Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 9

Haec est taberna Vicipaediae ubi potes si dubia habes, explanationes quaerere, nuntia ad nos mittere et cetera. Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide tabernae acta priora.

Quaestio nova

Compendia VP:T

Hic colloqui possumus.

hidden categories

Normally, at the bottom of each article, the categories that this article belongs to are displayed.

There are two types of categories:

• Categories that tell the reader about the subject matter of the article, e. g. Categoria:Francia or Categoria:Reges Italiae.
• Categories that tell the reader/contributor about the current state of the article, e. g. Categoria:Imago sine descriptione, Categoria:Paginae mensis, Categoria:Stipulae Physicae. You might think of these categories as "categories that will not be necessary any more once the encyclopedia will be complete".

As en.wikipedia, de.wikipedia and surely a few other wikipedias already do, I propose to tag all categories of the latter type with __HIDDENCAT__, so that only those categories that belong to the former type will be visible immediately. This should help to spot articles where categories of the former type are missing. Detailed information on this feature is available at en:Category:Hidden categories. Any objections? --UV 22:41, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Generally this is a good feature and it seems that a tagging can be easily changed. However, especially for the Categoria:1000 paginae I'd suggest to not hide the category. These 1000 pages should be among our best maintained pages and it could motivate the reader to switch into edit mode when he realizes that a page is part of this special collection. We could also add a link to the Categoria:1000 paginae on our Pagina prima. --Rolandus 07:21, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps we should keep certain "good quality" categories visible and hide "bad quality/stub" maintenance categories, because these are just means for writing the encyclopedia but do not serve our readers too much ("oh, I so much enjoyed reading a stub about a town, let's read another stub about a town now …")? --UV 22:20, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Vicipaedia:Dump/latest

After a long time, page Vicipaedia:Dump/latest has been updated again. --Rolandus 08:32, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Logical redirects

Please see Usor:Rolandus/Most important 1000 pages/Culture. --Rolandus 12:07, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Pope fan

Say could another Magistratus look into the recent activities of usor:200.102.13.158‎/ Usor:200.215.40.3 (apparently from Brazil). He is pushing his POV regarding the pope as the only true head of the christianity and the roman catholic church as the only catholic church. In particular he is introducing numerous POV redirects to the pope and the church. What should we do?--Rafaelgarcia 20:44, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion: As long as he does not edit real pages and does not use terms which someone might want to use in another sense, I think this is not a big problem. If I create a redirect from Bugs Bunny II → Papa, I guess you will never realize this ... unless you are watching the Nuper mutata ;-) --Rolandus 20:59, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps relevant is that we occasionally see, and probably always shall see, ardent religionists from that sect pop up to remove Romana from the name of the Ecclesia Catholica Romana. This change seems to reflect a religious claim, though I fail to see why, since I've read in publications by the church itself that its proper name (in English) is Roman Catholic Church, and indeed authoritative Latin sources (like Radio Finland) often call it the Sancta Ecclesia Romana. Somebody in the past couple of days, perhaps this 200.215.40.3, has taken the Romana out of several articles, and he may have succeeded in getting those changes to stick, as it will be hard to find them now, what with all the changes recently made by UV's bot. IacobusAmor 21:08, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Her contributions can be found here: Specialis:Conlationes/200.215.40.3. Simply quaerere for "Usor:200.215.40.3" --Rolandus 21:29, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Yea, but see, that's not the usor I was thinking of, the one who made changes in the article on the Ateneo in the Philippines (and other commentaria). These people are legion! IacobusAmor 21:32, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I've looked it up: the one I was thinking of was: 201.2.236.153. IacobusAmor 21:34, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Admins could also semi-protect these articles. Anonymous users will not be able to edit them, but registered users will not have any disadvantages. --Rolandus 21:36, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

But more than a hundred articles may be at risk from this kind of attack, and we may not be able to anticipate which ones are most in danger. Anonymous usor 201.2.236.153 changed fourteen articles, mostly removing the Romana (which in many of them is still gone because nobody has restored it). In one article, he/she removed the Anglican Church, saying "Adoratio Eucharistica prohibetur in anglicana secta," but I put it back in, since I've seen the adoratio eucharistica in an Episcopal church myself, and the website of the Episcopal Church specifically says its allowed. Because Latin remains the language of the Roman church, Vicipaedia is particularly vulnerable to the attentions of sectarian advocates. IacobusAmor 12:53, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Then there's the anonymous usor 201.2.235.112, who in the discretiva page Pontifex Maximus keeps trying to put the pope first, in violation of customary lexicographical principles. IacobusAmor 23:36, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

And tonight, noster "Kyrios" is back at it. IacobusAmor 03:02, 22 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

According to German wikip only in countries where there are Protestants, the church uses reluctantly and for pragmatic reasons "Roman catholic". "The" church normally sees "Roman catholic" as a contradictio in adiecto, if you are "catholic", universal, you cannot be at the same time only "Roman". "Sacra Romana Ecclesia" (in documents also abbreviated S. R. E.) is not exactly the same as "Catholica Romana". --Alex1011 21:48, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Maybe then we should change the title of the article to Sancta Ecclesia Romana. Pope John Paul II in at least one encyclical calls it the Ecclesia Romana. What does the Vatican have to say about this? IacobusAmor 21:56, 20 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Last I knew, the Pope was considered (by his followers) to be both the head of the Catholic Church and the head of the Roman Church, the Roman Church being one part of the Catholic Church. Aren't the Eastern Sees, though not actually in communion with Rome, supposed to be part of the Catholic (i.e. Universal) Church? I might be a few centuries out of whack on this, though... If I'm right, wouldn't it mean that the Roman Catholic Church was one aspect (considered preeminent by Catholics) of the Catholic Church? So it would be a legitimate title... Jack Mitchell 04:55, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Catechism is officially called CATECHISMUS CATHOLICAE ECCLESIAE (vide [1]) which the Vatican itself translates as CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (vide [2]). Also note that the English wiki says "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church, is..." --Secundus Zephyrus 05:27, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

In that document they also profess to be the ONLY church, which would seem to fly in the face of facts. Obviously this is an document of faith declaring the they are the only church with a true connection to jesus and the apostles. Following the logic of the document that they are the only church, it would have been self contradictory to say that they are the Roman church. Perhaps the way to say it is "Ecclesiae Catholicae Romanae quam suae fideles unicam Catholicam Ecclesiam veram putant..."--Rafaelgarcia 10:27, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

It is not a contradiction if "Romana" is interpreted as "having its principal see in Rome". --Fabullus 12:28, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need is a series of nested articles. (1) Sancta Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia would cover the broadest range, that phrase being in the Nicene Creed and therefore acceptable to all Christians who believe the statements in the Nicene Creed, including (Roman) Catholics, Anglicans & Episcopalians, Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox, and members of other churches that claim apostolic succession. (2) Ecclesia Catholica would cover the Roman Catholic Church and all churches in communion with it, including especially the Eastern Catholic Churches, like the Maronites (Ecclesia Maronitarum) and the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. (3) Ecclesia Catholica Romana would then cover only the church governed directly by Rome. Would this plan dissatisfy the least number of readers? If so, certain POV claims in the present article Ecclesia Catholica would have to be rewritten (as they should be anyway). IacobusAmor 20:57, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Good plan! (3) could also be called Ecclesia Latina as in the German wikipedia in order to reduce confusion to a minimum (if we don't want unsuspecting readers starting a new debate on why we don't merge (2) and (3)). It may be worth considering whether (1) could just be included in Ecclesia or Religio Christiana, since it would take up most of either anyway. We could then create a redirect from Sancta Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia (which, incidentally, may or may not deserve uppercase as a quote rather than a proper name). PS. I am tempted to add a redirect Bugs Bunny II -> Papa. I suppose nobody would object?--Ceylon 21:13, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Specialis:Paginae_speciales

Page Specialis:Paginae_speciales has got headers. --Rolandus 20:36, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

But they're in English :( --Ceylon 20:40, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

They can be translated, see Vicipaedia:Allmessages → Specialis:Nuntia_systematis :-) --Rolandus 20:48, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I don't really get the hang of it. Here are my suggestions, feel free to add them if they seem okay to you:

Maintenance reports -> Notitiae curatoriae

Login / sign up -> Apertio conventorum

Recent changes and logs -> Novissima mutata et acta

Media reports and uploads -> Notitiae de fasciculis

Users and rights -> Usores eorumque potestates

Pages in need of work -> Paginae quae labore indigent

High use pages -> Paginae saepius adhibitae

Other special pages -> Ceterae paginae speciales. --Ceylon 21:35, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I fixed them. THere are so many more.--Rafaelgarcia 21:58, 21 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Stipulae magnitudo

How big is a stipula? Gihad has 2941 octets, and Ceylon suggests that an article that has grown to that size is no longer a stipula, but our Gihad is a dwarf compared with en:Jihad, which has 69,060. In Meta's formula for comparing wikis, we don't get extra points until our articles exceed 10,000 (not including interwiki links). So would 10,000 be a reasonable figure? Or should we use a sliding (and therefore always arguable) scale, where 2941 would be too big to be a stipula for a text on the topic of Gihad or, say, Fafa, but would be a substipula—hardly big enough to qualify for stipula-status—on the topic of Civitates Foederatae Americae? IacobusAmor 22:45, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed recently, and the current orthodoxy is set out at Vicipaedia:Hierarchia paginarum. The specific answer suggested there to your question is "4 lines of text"!

We want extra points, certainly, but I don't see that we need to adjust the definition of a stipula to achieve that. Andrew Dalby 22:59, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Oh. OK. I must have missed that discussion! IacobusAmor 23:37, 24 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Expressio difficilis

Hi!!

Could you help me with this? I don't know how to translate the following expressions:

• accountancy
• functionaries who specialized in accountancy

Thx in advance!!!

--Le K-li 04:42, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

PONS (dictionarium):

• ratio conficienda
• rationcinator, tabularius/a

--Alex1011 07:10, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Stella argentea?

Hoc cogito causa quaestionum Iacobi Amoris supra sub titulo "Stipulae magnitudo". Habemus paginas mensis (duodecim per annum), longas, optimas, Latinitate fere perfecta, stellis aureis incoronatas. Sed exstant multae paginae apud Vicipaediam, valde bonae, utiles, curiosae, imaginibus munitae, sed breviores, Latinitate aut perfecta aut leviter melioranda. Eae paginae numquam paginae mensis erunt. Possumus seriem paginarum argentearum incipere? -- fortasse paginarum hebdomadis? Quid dicunt alii?

I thought of this because of Iacobus Amor's question above. We have pages of the month (exactly 12 a year!): long, excellent, with (almost) perfect Latin, topped with a gold star. But we now have lots of pages that are very good, handy, interesting, illustrated, but shorter; sometimes with very good Latin, sometimes needing a bit of improvement. They will never be pages of the month. Can we start a silver series (pages of the week maybe)? What do others think? Andrew Dalby 12:02, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps these can be made part of "scin tu?"--Rafaelgarcia 13:08, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I suggested this years ago. I think we are in a better position these days than when I first suggested it. --Ioscius ^(disp) 16:38, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that the Spaniards already do something similar: they have es:Wikipedia:Artículos destacados (gold star) and es:Wikipedia:Artículos buenos (green tick). Andrew Dalby 18:28, 25 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

The Germans also: Lesenswerte Artikel. I agree that we should have some kind of earmarking for these good pages - maybe we could mention them in the upcoming collaboration portal. If we go ahead maybe we could call them paginae delectae? And maybe we could use this blue star? Harrissimo 16:39, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC). Harrissimo 16:39, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).

Yes, indeed, they could be a feature of the collaboration portal. Saying, roughly, these are among our good pages -- but still open to improvement --

The Romanians seem to have a feature where a different "good" page, out of a chosen list, is displayed to you every time you look at their pagina prima. I wonder if anyone can see how that works, and I wonder whether we could try the same system here for a list of "paginae delectae". Andrew Dalby 08:41, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

It would not be too difficult to copy their system. Just like we have teasers at {{PaginaMensis/Aprilis 2008}}, {{PaginaMensis/Maii 2008}} etc., they have teasers like Formula:PaginaBona/1, Formula:PaginaBona/2, …, Formula:PaginaBona/150. Every ten seconds, a different number is calculated so that whenever the main page server cache happens to be purged, a different teaser is included in the main page. --UV 21:57, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Left navigation

Sometimes the left navigation seems to change temporarily. At the moment I am missing the link to the Taberna. --Rolandus 04:49, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I likewise cannot see the Taberna link right now on the left pane.--Rafaelgarcia 05:10, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Translating the Wiki messages to Latin

See Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_7#Betawiki:_better_support_for_your_language_in_MediaWiki. --Rolandus 10:42, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Or http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Special:Translate ... 772 messages are yet untranslated ;-) --Rolandus 10:47, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I have been working at it. I must say, however, it is easier to translate here and then move the translations to betawiki, then delete here when the new command is refreshed. There you do not always have enough information/context to be able to figure out what the command or phrase is saying, whereas here you can see where the phrase fits in. --Rafaelgarcia 11:44, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

THis is unrelated to why the "taberna" link disappeared isn't it?--Rafaelgarcia 11:44, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is unrelated. The disappearing "taberna" link is a server-side caching problem of MediaWiki:Sidebar that sometimes appears for whatever reason.

As for translations at Betawiki=Translatewiki, a priority would be, e. g. to localize the new Babel extension (not yet active on wikimedia wikis), at least the last messages (the ones with "-n" at the end, replace "English" with "Lingua Latina"), that might in the future save us the need to have hundreds of Babel templates (while still allowing custom Babel templates to override the default babel boxes provided by the extension). --UV 21:01, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

De finibus bonorum

IacobusAmor has started an interesting discussion on his userpage about whether the ultimate 'vision' of Vicipaedia would be an encyclopaedia including something in the range of 5,000,000 articles. This matters especially for the amount of internal redlinks we create (e.g. on Venus). My own idea is that Vicipaedia is a small project and there are no indications that it will grow to anything comparable to the English wikipedia during our lifetimes or indeed ever. Based on this assumption, my 'vision' would be to rather work towards a goal of maybe 200,000 articles (at the current growth rate, this might take around 50 years!), and put increasing emphasis on expanding and improving articles as opposed to creating new one-line stubs. What does everybody think?--Ceylon 13:16, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should, while we are small (which will be for a long time yet), ensure that as many of our pages as possible are of a high quality. I propose we should adopt a form of immediatism (which is influenced by our gravitas rule). A goal for us should be to get all of the 1000 pages upto pagina value. Then other pages can follow and our weight and quality overall can rise (sources need to be more important in our future too). This shouldn't stop links for the future on disambiguations like Venus and we can still create new pages.

I am highly anti-one-line stub, I think it undermines our project, makes us look bad, will take years for anybody to even care about some of those pages, let alone have the ability to improve them in Latin. Why doesn't the author care enough about the subject to even write a four sentence article on them? That is why I am more immediatist than eventualist but we still have eventualists here - I have violated my own rules and written quite short stubs before.

Maybe a compromisal between eventualists and immediatists would be to encourage the Collaboration Portal (I will work on it soon) and for only pages above stub value to qualify as paginae fortuitae. Harrissimo 16:18, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC).

A high priority should be boosting the number of essential articles that have more than 10,000 octets and more than 30,000 octets. Why? See the discussions on Rolandus's pages and the work that Rolandus has been doing to point out which articles these are: http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usor:Rolandus/Sizes. IacobusAmor 16:46, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

That you're grossly underestimating the future! The rate of technological change is exponential (see en:Ray Kurzweil), and humanity has nearly reached the point where the slope goes asymptotically vertical. There's no reason why, in a hundred years, or maybe in a few decades, every known human will have a bio-page in all the wikis—and "every known human" will include many millions of dead humans whose names are unknown but whose existence will be inferred from comparison of available DNA (Julius Caesar may turn out to be reconstructible as human #Zmnaf-@2689-ghidd2798-nvgh213, and we may know the "names" of all his ancestors back for thousands of generations). [If one may be allowed to "think out loud."] So that gets us up to the order of magnitude of 10,000,000,000 articles, and then we mustn't leave out articles on their social interrelationships, their joint histories, big & small. Not to mention, long before that total is attained, articles on 25,000,000 (or is it 40,000,000?) estimated species of nonnhuman animals. But let's not stop with species: let's include varieties and other subspecies! And then there are the plants. And the chemical compounds. And so on. The future is vaster than we can imagine! IacobusAmor 13:49, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

As for the growth of Latin, I have no doubt that once all human brains are electronically linked (whether before or after our descendants shall have opted out of wetware altogether and gone beyond the limitations set by the bodies that nature has provided them) and the full computing power of humanity is unleashed, there will come a time (perhaps lasting a microsecond or two) when all human beings, just for the fun of it, think in Latin. You just never know! IacobusAmor 13:49, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

That frankly would be a frightening prospect. The likelihood is that, what with all that exponential growth and Brave New World aspirations, humanity will be gone in a hundred years.--Ceylon 14:25, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I very much doubt about this ever happening. Many before Iacobus have expressed belief in such things as transhumanism, at least in my memory, and the rate of technological change has always lagged significantly behind the idea. The physical cause of free will is completely unknown at present, so that we do not have a credible basis for projecting if this is ever going to be possible. Nevertheless, "stream" technology (referring to the scifi notion) will probably catch on within our lifetimes.--Rafaelgarcia 15:41, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

De futuro nemo potest certe praedicere. Egomet omnibus aequalibus mallo vicipaediam parvam quam magnam, sed completam. Demum commentationes de omnibus urbibus, homnibus praeclaris, civitatibus, notionibus philosophicis, cultibus, scientiisque habendae sunt. Quot sunt tales? Nescio. Et nescio utrum paginae de omnibus oppidis parvis, homnibus, et notione habendae est.

Hae metae per aetates mutari possunt, ut mea sententia nobis oportet hodie ambigue vadere, ut laborem innecessarum futurum evitemus. Paginae inter mille quas oportet omnibus habere, elaborandae sunt primum.--Rafaelgarcia 13:56, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I think there are at least the following types of pages:

1. pages we should have (e. g. these 1000 pages)
2. pages which are useful to have (e. g. all pages which have interwiki links)
3. pages at least some users want to have and care about them

I think we should not be afraid of having too many pages, even if they are short. Short pages can be useful, too. And short pages have the tendency to grow. Sometimes this will take years. --Rolandus 14:45, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

latinitas huius rei?

avete amici,

hac nocte rursus ante rendi apparatum sedi et, quod rebus, quas custodio, accidit, videre volui. fortasse, amici, quid accideret, quaeritis. Doleo, quod mihi vos haec respondendum est: sunt perditae. Etiam atque etiam res peiores reddi vidi. paulatim me hic versari taedet.
Quare vos quaero, quando latinitatis magister verus praeficeretur, ut tandem paginam heberemus, quam legere et qua uti licet. Sunt, qui scriberent velut scriptores medii aevi. Nobis Ciceronem aequandum est, ut laudem nobis pareremus, ut vicipaedia nostra magni aestimaretur.
Posco igitur, amici, multos homines periti hanc paginam custodire et curare. Nimirum vicipaediam laborem hominorum, qui omnia sua sponte faciunt, esse cognovi, sed doleo, quod vicipaedia, quia omnes scribunt, quod volunt, iocus malus facta est. Vae! Peius est. Quamquam interdum alii res bonas faciunt, hae in malum vertuntur, quod alii se lingua mala uti ignorant.
Consilium vicipaediae latinae casus adversus est, cum lingua latina lingua morta sit et nullus homo ea uti cognoverit. Opto, ne me damnetis. In vos invehi nolo, sed, quantopere caput demitterem, exponere volo.
valete

Hesiod 21:25, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Equidem spem amittere nolo, quamvis me paeniteat barbarae multarum commentationum Latinitatis, quia conscius sum meae ipsius imbecillitatis sub specie Ciceronis. Quem - da veniam - hominorum aut morta scripsisse vix simile est veri.--Ceylon 21:38, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Complures nostrum tirones sunt, at cotidie meliores melioresque fiunt. Ne desperaveris, amice! --Neander 22:18, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Ita est, amici. Hoc compendium summum non esse moleste fero. Cum vicipaediam latinam ortam esse audissem, maxime exsultavi. Nunc vero omnis res labi video, quare maestus sim. Ingenium Ciceronis adipisci non possum, sed hereditatem defendere volo. Cum me non solus esse sciam, bono animo sum. Id studemus igitur, amici, diligenter cogitare, quae corrigenda, quae scribenda, quae appetenda sunt. Gratiam vobis, qui me adhortati sitis, habeo.

Hesiod 23:22, 26 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Et apud Wikipediam Anglicam sunt qui Anglice aegre scribunt. Alii editores corrigunt. Hic pauci sumus; opus enim longum incepimus. Credo Hesiodum errare qui dicit omnis res labi ... sed, ut vidimus, errare humanum est! Andrew Dalby 08:51, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Quibus de latinitate nostra desperat oportet videre nostram vicipaediam anni anterioris et componere illam cum vicipaedia praesente. Progressio est evidens, et de commentatione et de latinitate harum commentationum.--Rafaelgarcia 21:39, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Special characters

There is a tendency, to use special characters. Maybe, because computers make it possible now, to do so. However, it seems that all special characters could be omited with nearly no impact. In our actual collection there would be just 2 "real" ambiguities:

1. Pele ... pedilusor
2. Thalia ... cantrix

And then (surprise!) 4 letters in several variants:

1. A
2. N
3. O
4. U

I checked this by converting UTF-8 to ASCII-code and then removing these characters: '"',"'","`","~" (because Christophorus Schönborn would result in Christophorus Sch"onborn).

Examples for the ASCII-titles:

• Christophorus Schönborn → Christophorus Schonborn
• Antoninus Dvořák → Antoninus Dvorak

Shouldn't we have redirects from the ASCII-title for all our pages which contain special characters? --Rolandus 14:40, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and not so long ago Harrissimo and I made some redirects of this kind. I guess the problem items show up in your new Dump? I'd better have a look. Andrew Dalby 15:07, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I could make a check whether each page with special characters does have a twin with an ASCII-title. --Rolandus 15:19, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I've been experimenting along these lines with Samoan, which (like many Polynesian languages) has two special usages: macrons for long vowels (just like Latin), and an upside-down comma for the glottal stop. Most native speakers omit these characters most of the time, even when (as with Pele, cited above) they make a real difference in meaning. However, there's a good chance that people will sometimes use the quaerere box to search for the "orthographically correct" spelling, and we wouldn't want to disappoint them. So what works for me is (1) to use the unadorned Latin characters for the title and the lemma, and then (2) to add more precise spellings in parentheses as required. This process yields a lemma like this:

Vaa-o-Fonoti (Samoane: Vaʻa-o-Fonotī 'Navis Fonotorum') est. . . .

That seems to do the trick. IacobusAmor 16:23, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Bot Flag

Hello!

I'm w:ro:Firilacroco and I want to run a interwiki bot on Latin Wikipedia. I have a quite large level of experiencein running bots. If you have any questions, please post them on my talk page.

I will use, I think, two softwares, PyWikipedia and AutoWikiBrowser.

--FiriBot 18:31, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Nova verba

Fieri est "fingere" nova verba Latinae?--87.17.9.240 20:14, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Quid dicis? Non te intellego.--Rafaelgarcia 20:31, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Quid tu scripsisti ad Anglicam versum: To become is "to mold/shape" new words of/to Latin (language?)? ?--Rafaelgarcia 20:34, 27 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Ita est.--87.16.5.159 14:49, 28 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. ;-) --Neander 16:29, 28 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

One wonders sometimes...--Rafaelgarcia 16:38, 28 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Obitus

In many articles the word 'obitus' is used as an active perfect participle meaning 'having died'. I may be mistaken but I thought that only verba deponentia, like in this case 'nasci' or 'mori' had such active perfect participles, viz. 'natus' and 'mortuus', whereas 'normal' verbs like 'obire' only had passive perfect participles. --Fabullus 16:16, 29 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're mistaken. Yes, I have seen it too ... and am ashamed not to have corrected it every time. Andrew Dalby 17:21, 29 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Actually the non-deponent obeo in this sense shouldn't have a perfect participle at all, passive or not, because it is intransitive. The verb would have nothing to agree with, unless you were using an impersonal construction. —Mucius Tever 03:09, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Which means in practical terms, either the participle of another verb has to be used (mortuus, defunctus &c.) or an active construction (obiit).--194.95.177.124 07:16, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

[3] (Germanice), footnote there: "obitus est Narbone provincia" - he died in the province of Narbonne - this would justify "obitus", I think. --Alex1011 07:24, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, obitus as adjective is a known form (three citations in Lewis & Short, none "classical", one from an inscription similar to yours) but I think we are trying to write more classical Latin than this: I think it's better to use "mortuus (est)" or "defunctus (est)" or "obiit". Andrew Dalby 12:22, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

As far as i know obire in meaning of "to die" can only be used in the pattern "mortem obire" (see e.g. cic. de oratore 29,116; without mortem only poetic see lucretius liber IV)... obire means "to visit" in most cases (see e.g. cic. de amicita 7). ire builds a particip perfect passive and is intransitive though... that is because ceasar often uses the impersonal term itum est Hesiod 17:36, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

"Obitus est" occurs quite a few times in provincial funeral inscriptions. Obviously it's originally the substantive noun "obitus" 'mors' ("dies obitús", "annus obitús") misunderstood and reinterpreted, in a formulaic context, as an adjective, by people whose L1 wasn't the sermo urbanus. "Obitus est" is a vulgar formula that can't be recommended, given our Ciceronian pretensions. --Neander 18:53, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Most likely, and in some cases here it could surely be so interpreted as well. But a search of uses of 'obitus' in Vicipaedia shows many of them are meant to parallel 'natus', meaning someone didn't realize those two verbs have different perfect forms. —Mucius Tever 01:52, 1 Maii 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought! So we had better replace these instances of 'obitus'. Thanks a lot for all your views on the matter! --Fabullus 06:45, 1 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Betawiki update

Currently 59.43% of the MediaWiki messages and 17.16% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising at Betawiki. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 09:46, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Quid est haec "activitas localizationis"? quomodo Latine "localizamus"? et cur est nobis curandum? IacobusAmor 10:57, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

"Localization" means translating the interface into our local language. By "interface", we mean the text in the tab above this page that says "historia", "recensere", "disputatio", and on the left where it says "pagina prima" and "nuper mutata", "nexus ad paginam", and "fasciculum imponere", the text you see when you open a new account and set your preferrences, and the text that is displayed when you perform any of the other wikipedia functions. At present only about 60% is latin. For example, go to paginae speciales and click on Fasciculi novi and see the text displayed in english rather than latin. And similarly check many of the other functions. Est nobis curandum quia Vicipaedia lepidiora erit omnibus Latine.--Rafaelgarcia 11:46, 30 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

bn:উইকিপেডিয়া:Bangla script display and input help

Shouldn't we also cover the problem of fonts which are not displayed correctly?

[[am:Wikipedia:Can't see the font?]]
[[as:Help:Contents]]
[[bn:উইকিপেডিয়া:Bangla script display and input help]]
[[bpy:উইকিপিডিয়া:BN/AS/BPY script display help]]
[[bug:Wikipedia:Panginring mita lontara]]
[[chr:Wikipedia:Unicode]]
[[de:Wikipedia:UTF-8-Probleme]]
[[dv:ކޮންޕީޓަރުން ތާނަ ލިޔެކިޔުމަށް މަގެއް]]
[[en:Help:Multilingual support]]
[[fr:Aide:Unicode]]
[[got:Wikipedia:Gothic Unicode Fonts]]
[[hi:विकिपीडिया:Setting up your browser for Indic scripts]]
[[it:Aiuto:Unicode]]
[[ja:Help:特殊文字]]
[[kn:ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ:Kannada Support]]
[[lb:Wikipedia:UTF8-Problemer]]
[[ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:സ്വാഗതം (Welcome)]]
[[mr:विकिपीडिआ साहाय्य:Setup For Devanagari]]
[[my:Wikipedia:Font]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Diacritice]]
[[si:Wikipedia:Sinhala Font Guide]]
[[ta:Wikipedia:Font help]]
[[te:వికీపీడియా:Setting up your browser for Indic scripts]]
[[ur:امدادی ہدایات برائےاردو]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Dung Unicode]]
[[zh-min-nan:Help:Án-chóaⁿ tha̍k]]

Who can provide experiences? --Rolandus ^(disp.) 06:54, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you suggesting? Those are instructions on specific Wikipedias for help with seeing their own fonts. But our own font is Latin: I guess no one needs help with seeing it.

Do you mean that we should offer translated instructions for seeing those other fonts? Andrew Dalby 08:56, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

For example, not all on page Lingua Sinica is displayed correctly in my browser. We should provide information how to fix this. Like the Germans for the Gothic font, for example. I think there might be some of us which have experiences with other fonts than Latin. --Rolandus ^(disp.) 09:38, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Categoriae celatae

I think it's a good thing that these are not confused with the subject categories. However, people may want to get to them, for the best of reasons (e.g. "I think I'll expand some stubs or improve some Latinitas today"). So what's the best way to make it easy to reach them when required? Maybe some links on the Vicipaedia:Collaboratio page? Andrew Dalby 09:07, 2 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Several possibilities:

1. Individual users can enable the "Categorias celatas monstrare" option in their preferences ("Misc" tab) to have hidden categories always displayed in a separate line below the normal categories.
2. We could implement the fr.wikipedia system (see e. g. fr:Innocent VII and click on the "[+]" link at the end of the categories box) as a Vicipaedia:Gadget so that those users who wish to can enable it.
3. We could implement the fr.wikipedia system for all users (as fr.wikipedia does).

I would be glad to implement 2. or 3. in case there is consensus about this. --UV 09:18, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

System 1 is fine if people remember that it's possible (I had forgotten)! System 3 (a kind of show/hide alternative) seems a good solution to me. Let's see if others comment. Andrew Dalby 11:16, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Disputatum meum

Quod summa pagina scriptum videmus iuxta nomen usoris, dubito an recte versum sit. Disputatio mea aut nuntii mei aut nescio quod aliud melius videretur. ¶ PS. Nonne tempus adest, o magistratus, Tabernae longioris iterum ad tabularium actorum priorum relegandae?--Ceylon 12:49, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, I changed the translation at translatewiki: (= betawiki:), this will take effect in a few hours or days. ¶ Good idea, done as well (but anyone can do this, not just magistratus). Greetings, --UV 13:17, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Thalía

Hi all, I think it hasn't had any sense to rename Thalía to Thalía (actrix) or Thalía (cantrix), as there are no other "Thalías" written this way. A disambiguation page is also innecesary if there is only two similar articles. You can simply put a disambiguation link in both of them that links to the other one. --Mexicanus^scribe! 16:51, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

There are four distinct Greek-mythological Thalias, an opera named Thalia, a musical named Thalia, a painter known as the Thalia Painter (ca. 500 B.C.), at least one painting known as Thalia, a fictional town named Thalia, a town in Texas named Thalia, and numerous other Thalias, which someday will want to be dealt with. See the renovated discretiva page. IacobusAmor 16:58, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, then it's OK now with the pagina discretiva. However, Thalía with accent mark, as I know, presently there is one and only in the world (her daughter is not named Thalía either :-). --Mexicanus^scribe! 17:04, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who moved the article, see section "Special characters" on this page. There are only 2 (out of 19 858 articles) where the accent is the sole difference between pages. --Rolandus 17:52, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

In both the latin and spanish word, the accent is on the same syllable, which is long in latin (cf. the variant Thaleia), the only reason the accent was chosen for the singer's name is that it is given in spanish where it is customary to put accents. IF the name were in latin, then the accent wouldn't ordinarily be written, but it would be pronounced the same.--Rafaelgarcia 18:31, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, Rafael, I knew it. But my point of view is that names using the Latin alphabet with diacritics, should be written in its original form, as we don't leave in the Middle Ages when it was not possible. Also, you can translate the name to Latin, but, what's the matter with names that are impossible to translate to Latin? If we want to be consequent, we should write all names of Latin script as they are in the original form, even though it would sound the same way in Latin without diacritics. So if this name is in French, we should write it according to the French orthography, if it is Spanish, then according to the Spanish orthography, and so on. This is just my suggestion. --Mexicanus^scribe! 18:55, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Nisi fallor, mos Vicipaedianus est Latinizare praenomina (e.g., Ioannes pro Juan); ergo recte Thalia (verum nomen antiquum, bene attestatum) pro Thalía, non? IacobusAmor 20:54, 3 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I know, but what about first names that you cannot latinize? For example a Turkish name like Özgü? --Mexicanus^scribe! 08:16, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Just some years ago, when the computers were not able to handle special characters, Özgü would have been written OEZGUE or OZGU, I think. Cardinal Christophorus Schönborn will get

letters where his name is written Schoenborn. And sharp "s" (ß) was written "sz" or "ss". Nowadays it seems to be a matter of "political correctness" keeping foreign names with their foreign spellings. See also the English (!?) en:Côte d'Ivoire for Ivory Coast. Why should someone learn French to be able to speak or write about this country? Btw, are we "allowed" to use Litus Eburneum? Who is the authority to ask? --Rolandus 09:24, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Re en:Côte d'Ivoire: This problem arose with my own encyclopedia. The government of Ivory Coast demands that people writing about the country in other languages call it "Côte d'Ivoire," and the U.S. State Department accedes to that. Writers can of course call it "Ivory Coast" if they like, but scholars who hope to get visas to do research there need to call it "Côte d'Ivoire" in any publications that the government might check. IacobusAmor 12:30, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

That's the great thing about writing in Latin. These days, people don't have official names in Latin. So we make our own decisions. We are already sometimes treated as "the authority". Like it or not, that will happen more and more as Vicipaedia improves. And that's one good reason why we have to choose our naming policies carefully.

But, yes, the answer to The Mexican's question is that we only Latinize first names that have a documented Latin form. Otherwise, we don't make any change. So John (etc.) goes to Iohannes but Özgü stays as Özgü. Andrew Dalby 09:46, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

There you go again, favoring the eye over the ear. The Roman letter regularly used for writing the sound of ü was "y." I'm unsure about the sound of Ö, but Golden Age Ezgy for Turkish Özgü wouldn't seem all that surprising, nor would a more complete & nativized Latinization, perhaps Ezgia, -ae. Of course a more provocative & perhaps revelatory plan might be to find out how Özgü was pronounced 2000 years ago and Latinize it from there! IacobusAmor 12:30, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that this was a regular trait of mine! But it's a fact that on Vicipaedia we are, at present, writing for the eye. Andrew Dalby 18:23, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

But that's not how language works: it's learned by ear, and terms are borrowed between languages by ear. To the extent that we treat Latin as an eye-language only, we're treating it as an artificial one—dead as a doornail. IacobusAmor 11:09, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Disputatio:Amphitheatrum Flavium

Neminem video in hac disputatione intervenire; forsitan nemo potest illic videre? Sollicito ergo interventus vostros in Taberna quae certe sub oculis plurimorum cadit. Lio 18:00, 4 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Communia

The thing is that currently the article name in Formula:Communia if applied requires accusativus (e.g. "Vicimedia Communia plura habent quae ad Vicipedia spectant" instead of "...ad Vicipediam spectant"). I offer to apply nominativus, for example like that: "Vicimedia Communia plura habent de themate Vicipedia". --Brand спойт 19:14, 5 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Careful though you don't take a sentence (grammatical concept) that works fine in English, and apply it do Latin. In English, we can make an adjective out of anything: what kind of shop? a bike shop. what kind of seasoning? taco seasoning. what kind of president of the USA? a monkey president. THis does not work in Latin. So even in your sentence, we would need a different case, probably genitive here.

Further, don't get fooled by the fact that the nominative and ablative of the first declension look the same on paper. If we are dealing with a second declension noun your sentence doesn't even look like it's being governed by a de: "Vicimedia Communia plura habent de themate Aedificium"? Doesn't work I'm afraid.

Have another suggestion? Don't forget, also, that there is another parameter in the {{Communia}}, if you add another |, you can supply the accusative form: {{communia|Wikipedia|Vicipaediam}}

Lastly, please don't forget that there is an a in Vicipaedia.

Regards--Ioscius ^(disp) 13:00, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)

85.2.224.47, STOP!

Care amice 85.2.224.47, STOP! Think! You've turned dozens of blue links (directly to specific popes) into red links (directly to no article at all). You seem to mean well, but do you know what you're doing? Are you going to create disambiguation pages for all those links you've changed? and why shouldn't these links go directly to the popes, rather than to a disambiguation page? IacobusAmor 11:06, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)

For example, in a list of popes, a link to "Petrus" should go directly to Pope Saint Peter, not to a disambiguation page, as Petrus does at the moment. At least that's what we'd expect to happen when we click on the pope's name: we already know that he's a pope! IacobusAmor 11:20, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I’m Massimo, I wish to create a link from the first column (which has nothing to do with popes with the same names which are designated by the Roman numbers, I, II etc.) to a page with reference to the name, you can see for istance Zacharias (nomen). --Massimo Macconi 14:30, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about pontifical names. We already know that Zacharias is a pope because his name is printed in the list of popes, yet you want to waste readers' time by sending them to a disambiguation page, rather than to the page for the pope in question. We already know that Pope Zacharias was a pope, but if we now click on his name, we go to a disambiguation page. IacobusAmor 15:56, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point of view for the popes whose name has not been repetead, but for the others my link is useful, for istance you have links for all the 21 popes with name Ioannes (I, II, II etc.) and in the first column the reader finds also a link to the name Ioannes where in the future we can add information about the name's origin etc.--Massimo Macconi 16:07, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)

categoria:ideologia

Mihi categoria:ideologia delenda esse videtur propter sensum peiorativum. Ut sint plures fides quas ideologias esse omnes consentiant, tamen quis diiudicet in casu singulo utrum quaedam fides ideologia sit annon? Anglici habent illam categoriam en:Category:Political parties by ideology et alias similes sensu autem neutro ut ita dicam. --Alex1011 21:21, 7 Maii 2008 (UTC)

necesito asesoria en una traduccion de latín

hola me dirijo a uds. en esta oportunidad rogandoles si me pueden ayudar en la traduccion del material que está a continuación lo copie tal cual de la partitura de la obra que tiene por título The Inquiry obra inedita que se va a estrenar la semana que viene y quisieramos conocer que dice en español cual su pronunciación gracias edgardo hernandez royett royett@gmail.com royett67@hotmail.com nota: no conocemos mas detalles de la letra sólo la que trae la partitura y el compositor presumimos es americano hijo de un famoso compositor tambien americano y viene a venezuela a dirijir su obra

The Inquiry Andrea Morricone Gerusalem Difficiles primus te Quis color et quae sit re Magna virus tibi res anti Tum segetes alteca cum demun crassa magnun

Difficiles primus te Quis color et quae sit re Magna virus tibi res anti Tum segetes alteca cum demun crassa magnun

Cristianità Ne re quies quin aut Domis suberet Glan de sues letire redeunt dant arbuta silve et varios ponitfetus

Libra dies somni quae pares ubis fecerit dum sicca tellure lice dum nubila illetiam Exstincto miseratur cesare cum caput obscura nitidum ferrugi

Tam pro pa quan regebibunt omnes sine lege bibit hera bibit merus non me tenet vagatur et anima.

Brixos Ipsi per media acies insignibus aliis agentis animos in pectore versant Ut mare sollicitum in cum bent generiis quo magis exaustesi vero quoniam casus Ut mare sollicitum in cum bent generiis quo magis exaustesi vero quoniam casus

Esodo At si cum referet que diem condet querela lucidus orbis erit frustra terrebe et claro silvas cernes aquilo ne mover denique quid vesper serus ve hat unde Instituit cum iangland at que arbuta mox et frusmentis la et victum dona

Fulminamo liturde traquo maxuma nunc memora collectae ex alto nubes ruit arduae tere terra tremit fugere et mortalia frigida saturnonise se sublime menea pulsam eruerent Cardus tereunt segete subi aspe la peque tribali inter quenitentia quod nisi et absi duis herbam in cectabe dominant avene et sonitus terre.

De templis

Valete amici. What name should a page have when it deals with classical temples? I mean, writting some bits on the Pantheon I wanted to make links to pronaos, octastyle, peripteros, and so... and I thought that it could be a good idea to have a page which sums up Vitruvius' theory and lists all the terminology. How to name this page? ordines templorum? architectura templorum Romanourm? architectura classica? Gratias vobis ago! and back to my revision ....--Xaverius 10:29, 11 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Vocabula Vitruviana? IacobusAmor 12:56, 11 Maii 2008 (UTC)

inceptus aut inceptum ?

On the pagina prima it says "Alii·Vicimediorum·inceptus" and "...cui "Wikipediae" omnesque inceptus multilingues et liberi sunt:..." implying the 4th decl. noun inceptus -us. However, in Words I find the 2nd decl. "inceptum -i". Is that right?--Rafaelgarcia 00:57, 13 Maii 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time the info given by Words is inadequate. "Inceptus" is grammatically quite correct and attested, though "inceptum" and "inceptio" are more frequent in running texts. --Neander 01:09, 13 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Inceptum obviously is just substantialized. The American in me wonders whether coeptum or coepta has a place, too... --Ioscius ^(disp) 04:49, 13 Maii 2008 (UTC)

forum internetum

Saluete amici!

Quod forum internetum (interretiale) suadetis, ut latinam (linguam) mei (meam) ampliare (meliorare) potero? Studio ut Catulli Carminam legere legam.

Grato Gratias!

k

Salve, K. Ut videre potes, corrigi nonnulla tua verba. Habesne quaestiones de mutationibus? Et maeste, nescio quomodo bene respondeam tibi... Fortasse inspicias hos nexus apud Vicipaediam Anglicam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin#External_links Optima fortuna! --Ioscius ^(disp) 05:03, 13 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Poemata difficilia sunt quia nobis necesse est bene grammaticam intellegere et vocabularium amplium habere. Mea sententia ad propositum libri utiles sunt:

Hans H. Orberg, Lingua Latina, per se illustrata, Par 1 et Pars 2, Focus Publishing, 2006. vide http://www.lingua-latina.dk/

--Rafaelgarcia 09:02, 13 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Lupercal unearthed

I just saw this: "Italian archaeologists say they have found the long-lost underground grotto where ancient Romans believed a female wolf suckled the city's twin founders." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7104330.stm --Rafaelgarcia 14:18, 15 Maii 2008 (UTC)

Categoria: Stadia Olympiae

This category claims to be for the 'Stadia at Olympia' (multiple stadia in the famously sacred city in Elis, where the Olympic games used to be held), but the places where the category-tag is deployed show that what the original author meant was 'Olympic stadia'—a different thing altogether, perhaps best rendered Stadia Olympica (also possible, according to ancient use: Stadia Olympia and Stadia Olympiaca). Can we settle on the aptest term? and will some clever bot then fix all these curiosities? IacobusAmor 13:39, 16 Maii 2008 (UTC)