Jump to content

Disputatio Vicipaediae:Qualitas paginarum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

Res Romanae

[fontem recensere]

De parti "rem paginae ad res Romanas vel ad culturam eorum qui linguam Latinam colant coniungere vel conferre": mihi placet sententia commentationum de rebus Romanis sustidnendarum, sed non censeo hunc locum aptum esse. Nonne est unum ex munerum nostrorum monstrare Latitinatem ad res hodiernas aptam esse? Forsitan portam vel opus de rebus Romanis vel Latinis possumus creare. Obiter, paginam de Classics nimium requirimus. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:59, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valde consentio linguam Latinam ad res hodiernas aptam esse, ut dicis, Lesgles. Inter paginas nostras, aliae (e.g. Pediludium vel Televisio) de rebus quam minime Romanis tractant -- Cicero noster numquam ludos in televisione spectabat! Nihilo minus, dum de felibus aut aqua aut musica scribimus, possumus aliquid dicere de talibus rebus apud Romanos, apud doctos aetatis litterarum renascentiae, apud nos qui nostram linguam hodie favemus. Hoc est, ut opinor, quod haec encyclopedia ab aliis distinguit; nolim versionem Latinam Wikipediae Anglicae scribere, sed encyclopediam veram Latinam. Quid censent omnes? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:41, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In matters pertaining to nonverbal content, the consensus is that Vicipaedia should not have a unique look. Long ago, I suggested uploading images to Vicipaedia alone, but that idea was squelched, and such files originally uploaded to Vicipaedia were moved to Commons, save (last I looked) a single image: the logo. In matters pertaining to typography, Vicipaedia follows the same stricture: no articles in all caps (with or without interpuncts), no roman numerals (except for kings, popes, and such), no digraphs (except in the logo)—and words & names are transliterated according to modern international conventions, rather than even those that certain individuals themselves may have authorized or at least accepted as valid (see, for example, Petrus Čajkovskij, not Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky or Pjotr Iljitsch Tschaikowski or Piotr Ilitch Tchaïkovski), and certainly not as Cicero might have spelled them. Of course if the seeming inconsistency of eschewing a unique visual style while indulging a unique textual slant has no import, then go right ahead! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:03, 17 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hanc commentationem commentatiunculam subiungo: "Romanum" non est idem ac Latinum. Multae res, Romanis incognitae, Latinitate iam descriptae sunt, a microbiis minimissimis usque ad montes Martiani. Talia iam litteris currentibus, numeris Arabicis et translitterationibus post-Romanis a decessoribus coaevisque nostris Latine explicantur.
Sed de re principali quomodo respondebo? Difficile est, fortasse, res technologicas et informaticas bona Latinitate pleniter scribere. Utilius est, fortasse, praesertim de aliis rebus laborare ... Si autem bonam paginam de re quadam novissima aut extranea Vicipaedianus quis conscripserit, cur haec pagina non sit laureanda? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:12, 17 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iacobe, I don't think there's an inconsistency here, because I don't think the visual style and the content are commensurable. We are a sister project of the other Wikimedia projects (Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wiki-this, Wiki-that) in their various languages, probably adding up to close on 2,000 web sites. All of them have the same over-all appearance -- page layout, typefaces, logos, and so on. This is good for readers, and it's good for us because we don't have to worry too much about graphic design. What we do worry about is our content. We cover everything, from soup to nuts, from atoms to asteroids. Since I frequently teach and write about later Latin, I'm quite comfortable with the spread and sweep of the Latin world (and indeed choose Pascoli over Propertius, Erasmus over Aeneas, more often than not). For me, what's cool about a Latin encyclopedia is not (just) that it's in Latin, but that it can talk about Latin, Latinitas, the res publica litterarum in the good old phrase. If I just want the basic facts about some battle, pop star, scientific term, whatever, I can get that in one of the modern-language versions, and most people probably do go to their native-language Wikipedia first when they're looking things up. Vicipaedia Latina can't compete on convenient access to facts, except for the relatively few people who read Latin as easily as English, or even as easily as their mother tongues. What we can do is offer you a Latin-flavored approach -- not just "history of Boston," say, but also "famous Latinists in Boston" or "Boston in Latin poetry." There will be topics where this is difficult to fit in (all those mathematical pages I've played with, for example), but I think it's worth keeping in mind as a way to distinguish us among the flock of Wikimedia projects, and to help build an audience among other Latin readers. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:20, 17 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea, and I do appreciate the Latin-specific sections and articles, but I wouldn't want to discourage the recognition of articles on topics that have no connection to Rome or Latinity. Above all, I think this project serves as a useful linguistic exercise for the reading and writing of Latin, and that can be accomplished even if the articles are about spaceships or computer games. Getting back to the item you added, then, what if we instead say something like "[pagina bona debet:] cum idoneus est, ad res Romanas vel ad culturam eorum qui linguam Latinam colant coniunctionem monstrare". Thus, articles on animals known to the Romans should have some reference to ancient knowledge about them, articles on universities should have sections on their classics departments, etc., but articles on football teams need not have any special sections, unless one of the players is a known Latinist. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:49, 17 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vide etiam Mille desiderati de Roma antiqua commentarii‎. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:39, 18 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Equidem in eorum sententiam pedibus eo, qui hanc Vicipaediam nostram velint nec filiam Wikipediae Anglicae nec Vicipaediam imperii Romani esse, sed sui generis Vicipaediam re vera universalem fieri. Velim nihil a nobis sit alienum, dummodo encyclopaediae idoneum sit. At etiam iis assentior, qui putent officii nostri esse Romanas quoque res, ubicumque idoneum et naturale sit, efferre et urgere. Sed cum de rebus antiquis, mediaevalibus, renascentialibus (sit venia verbo!) Latine scribere possimus, quin etiam de rebus hodiernis? Videlicet nisi de rebus nostrae aetatis scripserimus, certe non poterimus, nam non solum Latina sed quaevis lingua sine usu cotidiano marcescet. Huiusmodi "marcedo" etiam validas oppimet linguas, si, ut in universitatibus Europaeis fieri videtur, linguae vernaculae cedere coguntur Anglophonis studiorum programmatibus. Lingua Latina (et quaevis lingua) non solum in vocabulis sed etiam in syntaxi consistit. Quamquam nescimus, quid pirots carulize elatically significet, certe scimus hanc sententiolam potius Anglice quam puta Italiane scriptam esse. Itaque vocabula nova non sunt odiosa aut evitanda, dummodo secundum indolem linguae Latinae facta aut accommodata sint. Et necesse est etiam constructionibus idiomaticis consulere, nam quaevis lingua in idiomatibus consistit. At idiomata non nisi ex textibus auctorum Romanorum discimus. Neander (disputatio) 08:29, 18 Iulii 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cum hic consensum habere visi simus, locutionem Neandri "ubicumque idoneum et naturale sit" in tabulam addidi. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:21, 14 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)[reply]