promote, teach and use (very fluently, almost like natives ;) ) the latin language, one of the most interesting conversations i have heard were between two priests arguing in latin.....(i also used it to communicate with a polish freind....we had both learned it at Catholic schools....). jus because she (the church) uses it (very regularly, thats not to say that it prevents people from using it "secularly". one would think that latin enthusiats one be grateful for such an institution even if they oppose it for other reasons..... keep up the good work....--83.45.176.87 12:31, 8 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Fair use et Vicipaedia[fontem recensere]

Quaesitum habeo. Aptat "Fair Use" in versio Latino Vicipaediae? Non possum directiva invenire.Weather rain.pngSoothingR 13:50, 15 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Ne credo...articulus nimis magnust, videturque in toto nullam hilariam id transducere faceat. Si stipulam requaesas, scribam, ac non mihi interest tota pagina.--Ioshus Rocchio 09:46, 20 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

links and sports[fontem recensere]

To the administrative codifiers that be: two links on the main page appear to be false, both at the bottom under the heading Vicipaediana, the Exercitium and the Vexillium et Signum.

Also on the main page, would it be possible to put a link to a sports category? I know there is a Ludi link, but it leads to a disambiguation page. Many other wikis have a sports category on the front page, and it might encourage growth of our certamina athletica section. Thanks. --Ioshus Rocchio 17:06, 20 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the links, and am not opposed to adding a link to a sports section, if people concur, but looking at the wikipedia, I don't think we have a page on sports. The closest is: Categoria:Exercitatio corporis. I can only conclude that latinists are not great sports enthusiasts. However, if someone were to write Certamina Athletica, it would be good. --Tbook 21:47, 22 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, judging from my Latin professor Dr. Staley, who even completed basic training for uncle sam, and still can't throw a tennis ball more than 10 feet. Wiki's seem to be places, though, where necessity doesn't always mother invention. I have definitely written pages just cause I saw a red link somewhere that needed to get filled. I believe the Certamina section, which I will write, will do the same. How do we feel about translation of sports names? Futbol and football can't both be pila pedibus, for instance. it.wiki does not translate snowboarding, curling, hockey, tennis, rugby, wrestling(shame on them for this one), surfing, golf or baseball. Neither do they transliterate judo as giudo, for that matter, as has been debated here. (We, erroneously I believe, have opted to transliterate as Ziudo)
Btw, the debate about translit of Judo was here. Forgot to sign this...was 02:20, 23 Februarii 2006 --Ioshus Rocchio 01:59, 24 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Logo[fontem recensere]

I changed the text on the Ionic Column logo to read VICIPAEDIA instead of WIKIPEDIA. I am not attached to my work, and invite anyone to do a better job. --Tbook 22:27, 22 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

pt.wiki: 100.000[fontem recensere]

Lusitane Vicipaedia (Português (Lusitane)) - nunc super 100 000 (117 496) articulorum est. Qv. [1]. Gratias ago! D Ambulans 17:59, 23 Februarii 2006 (UTC)


> Igualmente la Edicion en Español ha alcanzado mas de 100,000 articulos.----

Ita feci. --Tbook 19:42, 25 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

"Latina" in margine sinistro mutandum[fontem recensere]

Legenti articulos linguis vernaculis conscriptis, occurrit vocabulum "Latina" in margine sinistro, quotiens articulus Latine exaratus exstat. Sed scribendum est potius "Latine" (adverbium), aut si mavultis "sermo Latinus," vel "lingua Latina." Numquam enim "Latina" solum pro "lingua Latina" ponitur, nisi toto caelo erro. Suaserim ut hoc quam primum mutetur; nam periculum est ne homines Vicipaediam Latinam statim spernant, neque articulos adire dignentur (quorum nonnulli sunt bene scripti dignique qui legantur), si vel ante ingressum istius modi errorem deprehenderint. Severus Censor, die 27 Februarii 2006.

Verus est, nisi et erro. "VICIPAEDIA LATINA" Vicipaediam esse linguam Latinam ipsam (aut fortasse Latinorum) significare potest, immo re uera Vicipaediam Latine. Non Latina, sed Latine, est Vicipaedia. Item, "Wikipedia" est "English" quod est Anglice, non quod est Anglica. -Adamas 05:05, 2 Martii 2006 (UTC)
Consentio.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:26, 2 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Equis potest hoc emendandum curare? Nam pudendum est, talem exstare errorem. Severus Censor, die 5 Martii 2006.

'Latina' hic adiectivum est, non substantivum; quod multae Vicipaediae sunt—Vicipaedia Anglica, Vicipaedia Sinensis, etc... Haec non est, e.c. Vicipaedia Anglica Latine rescriptum. Ipsius encyclopaedia est. —Myces Tiberinus 12:10, 15 Martii 2006 (UTC)
Ubi est taberna latina (anglice "village pump", italice "bar")? Ibi petendum est in alias Vicipediae versiones. Anyrate, I asked at the English village pump. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#.22latina.22_language_link (sorry, I can still read Latin but I left high school in 1970 so I can't write it anymore) - calmansi
"Taberna" is right. Project:Taberna. —Myces Tiberinus 23:00, 20 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Tiberino adsentior: Latina (scilicet) Encyclopaedia. Adiectivum hoc loco non esse mendam nec vituperandum censeo. usor:Bohmhammel 21.14 (UTC) 14 Kal. Apr. 2006

Proh pudor. In lingua Latina non fiunt isto pacto ex adiectivis substantiva. "Latina" in margine sinistro positum, sine vocabulis "lingua" vel "encyclopaedia," nihil aliud significare potest quam "a woman from Latium," "una donna di Lazio." Eiusdem generis error est ac si quis Gallice, pro eo quod est "j'étudie le français," potius "j'étudie la française" dicat -- cui vir dicax non inepte respondere possit, "studeo et ego feminis Gallicis." Si huius modi mendum, ad rei grammaticae fundamenta pertinens, in ipso huius encyclopaediae Latinae vestibulo conspicitur, quotus quisque rem amplius indagare dignabitur, qui quidem Latine bene sciat? Severus Censor, die 21 Martii 2006.

Tibi obloquor; quamvis extempore non possim locum dicere, quo Latina hoc modo adhibeatur, tamen Latinus pro verbo sermo Latinus persaepe adhibetur, e. g. apud Ciceronem (convertere in Latinum), Quintilianum, Plinium eqs. Et homines illi tum scilicet non virum Romanum significabant! usor:Bohmhammel 19.58 (UTC) 13 Kal. Apr. 2006

Canto surdis. Exstant locutiones quae sunt "in Latinum convertere" et "ex Latino convertere" (in quibus "Latinum" habendum est pro substantivo generis neutri, secundum lexica). Sed non dicitur Latine "Latina" pro eo quod est "lingua Latina" (neque dici potest "Latina" pro "encyclopaedia Latina," ut asseruit aliquis). Siquidem eorum plerique, qui hanc encyclopaediam Latinam scriptitant, quo modo ipsam linguam, quam adhibent, nominetur nescire videntur, ipsisque in rei grammaticae fundamentis non vulgarem in modum hallucinantur, haud scio an de toto incepto sit desperandum. Igitur de hac re vos amplius non obtundam, licebitque per me "Latinam" discere, "Latinam" docere, "Latinam" scribendo et loquendo adhibere, si hoc vobis volup erit. Severus Censor, die 22 Martii 2006.

"Omnes Paginae" rather than "Totae Paginae"[fontem recensere]

I admit to not knowing that much Latin yet, but I'm pretty sure "totus" is whole and "omnis" is all, and that "Omnes Paginae" would be the correct translation for "All Pages". Gulielmus 21:00, 3 Martii 2006 (UTC)

A grey matter there grammatically. There are instances in english, too, where 'whole' substitutes for all. All that said, though, omnes paginae suits me better, too.--Ioshus Rocchio 20:04, 18 Martii 2006 (UTC)--
Et ego. -Adamas 22:44, 19 Martii 2006 (UTC)
Ego quoque. Sinister Petrus 03:25, 18 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Creare ratio nova?[fontem recensere]

First, I'm not sure that "ratio" is the proper word for an "account" you use to log in. But mainly, shoudn't it be "rationem novam"? --Calmansi 20:45, 19 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Right on both counts, I never noticed that when I created an account. I would say conventum novum.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:32, 19 Martii 2006 (UTC)
Can't do unfortunately: they use conventum for session --Calmansi 20:19, 20 Martii 2006 (UTC)
Ratio seems fine to me, considering that the origin of this use of "account" in English was from account books and listings. The two words are surprisingly similar in the different senses they can have. If we want to paraphrase "account" in a way that will make it a more literal explanation of what is being created, there may be other possibilities, but creare rationem novam is at least acceptable. -Adamas 01:47, 22 Martii 2006 (UTC)

"Batave"[fontem recensere]

"Batave" is a ridiculous way to translate the Dutch word "Nederlands". It uses the name of one tribe living in a small part of the now Dutch-speaking area at the time of Julius Caesar. It would clearly be very offensive to the six million Dutch speakers in the North of Belgium - it of course it was not so clearly a joke made up by someone who had way, way, too much to drink at the local pub a few hours before.

The same person translated Albanian as "Illyrice", which suggests that the drinking may have happened in the presence of a Greater Albanian nationalist.

"Batave" for Dutch is almost as appropriate as "Galatice" would be for Turkish, and "Vandalice" for Polish.

Paul Pieniezny--193.190.172.92 12:21, 23 Martii 2006 (UTC)

"Batave" or "Batavice" is the correct way of saying "in Dutch" in Latin; the Netherlands are called "Batavia," or less often "Hollandia" (used as in English and other languages of the entire country as well as two provinces within it); a Dutchman is "Batavus," less often "Hollandus"; and the adjectives are, as you would expect, "Batavicus" and "Hollandicus." These are the terms that have been used by Latin writers for centuries -- including many of the great Dutch thinkers, scholars and humanists themselves, such as Erasmus, Grotius, and Ruhnken, when writing in Latin. Whoever wrote "Batave" on this site appears to have spent some time not drinking in a pub, but checking responsibly to find out how the concept he wanted to express in Latin has in fact been expressed in the enormous body of books, articles, and other writings published in that language over the last few hundred years. Which is not that hard to do -- thousands of Latin books published since the Renaissance are now available on-line; and a two-second search on WorldCat (a joint catalogue of university libraries) would have revealed to the user who shot off the above comment well over a thousand books written in Latin with "batav*" just in the title (nearly all referring to the modern nation). The Latin Vicipaedia is a great idea. But many of those contributing to it (with some commendable exceptions) behave as if modern Latin were something for us to make up. It exists already, in an enormous corpus of often fascinating works -- through the 18th century as large and significant as any European vernacular literature -- which includes in fact the first encyclopedias (17th century), those that gave rise to the encyclopedic genre and its name. If those writing here take the time to familiarize themselves with that body of literature and make it their model, Vicipaedia holds the promise of becoming an impressive, highly useful instrument -- the newest monument in 22 centuries of Latin authorship. Otherwise it may end up as little more than a ludic Babel for insomniac grammaticasters. Severus Censor, 23 Mar. 2006.

Amen. There are many concepts I'd like to write about. But I just don't know, so I stay quiet for some. Others I just steal what's been done elsewhwere. For example, I've used zona horaria and regio temporis for time zone, becuase I just don't know and I've seen it somewhere else.
As of right now, I've got a little something here about American presidents and some of the vocabulary surrounding them. I flat out don't have much access (due in part to bandwidth restrictions) to Neo-Latin materials. I'd love a decent dictionary of these sorts of words. Especially tucked away on the discussion page of the relevant category. If you've got any links to sites, I'd love to see them. Especially if they are low-bandwidth and free to use.Sinister Petrus 03:24, 18 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist problem[fontem recensere]

MediaWiki:Watchdetails needs to be modified so that there are double quotes around the "href" and not single quotes. At the moment, this messes up the top of the watchlist. haz (disputatio usoris) 13:16, 23 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problem is that HTML isn't allowed in that message anymore. Fixed it. —Myces Tiberinus 00:00, 24 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Vicipaedia scribta cum Latina??[fontem recensere]

cur Vicipaedia cum Latina constitit? pauci Latinam possunt scribere vel legere, et paucissimi homes, qui possunt Latinam legere, non possunt cum lingua alia legere. non reor esse malum, sed curiosus sum.

Vix te intellego, fortasse alia lingua loqui conare? Anglice, Hispanice, Italice (Sicule aut Neopolitane placent), vel Ruthenice, praefero.--Ioshus Rocchio 00:05, 29 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Puto me intelexisse - voluit scire ratio scribendi Vicipaediam Latinam, cum pauci sunt homines qui illam loquuntur linguam, et nemo qui loquitur tamquam linguam maternalem. Forsitan oportet nobis aliquid de hoc scribere; e.g. in pagina Vicipaedia vel Vicipaedia Latina. --Tbook 15:04, 29 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Pagina Mensis[fontem recensere]

For Interwiki organizational purposes alone (like WikiProject:Echo), would it be acceptable to consider "Pagina Mensis", at least in this Wikipedia's current state, to be the Latin Wikipedia's equivalent of "Featured Article"? -Adamas 00:49, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of, I think we ought to consider a pagina hebdomadis, or a pagina "fortnight" or something more frequent than monthly. We're getting alot bigger, and we have plenty of quality articles that we could show off more often.--Ioshus Rocchio 03:21, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't really have much to do with my question, but I suppose more often than a month could work at this point, though I think we should set up a system for voting on whether a page is good enough and for further improving pages that are almost good enough, but also that we shouldn't get too wrapped up in ceremonial and bureaucratic issues like pagina mensis at this point, but should worry more about improving important articles on Wikipedia to decent quality. If we do change the frequency, though, twice a month at most would probably be best; having one article shown on the main page every single week would be way too much, considering how small our current reserve of full-fledged articles is. Even the articles we're already featuring on the main page could be better; I've noticed some strange grammar at times, there's a pervasive lack of references, and the articles tend to be fairly short (Bomba atomica, though high-quality, is only about two pages long if you discount all the images and sections). If anything, we should be working more on bringing the pagina mensis pages up to a higher standard, and concerning ourselves with projects like collaboratio hebdomalis more, rather than spending excessive time on a largely honorary and superficial project. -Adamas 04:03, 10 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

As regards your original question, as far as I know, Pagina Mensis is the only list of "good" or featured articles that we have. Admittedly many of them could be much better, but on the other hand, I think the idea is that they are the best articles that we have for now. I think it would make sense to list them as our category for "Featured Articles" for now. --Tbook 17:07, 10 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

OK, cool. -Adamas 05:49, 11 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

"Articulus"?[fontem recensere]

Cur uerbum articuli fere utimur ut "articles" Latine dicamus? Quod articulus "joint" uel "portion" uel "juncture" primo significauit, nonne pagina uel res quod uti solemus? Si sic non est, quae uerba uti malumus dicere debemus, ut antiquiora declarentur. -Adamas 04:03, 10 Aprilis 2006 (UTC) Why do we so often use the word articuli to say "articles" in Latin? Don't we usually use pagina or res because articulus originally meant "joint" or "portion" or "juncture"? If that's not so, we should say which words we prefer to use, so that the preferred ones are made clear.
Puto te recte monere, "articulum" non dicendum. Scripta brevia, quae linguis patriis "article," "articulo" audiunt, Latine "commentationes" saepe nominantur -- quod vocabulum commendo. Sat magna pars locutionum ac vocabulorum quae in locis Vicipaediae communibus passim conspiciuntur, eiusdem fere modi sunt: nempe vocabulorum Latinorum forma sive facie induta sunt, sed significatione linguarum vernacularum propria pollent. Neque licet participibus talia mutare. Porro si quis in disputationum paginis errores istius modi corrigendos proposuerit, non facile aliorum consensum assequetur, cum multi sint participes, qui Latine nondum bene sciant. Quae res ne impediat vereor, quominus Vicipaedia in melius mutetur neu a peritioribus pluris fiat. Severus Censor, 11 Apr. 2006. [I believe you are quite right to note that "articulus" is not the appropriate word for "article." Short writings on a given subject are often called "commentationes" in Latin -- I would recommend this word be used. Many of the words and expressions now found in the common areas of Vicipaedia are of this sort: they have the form and appearance of Latin words, but are being used with the meaning of words that look similar in the modern languages. The problem is that users can't change these words; and if you bring up the problem in a discussion page like this, it's difficult to obtain consensus on it, as many users do not yet have a good enough knowledge of Latin to recognize the proper solution. This situation seems to me a real problem, as it could stand in the way of the improvement of Vicipaedia and its being taken more seriously by those most skilled in Latin. Severus Censor, 11 Apr. 2006.]
Hoc esse incommodum magnum, sed non esse inexsuperabile, congruo. Primum ad tractandum hanc rem est efficere ut uocabula uerum utamur in locis insignibus: Pagina Prima ipsa sexiens formas articulus uerbi uulgo usurpat; illud mutare propagationem usurpationis malae uerborum Latinorum retardet. Secundum est facere paginam in qua optime Latine reddita uerba uulgares quae sunt ad rem Vicipaediae (quod nonnumquam efficiat ut complures formas gratas, e.g., uerba uaria uerbi usor, scribamus) clare scribitur. Tertium est uerbo quaerere formas uerbi articulus in Vicipaedia et, ubi ea abutuntur, ea reponere uerbis gratis (et dare libellum de re usoribus qui identidem errant). I agree that this is a major problem, but it's not an insurmountable one. The first step to dealing with this issue is to make sure that we use the correct terminology in prominent places: the Main Page itself currently uses forms of articulus six times; changing that would slow down the propagation of misused Latin words. The second step is to create a page which clearly lists the ideal Latin translations of common words relevant to Wikipedia (which may in some cases mean listing several acceptable forms, like the various variants of usor). The third step is to do a text search for forms of articulus on Wikipedia and, where they're being misused, replace them with acceptable synonyms (and give a notice about the issue to the user for "repeat offenders"). -Adamas 08:19, 12 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)


Sed si volumus non uti verbo "Articulo" malo "Symbolum" quam "Commentationes," cum brevior sit. Sed puto mihi esse dicere quod venerabiles Lewis & Short "Articulus" aiunt " II A Of discourse, a member, part, division." et "C. Of other abstract things, part, division, point" et ergo non totaliter extraneus est pro parte encyclopediae. --Tbook 19:42, 12 Aprilis 2006 (UTC) However, if we prefer not to use the word "Articulus," I would prefer "Symbolum" rather than "Commentationes", as it is shorter. Still, I think it behoves me to point out that the great Lewis & Short say: "Articulus II A Of discourse, a member, part, division." and "C. Of other abstract things, part, division, point"--Tbook 19:42, 12 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Nisi fallor, symbola, non symbolum, Mediaeuale Latinum uarium symbolus ("token, symbol"), a uerbo Graece symbolon, signum a quo rem scit uel infert, te in animo habuisse puto. Sed nonne symbolum fere "contribution" significat? Itaque uerba ulla, neque articulus (ui et "pars sermonis" uel "pars rei", non est similis "article"), significationem "article" habere non uidentur. Longitudo uerbi minus grauis quam subtilitate est; si commentatio uel commentationes est uerbum optimum ut "article" dicamus, usurpationem illius suadere et factitare debemus. Et si sunt alia bona uerba quae usurpari etiam possunt ut hoc significent, optiones amplius quam uno usoribus dare, ut supra dixi, etiam possumus. Exempli gratia, si fons memorabilis est quae symbolum "article" ui recente significare uulgo usurpari adfirmat, illud esse optio scribere possemus. Male, nulla optionum, quae hactenus paratae sunt, uere esse classicae uidentur, sed illa esse meliora quam funditus malis usubus, e.g., articulus, puto... Unless I'm mistaken, I think you meant symbola, not symbolum, a Medieval Latin variant of symbolus ("token, symbol") from Geek symbolon, a sign by which one knows or infers a thing. But doesn't symbola refer to a "contribution" in general? So it doesn't seem like any of those words fit the meaning of "article", nor does articulus (even in the sense of "part of a discourse" or "part of a thing", it doesn't have much to do with "article"). How lengthy a word is is less important than how accurate it is; if commentatio or commentationes is the best word to mean "article", we should recommend, and practice, the use of that. And if there are other good words that can also be used to mean this, we can always, as I said above, provide more than one option to users. For example, if there's a noteworthy source that says that symbolum is commonly used to mean "article" in the modern sense, we could list that as an option. Unfortunately, none of the options provided thus far seem very classical, but I suppose it's better than complete misuses like articulus... -Adamas 00:02, 13 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Quin utimur "rem" in "articuli" loco? Why not use "res" instead of "articulus"? Sinister Petrus 19:45, 17 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Although I cannot contribute much to this topic, I enjoy following these discussions. However, it's hard to get an overview about the disputes. I wish we had a wiki to create a page for each term ... ;-) I am thinking of pages like Vicipaedia:Articulus, Vicipaedia:Pagina, Vicipaedia:Usor etc. Maybe later Pagina (vici) or Taberna (vici) etc. Then we could have something like Vicipaedia:Index of disputed terms. And ... I am guilty of having created a page which has "articuli" in the title. I will rename it when it is clearer, what the preferred term is. Please create pages about relevant topics. We can then better reference this knowledge. It's easier to say vide Vicipaedia:Articulus than vide http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disputatio:Pagina_prima#.22Articulus.22.3F --Roland2 20:44, 17 Maii 2006 (UTC)


I have started a new page. See Vicipaedia:Articulus. I think this discussion should be moved to that page. --Roland2 14:57, 20 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Change image[fontem recensere]

The image for Victionarium is that in English. Please change to the Latin version (same filename, la instead of en). Daniel () 13:52, 1 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Quinque Milia[fontem recensere]

Vult aliquis mutare verba quattuor milia legere quinque milia? --Tbook 00:34, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Rem similem putabam...--Ioshus Rocchio 00:47, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)

navigatio[fontem recensere]

Non diu navigatio legitur Anglice, an errone?--Ioshus Rocchio 05:04, 11 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Est Latine nunc...--Ioshus Rocchio 18:18, 15 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Nunc legitur Anglice. Nexus sunt correcti. Daniel () 12:52, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Nexus Intervici[fontem recensere]

This page doesn't need interwiki links, it has a big box at the bottom for them. Please remove those that are there. Daniel () 13:06, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure, if we should remove that interwiki links. We have that interwiki links to other Wikipedias, however, do the other Wikipedias link back to us? Interwiki links will be automatically added by the robots and someone can get a translation of the page without knowing the language. On a Japanese page (even the mainpage) my only chance to find out the title of the page is, to look at the interwiki links to the left, because I can't even read the Japanese "letters" (which aren't letters, sometimes). --Roland2 13:17, 21 Maii 2006 (UTC)

The language names in the box are in the native languages, and I think it is clear that it is the main page anyway. The bots might be a problem. The solution would be to go to every other Wikipedia and ask them to change it also, but I don't think that would be so easy. Daniel () 15:07, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Vicifons linguae Graecae[fontem recensere]

vobis nuntio propositum esse Vicifontem aliam creari lingua Graeca scriptam, in qua opera Graecorum habeamus. valde igitur mihi placeat si mihi adiuvetis ut eis, in quibus summum imperium est, suadeatur. -- Nema Fakei VIII Kal. Jun.

Auditur perterriens! Mihi placeat opem dare, at timeo latinitatem meam melior esse quam graecam MULTUM!!!--Ioshus Rocchio 19:16, 24 Maii 2006 (UTC)
noli timere. tibi non scribendum est Graeca lingua si non potes, sed voca "Support" in hac pagina, et alii contribuere in Vicifontem Graecam poterint.-- Nema Fakei VIII Kal. Jun.
Qua igitur lingua utendum a nobis erit? Anglica? Francogallica? alterutra laviores quam difficultas scribendi UNICODE. Mihi perutile est BabelMap ut recte Graece scribam, sed tardus quamlibet inscriptionem perficio... nullum facile futurum video pro hac nova Vicifonte. Cum saepe utar Graeca lingua in scripta mea, mihi usus aliorum fontium ("Betacode" ut Graeca, SymbolGreek) facilior est quam Unicode. Sic etsi valde gratulor et faveo, dubito de meo supporto... - εΔω 20:14, 24 Maii 2006 (UTC)
in paginis disputationum, nonne ommittamus spiritus lenes asperosque, ictus etiam acutos, gravosque, circumflectentesque? quos non scripserunt Graeci, ergo cur nos? -- Nema Fakei VIII Kal. Jun.
Sententiam mean dedi.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:02, 24 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource[fontem recensere]

The logo for wikisource has changed. Please change it here also (See Formula:Vicimedia for the new one). Daniel () 12:22, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Help with translation[fontem recensere]

I was wondering if anyone might be interested in providing a translation of the first two paragraphs of a work by Leonhard Euler (1744). The discussion concerning this work is occuring at the english wikipedia, en:Talk:Action (physics), at the bottom of the page. I think we have enough translated to settle the question, but it would still be interesting to see a bit more of the surrounding text. en:Linas 04:44, 15 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Sure, consider it done.--Ioshus Rocchio 07:24, 15 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Moved to en:Talk:Principle of least action. en:Linas 03:09, 16 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

The spanish wikipedia[fontem recensere]

The spanish wikipedia have match of 125000 articles, match of 10000 not!

Please update in pagina prima: Spanish Wikipedia has more than 100.000 articles.

Done.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:05, 28 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

lv.wikipedia.org[fontem recensere]

More than 2 500 articles. Please update. 213.175.124.191 15:32, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Ioshus Rocchio 16:26, 12 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Norman Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

The Norman Wikipedia (Nouormand/Normaund) nrm: has nearly 1,000 articles. Please add it to your list (another descendant of Latin!) 128.187.0.165 07:41, 14 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:04, 16 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Scientiae naturae et artes mathematicae[fontem recensere]

An <<Categoria:Meteorologia>> hic addamus? Alex1011 20:06, 18 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Certe!--Ioshus Rocchio 23:05, 21 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

84.139.130.207 12:26, 24 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations[fontem recensere]

I'm sorry to intrude and I apologize for my barbarian vernacular. But I read the discusions above about "why do it in Latin?" and the like. I just read over a dozen or so Wikipedias in those languages I can manage to understand and the Latin one is by far the most fun of all (at least to me). I really appreciate it and regret that I am not able to contribute in that magnificent language. Salve atque vale! --89.50.205.218 21:08, 28 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Insanitas[fontem recensere]

Istud solum possum dicere vobis: Insani estis, sed admiror! Sicut continuate! Vale!

You are most welcome to join us ;-) --UV 23:19, 30 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

CAPITALS[fontem recensere]

SHOULD'NT THIS BE IN ALL CAPS IF THIS IS LATIN?KAMERONUS MAXIMUS 20:44, 12 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

No.--Ioshus Rocchio 03:44, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Until now it was an argument for avoiding Roman numbers, that we avoid "ALL CAPS". But are the reasons for avoiding "ALL CAPS" written down anywhere? --Roland (disp.) 07:34, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
ok, sorry.KAMERONUS MAXIMUS 17:25, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
The romans wrote in all caps on buildings and monument as a matter of convenience. Capital letters have straight edges for the most part, which are far easier to carve into marble or stone. They had as developed (if not hyper developed!) a system of handwriting, including cursive and lowercase. You can see it in all types of graffiti samples. One of the professors in my department is an expert on this fields, dr. Joe Scholten. He has shown me samples that look vaguely like a drunken chicken clawed at a tablet. BUTBYYOURARGUMENTWESHOULDWRITEWITHOUTSPACESTOOOREVENPUNCTUATIONANDIFWEREALLYWANTTOGOWAYBACKINTHEHISTORYOFORTHOGRAPHYWHENWEGETTOTHEENDOFALINEWESHOULDSTARTWRITINGBACKWARDSTHEOTHERWAY. None of this is useful or necessary for the modern day reader who might, after 10 seconds of appreciating the novelty of such orthography, be completely frustrated if trying to use Vici for what it actually should be, a modern encyclopedia written in the latin language.--Ioshus Rocchio 13:54, 18 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Ligatures for AE and OE[fontem recensere]

Why aren't these used?KAMERONUS MAXIMUS 22:00, 12 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Because they look ugly, don't show up in all fonts, and were an invention of calligraphists of very late latin.--Ioshus Rocchio 03:45, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
For the details, see Vicipaedia:Auxilium_pro_editione_(latine)/en#Avoid_using_ligatures_like_.C3.86_and_.C3.A6_or_.C5.92_and_.C5.93. --Roland (disp.) 07:28, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Okay, just thought i'd ask.KAMERONUS MAXIMUS 17:34, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
So if ligatures aren't used in article text, why is one present in the logo? 67.142.130.31 07:31, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

I think one of the bigger problems is that they are difficult to search - by writing every letter individualy, it is easier to standardize titles and spellings for such things. I don't know that I agree with Ioshus Rocchio about their ugliness, but perhaps we are inconsistant in using one in the title. It doesn't bother me personally, however. --Tbook 13:58, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

I have before thought about that inconsistency. I thought because it were an insignia that it would be ok, because it is for that purpose that they were invented, but you're right it is a bit misleading. Let me clarify about the ugly part, I just mean in a block of text, it does a weird thing to the eyes. Do you think we should change our own emblem to abide by our policies?--Ioshus (disp) 15:12, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
They can be beautiful, as can the ligatures for ct, fi, ffi, fl, ffl, st, and such, which many classic fonts have. Nevertheless, if they impede searches, they're ill-advised and should be avoided. Since the logo isn't being searched, there's no good reason to change it. Display fonts often differ from those for setting text. IacobusAmor 16:39, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Russice Vicipaediae >100000[fontem recensere]

Salve! Please update the "super 100 000 articulorum sunt".

Credo Mycae id fecisse.--Ioshus Rocchio 13:55, 18 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

"english"[fontem recensere]

Quare operor vos narro in "english"?

Quod sunt homines sicut tu, qui non possunt recte latine scribere...--Ioshus Rocchio 11:42, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Hehe. IacobusAmor 14:06, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't understand you well, but if you are asking how to say "in english," anglice works well - it is an adverb "Englishly". --Tbook 14:00, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

I read it as "why do y'all work/speak in english", and I was answering truthfully. I did not intend to make a joke, if that's how it came across.--Ioshus (disp) 16:21, 2 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

You are right - it is rather confusing - you might have the intended translation better than I. --Tbook 16:14, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Chocolate = Tzocolate?[fontem recensere]

Is this the correct Latization of chocolate?KAMERONUS MAXIMUS 21:27, 29 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

chocolatum, vide: W. Smith, T. D. Hall, Smith's English-Latin Dictionary
Etiam reperies socolata, choccolata, cacaotica et alia. Cf. Helfer, Lexicon auxiliare. usor:Bohmhammel, 23.40, 3 Kal. Oct. 2006
If early observers mentioned it in Latin, their usage should probably be preferred. If we ran linguistic evolution in reverse (undoing Italian's palatalization of c before a high vowel), we'd get back to a word that would start cioco-, pronounced something like /kioko-/: but an authoritative attestation should probably take precedence. IacobusAmor 21:40, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Novial Wikipedie[fontem recensere]

Li Wikipedie in novial nun have 766 artikles. Bonvoli adi lu a vusen liste de Wikipedies kel have plu multi kam 500 artikles. Danko.

The Novial Wikipedia now has 766 articles. Please add it to your list of Wikipedias which have more than 500 articles. Thank you. Nov ialiste 13:13, 15 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

I updated the main page according to the information on m:List of Wikipedias. We are now showing the largest 91 wikipedias (all wikipedias with at least 2500 articles). Given the growth of the wikipedias, I fear the list might become longer than our proper content if we show all up to a minimum of 500 pages. Any thoughts? --UV 15:45, 15 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you UV.--Ioshus (disp) 16:54, 15 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised see that you had wikipedias of 500+ articles. Never mind. Nov ialiste 21:20, 15 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

nexus ad vicipaediam anglicam[fontem recensere]

Cur non habemus nexum ad anglicam versionem in pagina nostra prima? Utilis esset, puto. --Alexis Hellmer 02:59, 16 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Habemus hos nexus Dansk Deutsch Esperanto Español Français עברית Italiano 日本語 Nederlands Polski Português Svenska 中文 ad sinistram paginam primam. Non satin?--Ioshus (disp) 03:08, 16 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Servus Servorum Dei[fontem recensere]

I just wanted to comment that while looking over the page for the pope I found the "title" Servus Servorum Dei. This is extremely offensive because it is supposed to equal 666 when the leters' numeric values are either added or subtracted, and has never been used by a pope. I remember reading (I believe on the english wikipedia) that it has only been found in one letter and that is one not written by the Pope. This anti-catholic "title" was added by user:Delphinus over a year ago, with no one removing it. Alexanderr 05:45, 13 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind - I should have checked my sources first. It was "Vicarius Filii Dei" my mistake. Alexanderr 05:49, 13 Decembris 2006 (UTC)
Ego hoc verbum in pagina chronogramma transtuli. --Alex1011 19:37, 20 Decembris 2006 (UTC)

De divisore partis decimalis ac miliarum numerorum[fontem recensere]

Divisor partis decimalis esse debet "virgula" (",") ne "punctus" ("."), sicut miliarum "punctus" vel "spatius" ne "virgula": hic est usus romanice (italiana, castiliana, lusitana, catalana, italiana, francogallica, romanica et aliae linguae). Gbnogkfs 11 januarii 2007, 13:12 (TUC)

Permaxime dissentio. Numquam illum usum intellexi...--Ioshus (disp) 13:22, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
vere? de latina aut romanicis linguis loqueris? sufficiet Wikipedias alias videre! Gbnogkfs 11 ianuarii 2007, 17:50 (TUC)
Modo dico me ita clariter hunc usum vidisse... at haud intellexi... Debemus opera mathematica latine scripta inspicere. Quomodo Newtonus et Leibnitius numeros scripserunt? Possum mores mutare at cautim, et non sine ratione bona.--Ioshus (disp) 18:02, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Nescio quomodo Newtonus, Leibnitius vel Eulerus scripserunt. Et Vaticanus? Gbnogkfs 11 ianuarii 2007, 18:58 (TUC)
Secundum regulationem ISO, et punctum et virgula sunt OK (e Vicipaedia Anglica; boldface addidi): "ISO 31-0 specifies that "the decimal sign is a comma on the line." It notes in note 17 that in English documents a dot on the line is also commonly used. (This preference for the decimal comma is still stated in the most recent edition of ISO 31-0:1992, which has been published in 1992. Since then, the CGPM in 2003 [1], and IEC in September 2006 [2] have changed their view on this matter and all these organizations now recognize the decimal comma and the decimal dot as equal alternatives in their editorial guidelines.)"
The advantage of using "." for the decimal and "," for the digit-divider is that all fonts, everywhere in the world, have those characters, so everyone can write, say, "3,579.24" and remain 100% percent within ISO guidelines. But where the virgula serves as the decimal marker, ISO specifies that digits are to be separated by THIN spaces (not full spaces), and hardly anybody respects that requirement. (How, here, would we put a THIN space between the 3 and the 5 in "3 579,24"? It can probably be done, but who would bother doing it?) The upshot is that all people who use the punctum for the decimal marker & the virgula for the digit-divider are in full compliance with ISO guidelines, but all people who use the virgula for the decimal marker and a FULL space for the digit-divider are in violation of ISO guidelines; however, since the system that Vicipaedia uses automatically puts a less-than-full space (but not quite a thin space) between characters, the violation is perhaps so "technical" here as to be negligible. IacobusAmor 18:30, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Non est haec ISO-Wikipaedia, sed in latina lingua. Usus non dispositiones alieni consilii regulat linguam. Gbnogkfs 11 ianuarii 2007, 18:58 (TUC)
Sed ISO linguas totius mundi regulat, non? IacobusAmor 19:35, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
Usus multarum linguarum est (exemplo) "10˙000,00" (aut "10.000,00"), sed ISO statuit ut tu dixisti supra. Gbnogkfs 11 ianuarii 2007, 19:46 (TUC)
I defer to the man with the editing knowledge. I wonder what Petrus thinks.--Ioshus (disp) 19:58, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)
3&thinsp;579,24 gives a thin space: 3 579,24. --UV 22:55, 11 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links[fontem recensere]

We do not have a link to the English Wikipedia in the sidebar? --Rolandus 10:00, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

I see, this has been asked before. We should do it like the English WP or even add more languages. --Rolandus 10:04, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)