Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 29

De pagina prima

Bonum annum 2019 amicis Vicipaedianis voveo. Si paginam primam inspicis mutationes videbis quas hodie temptavi. An "paginam cottidianam" (inter recentissimas selectam) videre placet? An rubricas emendare oportet?

Alia quaestio: paginam primam faciei mobilis inspiciens, eas res tantum videbis quas in sinistra columna faciei plenae habemus. Si faciem mobilem mutare possumus (id quod nescio!) quas res ibi addere suadebis?

Happy New Year to Vicipaedian friends. If you look at the Pagina prima today you will see the changes that I have just tested. What do you think? Is it OK to have a daily page, chosen from among our most recent new pages? Do we need to change the headings?

Another question is about the mobile view Pagina prima. If you look at it on mobile view you will see only those items that we have in the left column of the full Pagina prima. If we can change this (currently, I don't know if we can) what other items would you add to the mobile view Pagina prima? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 2 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Mendum

Salvete, vidi paginam nomine "Michael hirschler". Ibi vidi quoddam mendum. Nomen enim "hirschler" scribitur littera magna / maiuscula neque littera parva. Quomodo hoc mendum mutare possum?

Paginam correxi, sed necesse erit fontem addere textumque augere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 3 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

De pagina prima, pars II

Quando potes, s.t.p. paginam primam tam plenam quam mobilem, omnibus browsers omnibusque devices tibi accessibilibus, inspice!

• An paginae primae, plenae et mobiles (sicut hodie stant), utiles et pulchrae tibi videtur? Quomodo melius ordinare possumus?
• An malis aliquas res (e pagina plena aut mobili aut ambobus) omittere, aliquas res novas inserere?

De his quaestionibus, o amici, placita vestra date! paginamque primam, quotidie renovatam, quotidie visitate ...! Gratias ago ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:23, 4 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

The "pagina cottidiana" that Andrew introduced and maintains is, in my view, a great idea to feature a new page every day, which invites readers to check back to our pagina prima often, and which shows the activity in the creation of articles on diverse subjects here on Vicipaedia. I therefore suggest that we swap the positions of "Pagina cottidiana" and "Pagina mensualis" on our main page. That way, the "Pagina cottidiana" will become more prominent and our main page will invite readers to check back more often. What do you think? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 14:10, 10 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Nemine contradicente, I have made the change. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:50, 18 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Starting today, our pagina prima in mobile view contains the same content as in desktop view (but for the gray content menu bar that would take up quite much screen space on mobile view). Feel free to comment here on the content and appearance of our pagina prima (in mobile view and/or in desktop view)! --UV (disputatio) 22:03, 11 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the main page, but I miss a link to Specialis:nuper mutata in the mobile version. Is there a way to include it in the side bar? --Aylin (disputatio) 05:42, 19 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Editbox

For the past few weeks, the box for inserting these items hasn't worked; clicking on them no longer has an effect:

    – — … * † ‡ ← → ↔ ↑ ↓ • § ¶ • [[]] | {{}} ~~~~ [[Categoria:]] {{DEFAULTSORT:}} #REDIRECT [[]] • <ref></ref> <ref name=""></ref> <ref name="" /> <references /> • <nowiki> </nowiki>

(They can still be copied & pasted into texts.) Can their original functionality be restored? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:01, 6 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

I'm very glad you raised this. I thought it was just me, because it had happened to me once before. If it's you as well, that's practically a quorum :) Perhaps someone who understands will respond ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 7 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

For reference: I've checked the options listed among the preferences and haven't found anything that looks pertinent. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:47, 7 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that our MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js uses "mw.toolbar.insertTags" in two places but "mw.toolbar.insertTags" was disabled around Oct/Nov 2018. I am not totally sure about this, but possibly it would be sufficient to replace in our MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js

mw.toolbar.insertTags(elem, "", "");

by

$('#wpTextbox1').textSelection('encapsulateSelection', {pre: elem});

and

mw.toolbar.insertTags(elem[0], elem[1] || "", elem[2] || "");

by

$('#wpTextbox1').textSelection('encapsulateSelection', {pre: elem[0], post: elem[1] || "", peri: elem[2] || ""});

but I cannot try this out because editing our MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js is not open to editing by all our magistratus any more, but editing this page has meanwhile been limited to meta:Interface administrators. We could either ask one of the meta:Stewards at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous to perform this change, or, if there is community consensus, I could serve as interface administrator and then try the change myself. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:47, 8 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

I propose that we name UV our interface administrator. Does anyone disagree?

Sit usor:UV "magistratus a faciebus". Addite, s.v.p., placita vestra. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:39, 8 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Summo studio consentio! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:35, 8 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was my computer when I last tried them. But yes, I think UV should try that!--Xaverius 13:39, 8 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Consentio ego quoque. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:18, 8 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Certe consentio. Lesgles (disputatio) 03:11, 10 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Creetur --Iustinus (disputatio) 08:55, 10 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Sic scribatur, sic fiat! (Etc, etc etc) UV is interface adminitrator now. Adam Episcopus (disputatio) 12:13, 10 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

The fix to MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js seems to have worked! You may need to clear your browser's cache for the change to take effect. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:17, 10 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! It's working again for texts being edited; however, it hasn't regained the ability to insert symbols into the Summarium (summary box). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:51, 11 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

It works for me too. Thanks, UV, that's a great relief!

As for the summarium (mentioned by Iacobus), I don't think I ever did that or saw a reason to do it. I get a drop-down box, so, if I wanted one of these groups of characters in the summarium, I guess I'd paste it in once, and then I'd be able to choose it next time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 11 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

I often use an arrow to show corrections of small errors; e.g., yesterday: "annic→annis". IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:03, 11 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

I made another change to MediaWiki:Onlyifediting.js, and inserting text or characters should now work for the summary box as well! You may need to clear your browser's cache for the change to take effect. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:47, 11 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

It works! Thanks, UV! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:30, 12 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Urbs Lacus Salsi

Estne nobis mos certus, quo lege nomen loci declinandum sit, cum prima eius vox terminus geographicus est, e. g. Urbs Lacus Salsi: cum rogamus ubi?, respondemus modo locativo (Urbe Lacus Salsi) aut praepositione (in Urbe Lacu Salsi) utendum est? (Nugae sunt ista, certo scio,; sed fortasse recte aut falso fieri possunt.) --Bavarese (disputatio) 11:46, 14 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Ipse scriberem Urbe Lacu Salsi, cum in vel sine in, sed non Urbe Lacus Salsi. De more certo nescio, — tota Vicipaedia ad respondendum perscrutanda est. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:54, 18 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

In Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar (#386) legimus: "Appositions are put in the Abl. commonly with in; when the appositive has an attribute, the proper name regularly precedes: Neapoli, in celeberrimo oppido." Ergo, ut videtur: Lacu Salso, in urbe Utensi. ¶ Nomen autem Urbs Lacús Salsí casum genetivum adhibere videtur, de quo Gildersleeve iterum (#361): "A special variety is the use of the Gen. after such words as urbs, oppidum, flumen, etc. This is not found in Plautus and Terence, occurs perhaps but once in Cicero, and seems to be confined to a few cases in poetry and later prose." Ergo: (in) urbe Lacús Salsí. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:30, 18 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Lacus Salsus est ... lacus salsus; adiectivum "salsus" cum nomine 4. decl. "lacus" congruit. Urbs non est lacus, sed iuxta lacum sita: ergo appositionem nullam hic habemus. Est "urbs" (nom.) "Lacús Salsi" (gen.). Si ibi sumus, aut locativo nudo ("urbe") aut cum praepositione ("in urbe") locum nostrum exprimimus, sed non est cur casum genitivum mutemus, qui relationem inter urbem et lacum semper denotare debet. Ego igitur aut "urbe Lacus Salsi" aut "in urbe Lacus Salsi" scribo.

Eodem tempore scribens, aliunde incipiens, ad eandem finem quam Iacobus perveni! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:37, 18 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Recte, ibi Lacus genetivus est, in Urbe Lacus Salsi, sed non in urbe Neapolis. Gratias. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:50, 18 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Dixerim "in urbe Neapoli" (casu ablativo = locativo). Ibi re vera appositionem habemus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:54, 18 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Horst

Nonnumquam praenomen theodiscum Horst video latine versum Horatius. Id mihi videtur res dubia esse. Nam illud linguae veteris theodiscae, vel veteris anglicae aut germanicae, est, hoc autem veteris linguae latinae. Suntne testimonia istius aequationis? --Bavarese (disputatio) 19:42, 23 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Bisexualitas/Amphiphylophilia

In Vicipaedia "homophylophilia" sed non "homosexualitas" scribimus. Ego unum alii non praepono. Sed video nos "bisexualitas" scribere. Et dubio si verba inter se congruunt. Nonne "amphiphylophilia" (αμφιφυλοφιλία) scribere debemus? Sigur (disputatio) 11:57, 24 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Minime ita. Graeca enim vox ἀμφί non significat ambo, sed circum. Fortasse ἀμφί commutasti cum ἂμφω? --Bavarese (disputatio) 13:55, 24 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Scientia carente Neograece scripsi. "Amphophylophilia" igitur? Sigur (disputatio) 15:18, 24 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Ita, Neograece el:αμφιφυλοφιλία scribitur. O tempora! O mores!

Cavete autem: si verbum Latinum fontibus fidelibus confirmatum iam habemus, fere nunquam verbum sine fonte a nobis confectum substituimus. Oportet fontes quaerere ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:41, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Fons vocabuli bisexualitatis hic invenitur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:33, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Sed hic "bisexualitas" est qualitas entis binorum sexuum (hermaphroditi), non propensio sexualis! Sigur (disputatio) 13:08, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

An (hic p. 147 apud Google Books) etiam? An (hic p. 249 apud Google Books), ubi (mihi videtur) bisexualitas ab hermaphroditismo quaqua ratione distinguitur? Incertus sum. Theodisce difficiliter lego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:18, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Theodisce bene lego :). In Primo fonte bisexualitas clarissime ordo binorum sexuum est; in altero verisimiliter etiam ita est (bisexualitas=species binorum sexuum; hermaphroditismus=species cum individuis bina genitalia habentibus; unisexualitas=species sine variis genitaliis). Sigur (disputatio) 13:48, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Si "bisexualitas" alium sensum habet, si "αμφιφυλοφιλία" lectori classico sensum dubium dat, si "amphophylophilia" (*"ambisexualitas") nullibi usque adhuc exstat, quid? Verbum "διφυλοφιλία" (> diphylophilia, sensu "amor duorum sexuum", cf. bisexualitas) bis Neograece reperio hic et hic (fide Google). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Diphylophilia optio mala non est. Lemma Anglicum Pansexuality etiam initio in Vicipaedia Neograeca verbo πανφυλοφιλία convertum est. Ita verba homophylophilia, diphylophilia et panphylophilia congruere potuerunt. Sigur (disputatio) 19:59, 25 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Bene! Regulis phonologicis Graecis obtemperans, παμφυλοφιλία "pamphylophilia" praefero. Neograeci aliqui eadem orthographia utuntur, e.g. quater in hoc foro. Sed rem minimam esse censeo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:52, 26 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

De pamphylophilia nondum in Vicipaedia Latina scribimus, sed mihi gratum est. Quod attinet ad diphylophiliam, opinionemne de eo alii Vicipaediani habent? Sigur (disputatio) 11:10, 26 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Quia Andrew et ego assentimur verbo "diphylophilia" cum alii nullam opinionem habeant, nunc eas res mutabo. Sigur (disputatio) 18:33, 27 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Articulus

IacobusAmor and I had a little discussion about subdivisions of legal texts, and it was not evident for either of us which way to go. If you take as an example the EU Treaty, it is divided into titles which have chapters which have sections which have articles which have paragraphs. In order to have something immediately understandable, I'm tempted by titulus-caput-sectio-articulus-paragraphus to translate this (some laws also have "parts", for which "pars" would be an obvious option). On the other hand, I know that it will never be perfect, as e.g. a "section" in a British statute is something equivalent to an "article" in a French law, which in turn is equivalent to the "Paragraf" of a German law (to make the confusion complete, Bavarian laws have "Artikel" as have some federal German ones as well). So, it's all pretty complicated, but that is why my first idea was to stay close to the "indigenous" words. Disputatio incipiat! Sigur (disputatio) 21:39, 24 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)

Latinizing Greek feet &c.

We seem to be having some confusion here about how to Latinize Greek feet. Stearn (Botanical Latin, ed. 3a, p.99) tells us: "Compounds of -pus (-footed, -based), acc. sing. -podem, gen. sing. -podis . . . are similarly declined [as -botrys, -glochin, and -odon]." In the case of chilopus (thousand-footed), for example, that would give us the plurals chilopodes, gen. pl. chilopodum, and so we might well go on a drug-induced trip, venture into the third declension, and see aves chilopodes (thousand-footed birds), gen. pl. avium chilopodum. Taxonomical names, however, ending in nom. pl. -poda, appear to be plurals of an assumed -podum, in the second declension. That seems to be modern usage, as in: Nomenclator generum et familiarum Chilopodorum, including data from 1958 to 2005. Also hic, usque ad 1957. The same usage appeared thus in 2017: "Species novae Chilopodorum cavernicolorum Balcanicorum." Examples of contrary usage may be found, but we may have two things here: an adjectival plural, as in chilopodes, -um (third declension), suitable for describing anything at all, and a taxonomically restricted noun-adjective, as in chilopoda, -odorum (second declension), applicable only to a particular classificatory grouping. Can more evidence be found? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:07, 8 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Not easy, is it? Oddly enough, I looked for Google evidence on "Myriapoda" (which occurs in the same article Scolopendromorpha that I think we're talking about and that I edited today) and found a good 19th century source for the genitive plural -um, see Nomina systematica generum Myriapodum, tam viventium quam fossilium. The only Google sources for "Myriapodorum" were ... Vicipaedia.

Now that you impel me to look for the genitive plural of "Chilopoda", which I didn't till now, I find a comparable 19th century source confirming "Myriapodum" and adding "Chilopodum" (title page and middle of page 25 apud Google Books), and I also find that on Vicipaedia the well-known myriapodist IacobusAmor chose "chilopodum" as gen. pl. twice in the text of Cormocephalus rubriceps and of Chilopodum domesticum. How often he has chosen "chilopodorum" I haven't checked ...

But forgive me, this is just a cheap dig. The fact is, as I see it, there isn't full consistency on this in the literature. Afterthought: it's possible that 19th century zoologists were better at handling Greek-type declensions in Latin than their late 20th century colleagues. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:33, 8 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Mönchengladbach

I'm preparing a little stub for the town of Mönchengladbach. The problem I have with it, is that the town is in short known as "Gladbach", which is duly attested in Latin as "Gladbacum" (with variants like "Gladebacum" or "Gladebachum", also the adjective "Gladbacensis"). The official name has been lengthend in the 19th century to better distinguish it from the town of "Bergisch-Gladbach", but even today, locals simply say "Gladbach", as long as there is no ambiguity.

To start the article, I was thinking of something like this:

Gladbacum[footnote with source] (Theodisce "Gladbach") vel Theodisce hodie plene "Mönchengladbach", id est Gladbacum Monachorum, est urbs in Germania et Rhenania Septentrionalis-Vestfalia, circiter 262 200 incolarum.

I could explain the official name change later on.

But then what should the page title be? I haven't found a source saying that Bergisch-Gladbach was also translated as Gladbacum, but that's rather probable. Therefore, "Gladbacum" alone would seem problematic. Both towns are in the Rhineland, so it's difficult to add a clear geographic qualifier. I think that as "Gladbacum" is attested, it should be there, but can we dare "Gladbacum Monachorum" although only half of it is attested? Or something like "Gladbacum (Mönchengladbach)"? Any other ideas?

And by the way, does anyone know how to get this into Wikimedia Commons? It's old enough so that there couldn't be any copyright issues, but it's stuck in the German Wiki for now. Sigur (disputatio) 08:11, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

I'd keep it just as you present it, adding perhaps a {{convertimus}} after Gladbacum Monachorum. Or even maybe something on the lines of "Gladbacum est nomen olim datum urbi hodiernae Mönchengladbach, quae Latine est Gladbacum Monachorum, blabla"--Xaverius 08:33, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

I agree. In some cases longer modern names don't need to be literally converted to Latin -- the short name remains valid and the lengthening achieves nothing -- but in this case, since the lengthening makes a useful distinction, and I think non-locals nearly always call the place by its longer name, we should go with it. "Monachorum" is a perfectly good translation and it is used in other similar names.

In the text, we just have to tell the truth. We don't pretend that the Latin name "Gladbacum Monachorum" is already used if it isn't. We admit that it's our translation and we say why. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

This kind of naming occurs elsewhere too. France, for example, has Colombey-les-Belles and Colombey-les-Deux-Églises. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:29, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Use of italics

A side issue: in standard typography (at least over here), words cited as words, rather than the things they represent, are italicized (less often, put between double quotes). So definitions of the form "X is the name of a thing" require X to be italicized—and for a lemma, that would be a silly thing to do when, as here, the definition can be made to read "X is a thing." Quotation marks might even be sillier. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:22, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

On Vicipaedia we most often use italics for words that are not Latin, especially in contexts where it's helpful to distinguish them from words that are Latin. Hence, in the first paragraph of Gladbacum Monachorum, the German name goes into italics (I've just fixed that: OK I hope?) to distinguish it from the two Latin names. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:52, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's another function of italics. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:41, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Interface with Commons

Currently, if you click on an image to see more details, you see -- on the Commons site, just below the image title -- the words "E Wikimedia Commonte". This looks like a joke, though someone may have intended it seriously. I'd love to convert it into real Latin, but although I have an account at Translatewiki I have no idea how to find this message. Can anyone help?

A direct translation of the English could be "E Communibus Vicimediorum", but the accurate statement (since the page is "at Commons", not "from Commons") would be "apud Communia" or "Fasciculus apud Communia Vicimediorum". That's what I would say. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:10, 18 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is a quite intricate thing. The MediaWiki software does not handle Latin declensions properly. Still, some time ago, I managed to teach a subset of Latin declensions to the MediaWiki software so that the MediaWiki software at least handles the Latin site names listed ad Usor:UV/MediaWiki l10n/grammar decently. "Wikimedia Commons", however, is not a Latin site name and in particular declensions of non-Latin names will most probably fail with sometimes funny results.

I fear that there are not too many people who, like you, have edited their commons preferences to display commons with the Latin user interface. Still, you could try to persuade an admin on commons to change commons:MediaWiki:Tagline/la to an at least grammatically correct wording. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:06, 18 Februarii 2019 (UTC)