Quantum redactiones paginae "Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 10" differant

← Differentia superior Differentia proxima →

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Emendatio ex 07:09, 13 Septembris 2008

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

Natura

Id really like to add a categoria "Natura" to lat. Wikipedia, it seems there is already some relevant content (plants, fishes &ct.) but I didnt find out yet how it is arranged? or how it can be retrieved (systematically - mot by goto / search option). And Whats your convention about the vulgar latin names of animals that were unknown to ancient Rome or even in the middle Ages? And how do you handle ambiguous names (like: pristis = shark / swordfish [modern taxon]) Teutonius 19:53, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plants, fish and the like are currently in Categoria:Biologia. ("Natura" seems rather broad and fuzzy to me …)

There should be only one article about each subject. If an animal has several names, then there should be one article at the most common name. This article should also explain the other names. From each of the other names, a redirect can be created to this article.

If names are ambiguous, a "disambiguation" should be created. See e. g. Cygnus and Aquila (discretiva). --UV 20:03, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shark=Selachimorpha, "natura" = "nature" as a categoray includes physics, geology, etc., which deserve to be separated from subjects specifically relavent to the study of living things. Biologia is a good way to classify those pages.--Rafaelgarcia 23:11, 15 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I dont understand yet: for ex. a page named "pristis" - should it (mainly) deal the issue "shark" in general - from its (original?) latin meaning" - or the animal "sawfish" that is acually a (sharklike) rayfish??? Besides I cant find (nor create) a categoria named "bilologia" on the category-page [[1]], how comes? Teutonius 07:48, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twice you've written pristis, but Cassell's says it's pistris, and in Latin it doesn't just mean '"shark" in general': it means:

1. Sea monster.

2. Whale.

3. Shark.

4. Sawfish.

5. Whale (constellation).

6. Small, swift-sailing ship.

7. The name of a ship (in Vergil).

You'll presumably need a disambiguation page to accommodate these senses. IacobusAmor 11:12, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Omnia → Categoria:Eruditio → Categoria:Scientia → Categoria:Scientia naturalis → Categoria:Biologia. --UV 11:50, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Iacobus, Ive looked it up and found that there are actually three forms pistris & pistrix (= pristis), apparently a latin version with greek roots!? Yet the sawfish has the official name pristis, pristidae! 92.195.233.52 15:43, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep in mind that there is a difference between Linean classifications and the latin language per se; the term ~~pistis~~ pistris on the one hand may mean monster in latin, but may be used by the linean system as the technical assignation for ~~swordfish~~ sawfish. I am not knowledgeable concerning these classifications, but from the point of view of Latin and Vicipaedia, Linnean names can be treated as foreign words or borrowed terms, not latin per se. In such cases where there are contradictions or ambiguities arising between the two, the first sentence of the article can explain it, Like "X is the linnean term for Y." where X is the linnean term and Y is the latin term. The pattern favored in Vicipaedia is "Y ( binomen X) is an annimal..." (See Leo)--Rafaelgarcia 16:13, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

duae emendationes ab usore Teutonius 18:39, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a lot of discussion of this subject area at Disputatio:Selachimorpha, including discussion of the meaning(s) of "pristis" (which is an acceptable spelling, incidentally).

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; therefore (as already said above) we start with the aim of describing things, rather than defining words. But defining terms is still part of the job.

If there is no classical or medieval Latin term for the species you want to describe, then it's easy: you use the Linnaean binomial. And if you want to talk about a genus, family, order or class, you will most likely choose the Linnaean term, because those classification concepts did not exist as such before Linnaeus.

If there is a classical or medieval Latin term for the species, and its meaning is clear, you would normally use it in preference to the Linnaean binomial: as Rafael says, you would then include the Linnaean binomial in your first sentence (and in the infobox).

If the classical/medieval Latin word is ambiguous or difficult to define, you may well want to discuss its meaning on some page or other, and you may need a disambiguation page, but your first job is still to describe species, genera etc. as now understood.

OK, finally, to sawfish. As far as I remember from the old discussion at "Selachimorpha", sawfish were probably unknown, or practically unknown, to early Latin speakers. You can make an article about the family Pristidae and about the genus (if its approved name is "Pristis", call it Pristis (genus) to distinguish it from any other meanings of the word) and about any of the species; for the species I guess your titles should be the Linnaean binomials. Andrew Dalby 18:05, 18 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-ids

What is the correct latin form of words like "nucleioid, plastid, ..." and what gender do they have? Teutonius 08:59, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is like asteroides --Rafaelgarcia 16:14, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-oid and -id are two different suffixes. -oid is -oides. -id might be any of several different things; AHD says that 'plastid', for example, is Greek πλάστις, which would be Latin plastis, -idos or -idis [Greek third declension], fem. (In this case -id is from the Greek feminine suffix, so this corresponds to Lat. fictrix.) Other examples of -id might be from -ides, -idae [Greek first declension], masc. (e.g. canid, bovid, Heraclid...) —Mucius Tever 20:37, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for my self-promotion but you might have a look at Usor:Fabullus/Declinatio Latina nominum Graecorum, and esp. the section titled Adiectiva in -ης/-ες exeuntia (asteroides, carcinodes etc.). --Fabullus 14:52, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordnung

phylum - classis - ordo // gradus? - familia Teutonius 10:42, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the question? The terminology/translation/correspndences are explained here: en:Taxonomic rank--Rafaelgarcia 16:31, 16 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also have a useful table of our own at Systema taxinomicum Linnaeanum. Andrew Dalby 18:10, 18 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us about your Wikipedia

Please Tell us about your Wikipedia language edition, answering some questions, and learn about others.--Ziko 22:20, 19 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I am placing a copy of the questionnaire Vicipaedia:Quaestiones here. Anyone who feels like answering a few questions, go ahead! I suggest each answer is signed; then others who want to add something can add their own signature. Andrew Dalby 09:35, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out of date. I think Rafael has already answered for us, so I've deleted the above link. Andrew Dalby 11:47, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

taxonomia

Hi vicipaedians... are there any objections to my taxonomic index, or shall I use it instead / in addition to of the existing one? Teutonius 05:40, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[2]] quotation: "Concerning information: I do not think that information is what Wikipedia is here for. Information you can find via Google much more. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide structured information. To put four and more taxonomies into every plant article is no structured information, at least in my eyes. Ende der englischen Debatte, wir sind immer noch die deutschsprachige Wikipedia. Griensteidl 18:04, 19. Mai 2006 (CEST) ¶ Good point, structured information is very important. Structure requires a historical perspective. Presenting only the thin layer of the currently fashionable opinion (changed every day) will offer the user very little guidance. Brya 21:36, 19. Mai 2006 (CEST)" Teutonius 09:08, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it different from Systema taxinomicum Linnaeanum? It is something you made up? Or is it the same as the system used widely in biology today? Tell us what is different. Your not supposed to publish original theories on Wikipedia. A new taxonomy for which you do not have a specific source would would count as a new theory.--Rafaelgarcia 11:48, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia (Anglica), the system used by botanists differs a bit from the system used by zoologists. Also: a single officially approved system is augmented by several informally used systems. IacobusAmor 12:11, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main purpose is to avoid a mixture of Linnean taxonomy and "pure" phylogenetics (cladistic) - I mean to preserve (a few) "clear" taxolevels and not to mix them up with non hierarchic clades and their (strictly) dichotomous branching. I see some confusion about both principles in the existent taxon-pages. Ive seen some cool pulldown [+] menues in the category-pages, but the source text doesnt appear... (how) can I create those menues? Teutonius 20:06, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those words "few, clear" sound very good to me!

I'm not sure if I am looking at the same pulldowns as you. There are pulldown formulae created using {{nav}}: an example that uses this is {{Encyclica Pauli VI}}. Perhaps others will give better advice. Andrew Dalby 20:33, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean those [3] here: Teutonius 21:42, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the "Quaerere" box? That's the only pulldown I can see on that page. I don't think we can incorporate such boxes inside encyclopedia pages. Andrew Dalby 10:22, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means that if you press the "plus" signs in the categoriae, it shows a list.--Rafaelgarcia 14:21, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I never tried that. Andrew Dalby 20:59, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-)--Rafaelgarcia 02:43, 23 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete discussion pages

It's against Vicipaedia rules to delete discussion pages. If your disputatio gets too long. You should create archive pages. ALso you should reserve disputatio pages for actual discusssions, not for creating tables of ideas.With the exeption of talbes to aid a discussion of course.--Rafaelgarcia 22:37, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Rafael, i cant help, but you seem to be only quite negative, always reminding (me) of things not to do, what is your advice for the species pages (taxon-content) and my propose to reedit (revamp existing content) and gradually complete them (like the page "pica is a bird")... or should we rather leave this thema to species at wikimedia? (to avoid double pages in both projects)?
Teutonius 22:58, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is in your interest to have any possible concerns cleared up at the beginnning before you invest your time. As I stated, I don't know so much about taxonomy. If you have a source for the scheme you propose you should indeed use it. But it would be real waste of your time and someone else's if you made all those pages conform to this new scheme just to have them changed to something else because someone objects to your scheme being original research. So it is in your interest to clear this issue up before starting.--Rafaelgarcia 00:22, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I don't mean to be negative all the time. It seems you've never contributed to a Wikipedia project before coming here and that explains what's happend.

I DID NOT CREATE ANY WHTSOEVER MESS! Teutonius 05:56, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the thing to do is to create a subpage from your user page or write on your user page. You can write and delete anything on the user page to your hearts content. (Eg. make a link on your user page like [[User:Teutonius/TeutoniiTaxonomia]] and make the new page as usual. But the point is that discussion pages shouldn't be deleted. They may be of use to people in understanding things, since disussion occurs whenever people disagree about something and if one person disagrees on some point the likelyhood is that others will disagree too in the future on the same point. Also it gives a permanent record by which people can judge your interactions with others on the project which would become relavent, for instance, in the case in the future you were nominated for some office at wikipedia.

The issue of your deleting discussions came up before and I would have thought that you'd be attentive enough to ask for help rather than AGAIN delete things.

I DID NOT DELETE ANY WHATSOEVER DISCUSSION! Teutonius 05:56, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I asked to discuss this here is that the way you've deleted stuff from your discussion page, it is going to be a difficult thing to put the text back in, which is necessary to do as a first step before creating a disputatio subpage, which the one for Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor. If you had only asked before creating this mess, I would have been very happy helping out in creating such subpages for you.--Rafaelgarcia 23:39, 21 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I DID NOT CREATE ANY WHTSOEVER MESS! Teutonius 05:56, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see en:Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism, particularly the items:Modifying users' comments and Discussion page vandalism. Aparently I was wrong about it being wrong for a user to delete discusson items from his own talk page. He is allowed to do so. Apparently then, you can do what you want on your own disputatio page (unless its offensive or dishonest per the rules).--Rafaelgarcia 00:01, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I DID NOT DELETE ANY WHATSOEVER DISCUSSION! And once again: I have saked in advance, first about my color project, then also about my taxon project. Both are still within my own page and not messing around. If there is someone messing up Wikipedia, then it is not me... Teutonius 05:56, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to these deletions: [4], [5],[6]. These were instances in which you deleting not only your own but also other users's comments. However, it was also my mistake because you were apparently just moving things around as can be seen here: [7]. It wasn't clear to me be cause no explanation or summary was being given, but it *looked* to me like large sections were being deleted. Again I apologize for unnecessaarily getting you upset; I was just trying to be diligent in doing my job and I made a mistake.--Rafaelgarcia 08:37, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted! Teutonius 09:25, 22 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I started reading this thread I was not very happy. However, now it seems that all has been a misunderstanding. Fine :-) Concerning the taxonomy thread, I cannot contribute much, however, we should find a solution which is either obvious to all, even editors in the future, or which is well documented. Otherwise it might happen that making changes will be real waste of [...] time because editors in the future will change all back to whatever they think is the "correct way" of doing it. --Rolandus 11:48, 23 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantra

Commentarium coepi, verbis Anglicis celatis. Si rem augere velis, sicut Americani dicunt, "feel free"! IacobusAmor 14:19, 23 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Episcopi Ecclesiae Catholicae

I put in this category only the bishops who lived after the separation between Catholic and Orthodox churches (1054). Does somebody believe we have to put also all the previous bishops in this category?--Massimo Macconi 07:43, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on Disputatio Categoriae:Episcopi Ecclesiae Catholicae. --UV 09:28, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus × limon, sive de binominis in titulis usu

Nuper stipulam de arbore limone scripsi, quam paginam aliquis binomine Linnaeano usus Citrus × limon renominavit. Mihi quidem hoc casu nomen simplex, etsi non est nomen Latinum classicum, magis placet, quia magis naturaliter evenit scribere de limonibus quam de Citris × limonibus. "Hoc casu" dico, quod aliis casibus nomen simplex ambiguum videri potest, hic tamen minime. Si mecum consentitis, rogo ut pagina redirectionis Limon deleatur, et pagina Citrus × limon ad Limon moveatur. Eodem modo rogo ut, pagina Aurantium deleta, pagina Citrus × aurantium ad Aurantium moveri possit. --Fabullus 11:32, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has paginas nunc movi. Andrew Dalby 13:41, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago! Spero alios nobiscum consentire. --Fabullus 13:44, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alia res, superiori tamen coniuncta, est illud '×', quod in binominibus specierum hibridarum includi solet, quod in paginarum nominibus tamen supprimendum videtur, quia '×' (item ac accentibus) difficile est scriptu et quaesitu (vide etiam quod Andreas noster hac de re scripsit in Disputatione:Citrus × paradisi). --Fabullus 11:32, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ibi nunc addidi: ego titulos "alphanumericos", sine symbolis exoticis, praefero. Alii quid dicunt? Andrew Dalby 13:38, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cum Andrea Dalby et Fabullo valde consentio. Res cotidiana sicut limon paginam nomine 'limon' tantum debent habere, et incipere "Limon (binomen: Citrus x limon) est..." (sicut apud en:Lemon faciunt), sed si nomen latinum cotidianum vel vetus non existit, fortasse melius fore est paginam nominare secundum illud binomen scientificum. Hanc sententiam habeo quod opinor Vicipaediam studiare modo encyclopaediam fieri, non librum biologicum, aut mathematicum.--Rafaelgarcia 13:46, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In binomine biologico, sicut nuper legi, "Citrus limon" est pravum et "Citrus x limon" est rectum, quod ille "x" significat combinationem artificalem (Anglice hybridization), vel quod agricolas artificiose duas plantas concrucifixisse (?anglice:crossed together).--Rafaelgarcia 13:58, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[concrucifigo = crucify together. Probably the better verb to build from is 'substring'.] —Mucius Tever 22:37, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bella est ea formula lewshort ! Et recte dicis de misceo, sed quid dixit Mendel?--Rafaelgarcia 22:50, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack! Mendel scripsisse Germanice non Latine videtur. Nostra pagina super Mendel est dubiosae latinitatis. At aliquis alicubi aliquando de genetica scribere debet nonne?...Hmmm.--Rafaelgarcia 23:28, 24 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"plantae hybridae vel ex hybridisatione derivatae / ortae" ex reti & a Teutonio 09:09, 26 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phrases in multis diagnosibus veris sunt hybrida . . . exorta et hybrida . . . genita. Vide Stearns. IacobusAmor 11:56, 26 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Homophylophilia

I notice this category is anonymously spreading across a range of biographical articles, sometimes without justification in the text (though no doubt justification could be found in other wikis).

I'm just wondering to what extent it's appropriate to categorize people by this particular sexual preference. Some express their preferences as part of their public persona, some don't. If they didn't, should we? Andrew Dalby 09:42, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have categorize only persons who have done their coming out or are notoriously homosexual (Leonardus Vincius). I see that the same categorisation has been done on en.wiki. Now I'll wait the others users' opinion --Massimo Macconi 10:06, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Notoriously"? ¶ Don't forget to include Pope Iulius III and other nonstraight ecclesiastical figures! See en:Category:LGBT people from Italy. IacobusAmor 13:20, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realise it was you, Massimo! Yes, we'll see what others think. Andrew Dalby 12:34, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quoting

Is it allowed to cite sources outside wikipedia with complete "ready-made" descriptions of animals and plants (or other things), or should I rather rewrite the text. Allthough those descriptions often follow the same rules and thers only little that can be changed if you dont want to describe a complete different plant... The sources I mean are online editions of middle age texts (old medical books) like: [8] Teutonius 10:20, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffmann, your own example here, can be very useful as a source of text. No copyright problem, of course. If quoting, I think it is always best to do so explicitly (using "" or {{Citatio}} and giving the reference {{Lexfons}} in a footnote) because, if it's clear that it's a quotation, later editors are less likely to adjust the wording! Andrew Dalby 12:43, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the name of a botanical species to be valid (accepted worldwide by botanists), a diagnosis of it must be published in Latin, and likewise a description of it in Latin. So somewhere in print you'll find a Latin diagnosis and a Latin description of every valid species of plant. I suppose we may find millions of such writeups; and in an ideal world, they might be collected in one place; but Vicipaedia, being devoted to a much larger array of topics than plants, may not be that place. The Latin terminology has become so refined that to change one word of a diagnosis might indeed change the referent to a different plant. IacobusAmor 11:45, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And these diagnoses and descriptions are in botanical Latin, which is a bit different from classical Latin, although close enough that it isn't hard to understand. Again (and I'm agreeing with Iacobus, I think), if we quote them, we should mark them off clearly as a quotation so that later editors don't try to adjust the wording. Andrew Dalby 12:43, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, definitely: loci adlati non mutandi sunt! ¶ And yes, botanical Latin is way simplified, almost without verbs (except participles), and with few uses for genitives, datives, and accusatives. Ablatives rule! ¶ Does everybody understand the difference between a diagnosis and a description? One would think that those would have been the first articles that our taxonomist-friends would have written. But nooooooooo. IacobusAmor 12:59, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say: "diagnosis = descriptio discretiva" but I dont think its worth "spamming" new single-sentence-pages creating articles about such kind of terminus technicus? (because for explaining words there is wiktionary).
Besides I dont intend to gather countless plant-diagnoses, but to post (selfmade) descriptions. I only want to use existing ones as an pattern for wording and structure. I dont think logical wordly coincidence has to be quoted too? @Andrew: my exaple is written by Blanckaert, not by Hoffmann!? Teutonius 14:14, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I see now. The home page looked the same as Hoffmann. Andrew Dalby 14:36, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On self-made descriptions: fine & dandy for species you've discovered! IacobusAmor 15:02, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have "discovered" lots of plants (and taken photos) in Asia, so I only need to read some existent descriptions, in order to know how to write new ones by myself! Teutonius 16:34, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Let Vicipaedia be an official site for the publication of new species!!! But where will the type specimens be stored? IacobusAmor 16:46, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, original research results are not allowed here. They must be published in scientific journals first and then a reference can be provided. See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources; although in principle we can deviate from these on la, it would require that a consensus be forged. But that is the subject of a separate thread.--Rafaelgarcia 17:07, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "I would say: "diagnosis = descriptio discretiva" but I dont think its worth "spamming" new single-sentence-pages creating articles about such kind of terminus technicus?"

Well, contrary to the above, all the other wikis have not one but many pages on en:diagnosis, so there is much more to say about it than a single sentence.

From what I can see, what Iacobus means to say, is that an important fact is overlooked by the above statement, namely, that the referent of any category in the diagnosis comes from the the "way" the different items are described in "the context of the whole". Thus the actual "way" things are described in the "official" diagnosis determines "what" is referred to.

Also, perhaps the statement "I dont think its worth "spamming" new single-sentence-pages creating articles about such kind of terminus technicus?", conflates many unrelated issues without presenting any coherent argument. A person could say the same thing, for example, about creating a page for every species, i.e. "I dont think its worth "spamming" new single-sentence-pages creating articles about every single species and category". Is it right to call it spamming? Why? Why is your opinion valid? Really what is done here is a mere presenting of a personal opinion, labeling something as spamming, without presenting any argument other than the label and that it is one's opinion to back it up.

De: "all the other wikis have not one but many pages on en:diagnosis."—Yeah, but en:diagnosis has not one word on the kind of diagnosis we're talking about here (other than saying diagnosis is important in "science"). Biological diagnoses have a particular structure & style, usually consisting of fewer than about ten words; biological descriptions are much longer, and have an even less variable structure. I have a mind to Latinize that English article and insert some examples of actual botanical diagnoses (drawn from Stearns), but I'm busy right now, so anybody who wants to may feel free to have a go. IacobusAmor 18:20, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a more constructive way to achieve a consensus is to avoid labels and present a logical argument, an illustrative exemplum, or an explanatory reference. --Rafaelgarcia 17:00, 27 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is: vikipedia is not for explaining words (that would be wiktionary) but explaining things. And thats why I dislike those single-sentence "avatar" pages, that dont really say anything. Besides I didnt speak about original research (of new species), but about known species (as arum, allocasia, areca, lantana, phyllanthus, sinocalamus, ...) that I re"discovered" there in Asia and that I want to describe here using those works as a source, to avoid unnecessary neologisms. Teutonius 08:52, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De: "vikipedia is not for explaining words (that would be wiktionary) but explaining things. And thats why I dislike those single-sentence "avatar" pages, that dont really say anything."—Examples, please! Most single-sentence pages that I've seen are sub-sub-substubs, and they deserve immense expansion, but they're there because their creators (often usores ignoti) don't have enough Latin to do the expanding, though (as we say in English with quasi-clinical anatomical presumption) "their hearts are in the right place." IacobusAmor 11:54, 28 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretes and translatores

We have usually called translators "interpretes". It has been pointed out that this confuses two modern professions, those of interpreters (of speech) and translators (of texts). And, thinking about it, I guess these would always have been two distinct skills. So should we call the translators "translatores"? If interested, please comment at Disputatio Categoriae:Interpretes. Andrew Dalby 12:51, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latinitas

{{L-1}}: what kind of latinitas is {{L-1}} (red point) - is it good or bad? Teutonius 23:54, 29 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means that some corrections are required. The yellow dot {{L}} means "not yet checked": the green dot {{L1}} means "OK". Andrew Dalby 09:18, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see..., I only wonder, why its not in the Latinitas table, hence my question. Teutonius 14:12, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point ... I'll add it. Andrew Dalby 16:24, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category cleanup

I've just finished cleaning up Categoria:Homines manually by moving all the entries into subcategories as far as I could and deleting them from Homines. Now the same should be done for Categoria:Biographia (see also Disputatio_Vicipaediae:Categoria#About_Categoria:Homines_and_Categoria:Biographia - thank you Andrew Dalby). However, with regard to the number of pages there, it's not advisable to do it all manually. So,

~~has anybody ever used the AutoWikiBrowser on Vicipaedia~~? Apparently not as it is not applicable for Latin. --Iovis Fulmen 20:48, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC) (I haven't.)[reply]
I suggest to semi-automatically delete "Categoria:Biographia" from pages which are in categories like Categoria:Papae, Categoria:Sancti, Categoria:Episcopi, and so on to the effect that only those pages which are already in subcategories of Categoria:Homines are taken out of Biographia and we can deal with the remainder pages later on (rather than just deleting "Categoria:Biographia" from all pages that have it). With this precaution, would you agree that this is a legitimate way of editing that category semi-automatically? --Iovis Fulmen 20:00, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your hard work with Categoria:Homines. I would certainly agree with your proposed deletion; or another approach would be to remove Categoria:Biographia from all articles that have {{Bio-stipula}}. I don't know whether UVBot is capable of doing either of these things? Andrew Dalby 20:09, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on Categoria:Homines! I deleted all occurrences of [[Categoria:Biographia]] (without sortkey), making sure that all these pages are in fact in Categoria:Homines or its subcategories. What remains now are about 170 occurrences of [[Categoria:Biographia|sortkey]]. These pages are now still in Categoria:Biographia and should be edited (manually) to remove the sortkey from all category names and to add a DEFAULTSORT, see Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 8#defaultsort. --UV 22:22, 30 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Et ego gratias ago pro opere efficaci. Quae remanent, paulatim aggrediar. --Iovis Fulmen 09:22, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special Vocabulary

I tried to write the following article Domus Cupri ab Bauschenbergo but obviously failed. One of my problems was the special vocabulary I needed. The article should describe one of the oldest buildings in our city. It produced brass about 200 years ago. Do you know any source of information where I can get the required vocabulary from (words like brass, furnace, ore, mine, pit etc.) I would appreciate your help as I intend to improve the quality of the text and avoid deleting it. Best regards --BBKurt 05:29, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes all that terminology exists in the book "De Re Metallica" about mining, equipment, ore etc.. Also there is the book "De Natura Fossilium" which is about metallugy. THe books have lots of pictures showing the various equipment and things with latin names. Try google books.--Rafaelgarcia 06:04, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you intend to improve the page I have removed the threatening template and substituted one that asks other users to contribute: OK? Andrew Dalby 13:54, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree and I will do my utmost to improve its quality. Maybe some aspects will be skipped.The help of others is welcome.--BBKurt 17:37, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I get stuck even with the name: Domus Cupri ab Bauschenbergo->The copper house/factory from Bauschenbergum? --Rafaelgarcia 16:26, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning is: The brass-factory with the name Bauschenberg (a small hill in the neighborhood). I don't know the Latin word for brass-factory. Thats why I called it the "house of Cupper from Bauschenberg.--BBKurt 17:37, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know German nor do I know anything about the subject of the article. I really don't like to guess blindly or spend time researching what is intended. If you know english, it would be very helpful to give a word for word literal english translation of what you intend to write in latin. --Rafaelgarcia 16:31, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The english translation of the German word "Kupferhof" is comparable with brass-factory. The link to the article in the english Wikipedia may help. Sorry for causing inconvenience.--BBKurt 17:37, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A factory is a fabrica or an officina (Cicero used the latter for 'foundry'). To cast metal is fundo, fundere, fudi, fusum (hence English 'foundry'). Do you have a Latin dictionary? IacobusAmor 18:25, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brass-factory is officina orichalci (orichalcum 'brass'). BTW, is it necessary to translate Kupferhof Bauschenberg into Latin? Other Wikis seem to abide by the German name. In any case. "Domus Cupri Bauschenberg" or "Domus Cupri Bauschenbergensis" sounds way better. --Neander 19:38, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could leave its german name and provide latin translation in parentheses : Kupferhof Bauschenberg (forsitan Latine: Domus Cupri Bauschenbergensis) nota orichalci officina erat colli Bauschenbergensi sita... " Anyway, by sifting through Agricola's glossaries, I didn't find a consistent term for "copper ore", perhaps "aes rude" or "aes luteum" or "lapis aenea" depending on the source?--Rafaelgarcia 21:18, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request

Ave! I have made commons:Template:User SUL, it show where is the main account of an user's SUL and give a link to this account. Could someone translate this template for this local wikipedia?. Cordialement, Otourly 12:41, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vide nunc {{Usor globalis}}. Andrew Dalby 14:21, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Otourly 15:50, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More categories

Iovis Fulmen spurs me to go to work on the Scriptores categories (I worked on the Scripta/Litterae categories a few months ago) -- with the help of UVBot if UV is willing. My aim will be to allocate to each writer two categories, one for country of origin, one for language. So that they are more obviously distinct, I propose to name the country categories (in our current style) Scriptores Franciae etc., but the language categories diffferently, Auctores Latini etc. Does anyone object, or have better suggestions? Andrew Dalby 14:55, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to deploy double national categories for W. H. Auden, Joseph Conrad, T. E. Eliot, V. V. Nabokov, and certain other writers. IacobusAmor 15:39, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, I didn't make that clear, but I agree that some writers can't be pinned down to one (or even two) countries. And some, including Nabokov, can't be pinned to one language either. Andrew Dalby 16:05, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I especially like the choice of terms, with "scriptores" as the maybe more general one (though not as obscenely general as "scriba") referring to the more general classification of origin/abode and "auctores", in itself implying some actual intellectual achievement, being used for the language used in the authors' works. --Iovis Fulmen 16:14, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auctores Anglici

I take Auctores Anglici to mean 'English authors', 'authors from England'. If you mean 'authors who wrote in English', I suppose you're referring to Anglicum 'the English language,' on the analogy of Graecum 'the Greek language' (in Cassell's), but that's not going to be readily apparent, is it? Maybe Auctores Anglicae (scil. linguae) would be clearer? or just spell it out: Auctores linguae Anglicae? But is that idiomatic? These categories can be quite puzzling! IacobusAmor 14:44, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments on this issue? Not just English, but other languages too: we ought to have a standard form. Now's the time, as the creation of these writers-by-language categories is about to begin. Andrew Dalby 14:53, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! We're in at the creation! In that case, what's the diff between an auctor and a scriptor? and between an auctor and a poeta who publishes his/her poemata? IacobusAmor 15:04, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You took part in the discussion above. Read it again and you'll see what the difference is between Scriptores and Auctores (i.e. practically no difference, except in terms of the proposed category structure). I think you know, without my telling you, that Poetae (if they work in writing) are a subcategory of Auctores/Scriptores. Andrew Dalby 15:10, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take Iacobus's point that Auctores Anglici is ambiguous. Some other similar terms, however, will be more-or-less unambiguous; Auctores Latini for example should be OK (unless someone takes that to mean "Authors from Latium"!)

The two obvious solutions are (a) to devise a more explicit (and still grammatically acceptable) wording, or (b) to explain unambiguously at the top of the category page what the brief wording means (e.g. "Categoria:Auctores Italici: Auctores qui Italice scripserunt." I don't mind which solution we follow, but it would be best if we have a consensus. If we adopt a more explicit wording, what's it to be? Will Categoria:Auctores linguae Italicae suit us, or do we also need to change the word order? Please comment! Andrew Dalby 09:13, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer your original wording. It works in most cases, doesn't it? --Iovis Fulmen 05:23, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, I'll try it (with explanation where necessary), and we'll see how it looks. Andrew Dalby 12:58, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categoriam "Auctores Anglici" in commentario Savea Sano Malifa addidimus, sed ruber manet. ¶ Nunc ut videtur habemus categorias Scriptores Samoae = Samoa's writers et Auctores Samoani = Samoan's authors. I'm not sure this kind of distinction will be instantly transparent to any but the most dedicated of readers. IacobusAmor 14:52, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categoriam Categoria:Auctores Samoani pro te creavi -- ecce generositatem meam! Inter hanc et Categoria:Scriptores Samoae potes nexus creare si vis. Nota explicationes in capite paginarum. Observa: creationem categoriae Categoria:Auctores Anglici mox vides. Andrew Dalby 16:08, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manemus cum "spiritu imminuto"! IacobusAmor 16:19, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias, O UVBot, qui precibus nostris respondet! Andrew Dalby 09:29, 7 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Histriones / Actores

The discussion may not belong here, but since Categoria:Actores still is -despite linguistic criticism- alive and kicking, just as Categoria:Histriones is empty:

How about keeping both: Actores for film, and histriones for stage
Or perhaps histriones for both, actores for film and artifices scaenici (Lexicon recentis latinitatis) for stage?

- although the actores pellicularum are still in the majority, there are quite a number of actors on stage around meanwhile. --Iovis Fulmen 20:20, 8 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's a good idea to distinguish them. Andrew Dalby 20:27, 8 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of categories

May I urge that all categories at the bottom of articles be put in a standard order. The one that seems best to me so far is: (1) Nati [annus]; (2) Mortui [annus]; (3) any other categories, in alphabetical order. (Obviously, for nonbiographies, only the third set would appear.) Do any other categories ask to be given pride of (nonalphabetical) place? IacobusAmor 18:35, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make a different proposal: I would suggest to order categories by decreasing "claim to fame". I would find it strange to read in Alexander Magnus' categories Categoria:Homophylophilia before Categoria:Reges Macedonum just because the former category happens to precede the latter when sorting alphabetically. For articles about persons, this suggestion usually results in:

category for profession
category for nationality, may be combined with the preceding one if there exists a combined category such as Categoria:Birotarii Francici
any other applicable categories
Categoria:Mulieres if the person's gender is female
category for year of birth and category for year of death.

Any other views? --UV 18:50, 31 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with the principle. How easy do you think it would be to achieve it in practice? Are there automata that could help us with this? Andrew Dalby 08:36, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify (as requested just below!) I agree with UV's suggested principle, but wonder how easy it would be to achieve. Andrew Dalby 15:23, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You agree with which principle? The universally standard orders for lists are alphabetical & numerical. I thought I was being bold in proposing an exception, by which Nati & Mortui would be put first so that they might appear in the layout at the same place on all pages. Any other ordering is going to put them in random places. In reference works, consistency in all important respects is a virtue, and the layout is one of those respects. (Our layout of lemmas, and of the first images of articles, and of taxoboxes & such, is invariably consistent. Why should the layout of categories not also be?) Lists ordered by supposed "claim to fame" must appear chaotic to a reader whose sense of fame differs from that of the writer. Because the default that I'd expect for verbal lists is alphabetical, I'd be surprised to find Categoria:Reges Macedonum placed ahead of Categoria:Homophylophilia. Also, even the proposed claim-to-fame ordering is debatable: though Alexander's rank as king must have been supersalient in his own time, his sexual activity may seem so to some readers in ours, readers who'll know him only as some famous old dude who was gay (because they've found him in a book about famous old dudes who were gay). That's of course a forced example, but I'm sure that more plausible examples can be found. ¶ Some people have had multiple "professions" (king, musician, poet, writer), and again their ordering poses difficulties in any but an alphabetical list. ¶ A quick review of this issue in the English wikipedia suggests that no standard has been set over there (except that there's a strong tendency to put Nati & Mortui first, and then the rest in alphabetical order); but I may have missed something, so people may want to check. IacobusAmor 11:09, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my long absence during the summer - before we decide on a set order of categories, I wonder if it would be possible for a bot to organise them in the way we decide, if not, all our 22.348 pages will have their categopries at random while the new ones will have the new standard order--Xaverius 11:30, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot avenue

I am sure that it would be possible for a bot to establish an alphabetical order, or an alphabetical order with the exception of putting Nati and Mortui either at the beginning or at the end. I do, however, not know of an existing bot that is already programmed to perform this task.
No bot can reliably perform "claim to fame"-sorting, for obvious reasons.
Problem with category sorting (by bot or by editing the page manually): Whenever a category is not added directly to a page but via a template included in a page (which is, in my view, a good thing in many cases, for example the {{Papa}} infobox automatically adds the page that uses this infobox to Categoria:Papae), there is no good way to influence category order. This will most probably adversely affect "alphabetical" sorting and may adversely affect "claim to fame" sorting.

The gadget avenue

I am sure that it would be possible to program a Vicipaedia:Gadget that displays all categories in alphabetical order (again, Nati and Mortui can receive special treatment) for all users that decide to enable this gadget in Special:Preferences. It would even be possible to enable this for all users in MediaWiki:Common.js but I am rather hesitant in forcing much functionality to go there, as this would slow down the page loading time for all users a bit.
Reliable automatic "claim to fame"-sorting: No, of course not.
No problem with categories added via a template! These categories can be sorted alphabetically as well along with the others, without any problem.

On the merits: There have been a number of examples from en.wikipedia. Let me just briefly describe the rules and guidelines in de.wikipedia, which does not apply alphabetical sorting: In general, categories should be sorted "from special categories to general categories" (ref) (where special/general is not to be confused with subcategory/supercategory). For articles about persons, "no exact order is prescribed, but the order should go from special categories to general categories, which means first the profession, then the nationality, then born/died and then man/woman." (ref).

--UV 21:19, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the first question is, who looks at the list of categories at the foot of a page, and why?

I guess the answer is (a) users look at it to find other pages related to the one they are reading; (b) assiduous editors look at it to verify that all appropriate categories have been applied. Both, I think, tend to be looking for kinds-of-categories rather than for specifically named categories

Therefore I think the de:wiki practice (modified, probably) would be the most helpful to both types of reader, but UV's explanation -- and Iacobus's examples from en:wiki -- confirm to me that it could be difficult for us to impose that kind of logical order. Maybe not too difficult right now, but imagine sorting a list of the length en:wiki gives to Napoleon or Victoria: [Andrew Dalby 12:02, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Ha! en:Michael Phelps = Michael Phelps is only one or two behind them, and he's closing fast!!! IacobusAmor 12:43, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and many en:wiki pages have category lists of such length or longer. You yourself, Iacobe, like to add longish lists of categories even now!

I suppose there is one possible way we could help the bots, or the gadgets, to do what we want. We could label our categories with our own "scale of priorities". All the Nati and Mortui categories already contain a formula, so they are maybe labelled already. Is this a possible approach?

Alternatively, we could file them alphabetically, as Iacobus suggests. But I think a logical order would be more helpful in practice. Andrew Dalby 12:02, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the most "logical" order alphabetical? Even using the criteria outlined above, different contributors will use different logics, or at least different appreciations of historical effect or conceptual worth, to rank their categories differently. The only order unsusceptible of argument is an alphabetical one. (I suppose random order would be similarly neutral, but it would surely be unuseful!) The reason I'd make an exception for Nati & Mortui (and Vivi) is that an alphabetical order would put them in different places on different pages, as would a decision to put them always at the end; if they're put at the start, they'll appear at the same location on every page. They deserve to be a consistent exception because every biographical article will have them. IacobusAmor 13:31, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if alphabetical order is 'logical' at all (it's *standard*, which makes it easy to find a category if you know what its name is—not necessarily a given when word order is free—and that's about it). I agree that a logical ordering would be in order from most specific to most general; of course, a bot won't know what's special and what's general, but presumably something could be gleaned from the number of other entries in a category (if a topic is one of only five members in a category, it is presumably a more relevant characteristic to that topic than if it's one of a thousand). —Mucius Tever 22:49, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that different contributors will have different appreciations of historical effect or conceptual worth. But in order to find a somewhat appropriate order of categories, much less judgment is necessary than the judgment that is necessary to decide on how to arrange a set of facts to form a Vicipaedia article (not to speak of the step just before: selecting what information should go in a Vicipaedia article and what information, being relatively immaterial, needs not to be put into the article at this time). No Vicipaedia article, therefore, is "neutral": It embodies a plethora of editorial choices, some of them being more subtle than others. If we have managed up to now to create a significant number of Vicipaedia articles with a text that has an acceptable degree of NPOV, then we will definitely be able to establish an order of categories that is appropriate for the article at hand, and sufficiently "neutral". --UV 23:32, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we were able to "establish an order of categories that is appropriate for the article at hand, and sufficiently 'neutral'" (and I'm less sanguine about our ability to do that), the order of the same categories would differ from article to article, and would therefore introduce a measure of inconsistency into the result. (In reference works, inconsistency is a terrible crime.) For example, a category Auctores Anglici would be right at the top of a list in the biography of Carolus Dickens, but it would most definitely not be at the top in the biography of Beniaminus Disraeli. ¶ Amusing aside: checking Wikipedia, I happened to notice that the categories for births & deaths appear at the start of the list for Disraeli, but at the finish for Gladstone, his archenemy! ¶ Say, why is Vicipaedia not distinguishing between authors of fiction and authors of nonfiction, as Wikipedia does? IacobusAmor 11:55, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habemus Categoria:Scriptores mythistoriarum. Utere! Andrew Dalby 16:10, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it'll eventually include tens (or hundreds) of thousands of names, so shouldn't we break it down to have Scriptores mythistoriarum Anglici and Scriptores mythistoriarum Samoani and so on? IacobusAmor 16:22, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Personally I don't feel sure yet whether that would be the most useful breakdown. The fact that en:wiki does it that way doesn't make it right for us. As far as I'm concerned, we could wait a bit before breaking it down. Andrew Dalby 09:26, 7 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, as long as a bot can do the breaking down, so we ourselves don't have breakdowns! IacobusAmor 11:40, 7 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene

Quomodo latine redditur verbum "gene", verbo "heredium"? Teutonius 18:35, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gene=genum (from PONS-LRL). --Rafaelgarcia 18:41, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

modo inveni haec: ген genon [i, n] ; genum [i, n] (<google) - verbo genon quoque uti possum? Et mitochondrion/ium, quomodo declinantur: genon, genoni/geni? Teutonius 18:47, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lexicon latinitatis recentis is very authoritative, so I would go with what they say, i.e. genum, which is explicitly latin 2nd declension; Genon however, is obviously a greek borrowing, and like mitochondrion is nueter second declension greek. see http://www.informalmusic.com/latinsoc/greekdec.html

Personally I would prefer to always use the latin version in um. And our page mitochondrium already does that.--Rafaelgarcia 19:24, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here more you can read: Declension of Greek Nouns--Grammar book--Rafaelgarcia 19:35, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "genon" is a pseudo-borrowing. There isn't such a word in Greek. In (Neo-)Greek, 'gene' is γονίδιο. And in Latin, of course, genum. --Neander 20:04, 1 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Teutonius 05:36, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German?

Estne differentia in lingua latina inter: deutsch / germanisch? Quia duae verba "theodisce & germanice" habet ad eam differentiam faciendam!? Teutonius 09:13, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lingua Theodisca, Populus Germanicus, Civitas Germania. IacobusAmor 11:13, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference I mean is not between nowerdays German and Germany (why should we use different words for them?), but betweeen germanic (dt.=germanisch, Germanen: the Germans in ancient [Roman] times) and today (Deutschland, deutsch), because both people are not the same: Germanen differed form Alemannen, Sachsen, Wenden, that (were) fused into the actual "German" mixup today! Just like Indians and "red" Indians arent the same either... My proposal would be to use theodiscus for (nowerdays) deutsch, Deutschland and germanicus only for ancient Germans (dt. germanisch, Germanen) Teutonius 12:01, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember that there was discussion on this (the name of the modern language, specifically) and we didn't reach consensus ... but I don't know where the discussion is. Andrew Dalby 12:14, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lingua Theodisca (moderna, h.e., German), Lingua Germanica (a Germanic language, e.g., English), Lingua Proto-Germanica (a Proto-Germanic language); Populus Germanicus (the Germanic people, e.g. the Alemanni, the Angli, etc.). Etc.? IacobusAmor 13:22, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! But I think some active editors (Massimo? Alex?) prefer lingua Germanica and Germanice for "modern German language". Andrew Dalby

Lingua Germana and Germané (avé, Avite!) should work then, but linguists often use the -ic- infix (or, in English, suffix) to denote protolanguages; e.g., German (the modern language) and Germanic (the family of languages including Dutch, English, Norwegian, etc.); Samoan (the modern language) and Samoic (the family of languages including Futunan, Samoan, Tokelauan, Tuvaluan, etc.); Atayal (a language of Formosa) and Atayalic (a family of languages including Atayal, Seediq, and Ts'ole'). An exception to this pattern is Icelandic, and you may think of others. IacobusAmor 19:53, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that it was pointed out at the time, that there are many mutually-unintelligible German languages that are in use in Germany, Austria etc, and that the lingua Theodisca was the one German language scientifically devised to serve as a universal German language, to permit a standardized translation of the bible as well as aid communication among germans. I don't know any german by which to personally verify those claims however. --Rafaelgarcia 21:16, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Knights of the) Legion of Honor

Iovis Fulmen, editing Lavelua Tomasi Kulimoetoke II, you deleted our Categoria:Eques Legionis Honoris. Is it your opinion that Vicipaedia should not have a category for the Légion d'Honneur (whether sorted into subcategories by degrees or not)? or did you forget about this category while were you rearranging things? According to en:Legion d'honneur, "This world-renowned Order is the highest decoration in France and is divided into five various degrees: Chevalier (Knight), Officier (Officer), Commandeur (Commander), Grand Officier (Grand Officer) and Grand-Croix (Grand Cross)." Wikipedia has en:Category:Légion d'honneur recipients. Vicipaedia has lists of all sorts of things. Why not these awards? IacobusAmor 11:13, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember deleting it. If I did so, it was a mistake. Sorry for not answering earlier because I didn't feel I had anything to do with the Legion of Honor. I will see what I can do to repair the damage. --Iovis Fulmen 21:54, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria illa nunc iam rursus est. Ego autem dubitabam, quibus supercategoriis eam attribuerem. An Categoria:Tituli, ut feci? --Iovis Fulmen 22:08, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivi?

Do/Should we have a general category for living people, as Wikipedia does? IacobusAmor 11:48, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have one as yet. Do we in fact want a warning template, "this is a living person ..."? The template could automatically add the category.

UV, could your bot (if it has time!) add a template to all pages that have a Categoria:Nati and not a Categoria:Mortui? Andrew Dalby 12:25, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such a category would give editors an easy way to check articles for unwarranted POV, graceless characterizations, and even libelous assertions. Someday, long before the time when 7,000,000,000 people are in such a category, it should be broken down into manageable subcategories. IacobusAmor 12:49, 2 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be possible. Unless objection is raised here, I will try to do that in the next few days. If I forget, please remind me. --UV 00:03, 3 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On afterthought: Should we really use a template for all living persons or would a category suffice (plus a warning template to be used on pages susceptible to vandalism)? What title should we choose for the template/the category – "Vivi" (problem: does not make clear that it deals with humans only), "Homines viventes"? --UV 23:01, 4 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fewer warning templates the better, I agree. A related question: should this be a hidden category? I don't see why the usual reader would want to search for all our living people, unless to vandalise the pages; we, on the other hand, could use the category to check for vandalism and inappropriate comments. Andrew Dalby 08:51, 5 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modus scribendi verborum ex lingua graeca sumptorum

Quomodo recte scribuntur verba cum littera "kappa" graeca, cum in lingua latina uta sunt, velut: ophistokonta, plankton, ... haec verba in scripturis scientificis (interretialis cum littera "k" scribere solere videntur... (lingua anclica saepius scilicet et scribet cum littera "c" latina, sed verba coccus, cysta, ... cum sola "c" latina inveniuntur? Quomodo melius scribam? Teutonius 06:00, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC) "Staphylococcus aureus" quoque modum "-kokkus" scribendi habere videtur (<google), ideo litteram "kappa" cum et latine "k" pronunciatur, eam cum littera "k" scribere suadeo.Teutonius 06:16, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC) The "American heritage dictionary" gives: "plankton" (as key word in bold), without any trace of plancton..., but "staphylococcus", "sarco-",...Teutonius 06:27, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC) Etiam pagina anglica [9] vicipaediae dat solum Plankton ac non planc-ton. Vis hoc verbum latinizare, id "planctum" scribere debeas??? Teutonius 08:16, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC) Inclinationem existere videtur, ut scribunt "plankton" in Europa septentrionali, "plancton" quidem in parte meridiana (infra Francogalliam).Teutonius 08:39, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinio mea: si nomine officiali botanico vel zoologico tel quel in titulo utimur, debemus orthographiam scientificam adoptare, quia lingua Latina scientifica habet "academias" et regulas; tales auctoritates omnibus qui encyclopaediam conficiunt et legunt perutiles sunt.

Sed, si titulus noster non est nomen biologicum officiale, systema nostrum translitterationis praeferendum est: pro littera Graeca k utimur c.

Alii quid dicunt? Andrew Dalby 09:03, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certe oportet nobis praeceptis de orthographia linguae latinae botanicae parere. Vide Botanical latin qui dat Plancton (gen. Plancti, n.). De "K" in "Plankton" praeceptum generale latinum dicit scribere "K" solam ante "a" quandoque mos illud requirit, sicut in Karthago. Hoc in momento, k apparuit in positione rara. --Rafaelgarcia 09:18, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quidnam dixit dictionarium istud de verbis -(uni)conta/konta -(eu)caryota/karyota? pagina allata non habet verba, sed solum tegumentum illius libri... Teutonius 17:18, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non est dicitonarium sed liber de lingua latina ad rem botanicam specializata. Intus loco inquisitorio ad dextram sito usus non inveni "eucaryota", sed iam "eucaryota" attestatum est (vid. nostra pag. eucaryota et confer "caryota". Praecepta latina (fuge k nisi moribus ante "a") suadunt "uniconta"--Rafaelgarcia 17:41, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad res inveniendum in libro Botanical latin, utere "loco inquisitorio" ibi ad dextram sito; to find things, use the "search box" there located at the right.--Rafaelgarcia 17:42, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kineto/cineto-?Teutonius 18:09, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Praeceptum est "fuge k nisi mores k ante a requirit", igitur cineto-"--Rafaelgarcia 18:31, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In conlationibus ab usore Hendrico scriptis adhuc multa verba graecolatina sunt littera "k" scripta... quid faciam, ea muteam cum paginas reficiam? Teutonius 19:58, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habemus Translitteratio Linguae Graecae.--Ioscius ^(disp) 21:20, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeo hanc transliterationem non pertinere ad taxonomiam ipsam? Verba "plankta, -konta, &ct." fortasse non littera "-c-" scribere oportet cum taxa sunt, qualisnam est forma recta ea taxa scribendi? Teutonius 21:52, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunt praecepta universalia de translitteratione quae etiam ad taxonomias pertinent.--Rafaelgarcia 23:19, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betawiki update

Currently 59.28% of the MediaWiki messages and 13.70% of the messages of the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been localised. Please help us help your language by localising and proof reading at Betawiki. This is the recent localisation activity for your language. Thanks, GerardM 11:13, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

esse

For biographies of the deceased, should Vicipaedia use "erat" or "fuit" when describing them, or could it possibly be understood? [Scripsit 204.108.148.150]

For statements of historical fact, fuit is better. The imperfect sets the stage for a narrative; if you mentally translate the tense of erat as 'was being' (instead of 'was'), you can't go wrong. IacobusAmor 12:41, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Written at the same moment as Iacobus's reply:] In our biographies, in the first sentence, our usual and preferable form is fuit. A typical use of the imperfect (erat) is to describe a continuing state at some previously-specified period in the past. That doesn't generally suit the first sentence of a biography. Andrew Dalby 12:45, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomina

Why are the names of people and places Latinized in Vicipaedia? In the English one, a serious effort is made to report the official name of the subject, especially including names with umlauts and of Cyrillic and Slavic/Polish descent. For example, Nicolaus Tesla is, in English , not Nicholas Tesla or Nick Tesla. [Scripsit 204.108.148.150]

Tradition! That's what Latin authors since the Renaissance or before have been doing: usually Latinizing their forenames and sometimes (though less often these days) their surnames. ¶ Vicipaedia often includes "official" names in the first sentence, but not as the Latin lemma. Besides, the English wikipedia does not always "report" in the first sentences of articles the subjects' "official" names (if by that you mean the names that people actually used in reference to themselves): e.g., Charlemagne; Clovis I, King of the Franks; Constantine I, King of the Hellenes. And for Москва (Moskva), be sure to look under Moscow, just as you know that to find Кремль (Kreml), you need to look under Kremlin. And for the man "officially" known as Kǒng Fūzǐ, you'll want to look under Confucius, a Latinized name! IacobusAmor 12:50, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: we should aim "always" to add the subject's usual or original name in the first sentence (if we sometimes fail or forget, those who can add the information should do so). Iacobus is right: even en:wiki sometimes fails in this aim! Andrew Dalby 13:46, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree, at least to a point. On a general note, if you bolster a social practice by tradition, you'll soon find yourself on a slippery slope. It's true that Latin authors since the Renaissance have been Latinizing their forenames. I think this makes a difference. If somebody's real name is, say, Klaus, somebody's Klas, sb's Claes, still sb's Klasu, sb's Niklas, sb's Niclas, etc etc, dubbing all these variants as Nicolaus may involve some wielding of power. This is partly an identity problem, partly an aesthetic problem (and wouldn't it be easier to find people by their real names?). If a person gives h..self a Latin name, that's all right, but somehow the tradition to (re-)name, say, Kevin to Coemgenus (I hope I got it right!) and so on is on the verge of nicknaming. What if English wiki had "John Strauss" for "Johann Strauss"? Or dubbing Ville Valo as Guilelmus Valo or Bill Valo would sound equally ludicrous and high-handed, at least to me. And so on. But in fact, it's a bit unfair to blame only Vicipaedia on all this, because the tradition is indeed very strong and widely rooted. Me, I've somewhat reluctantly followed the tradition in cases that seem reasonably clear to me. But every now and then I've left a person's name as it is. Let somebody else think up fancy names in Latin. --Neander 22:42, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De: "What if English wiki had "John Strauss" for "Johann Strauss"?"—Until the rise of German musical scholarship (in the late nineteenth century) and the great migration of German musicians to America (in the twentieth), John Sebastian Bach was a well-known German composer. In France even today, owing perhaps to understandable national suspicions, Jean-Sébastien Bach (often with the requisite French hyphen) remains well-known: googling him yields more than 350,000 hits! ¶ One place I think Vicipaedia should not Latinize non-Latin names is in bibliographies, where authors' names should appear exactly as they do in the publications, with romanized letters as necessary. IacobusAmor 23:37, 9 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad you said that about bibliographies.

In general, I feel the same reluctance to convert modern people's forenames to Latin that Neander feels; I agree that Coemgenus pushes the rule to its limit; and "Britannia Spears" was absurd (but we changed that one). In general, however, it's a simple rule, and as long as we remember to mention usual names as well, it doesn't do any harm! Andrew Dalby 14:27, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then should we create redirects for any search of the subject's common name in whatever language it has come from? Sapiens23 22:23, 12 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is often done. We should have a positive rule, where to create redirects and a negative rule where better not create redirects ... and the rules should be put on page Vicipaedia:Redirectio. I personally like redirects, so I am a bit biased ... A positive rule could be: "Everything what is mentioned in the article, can/shall be a redirect, too." So, if 5 names are mentioned, this article could have 4 redirects or more. Redirects do not hurt, is my general principle, however, from the content of the article it should be understandable why the redirect exists. This will automatically limit the number of redirects, I think. However, having all these redirects should not be a must for the original author but just a target we are aiming at. Otherwise creating an article could become hard work, sometimes ;-) --Rolandus 07:09, 13 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Names?

I would like to know whether a name has to be translated. A "typical example": I want to write an article about the oldest building in my city which is called (in German) "Adler Apotheke" which means in English "Eagle Pharmacy". Shall the name be translated into Latin or kept in German? Is there a rule? I hope somebody can give me an advice. Best regards --BBKurt 09:08, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The custom, I believe, is to give the original term in italics and then to add a Latin translation (in parentheses); exempli gratia, vide The Wall Street Journal. The italics mark the term as a foreign one. Someone will be along soon to point you to prior discussion on this point. IacobusAmor 11:53, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... e.g. Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis. Andrew Dalby 14:08, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request bot flag for Albambot

Operator: ko:User:알밤한대
Programming Language(s): Pywikipedia framework via SVN
Function Summary: Interwiki linking
Bot with flag: 50+ wikipedias

Thank you! --Albambot 13:07, 12 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Template for other Wikis

Ave atque vale!

I really like the {{Ling|LANGUAGE}} template. Especially the handsome grey font.

Is there a way to make this available in other languages, especially English and German?--Goodmorningworld 20:07, 12 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Linea 331: / Linea 331: @@
 :::::In general, I feel the same reluctance to convert modern people's forenames to Latin that Neander feels; I agree that Coemgenus pushes the rule to its limit; and "[[Britannia Spears]]" was absurd (but we changed that one). In general, however, it's a simple rule, and as long as we remember to mention usual names as well, it doesn't do any harm! <font face="Gill Sans">[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]]<font color="green">[[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]</font></font> 14:27, 10 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
 Then should we create redirects for any search of the subject's common name in whatever language it has come from? [[Usor:Sapiens23|Sapiens23]] 22:23, 12 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
+:This is often done. We should have a positive rule, where to create redirects and a negative rule where better ''not'' create redirects ... and the rules should be put on page [[Vicipaedia:Redirectio]]. I personally like redirects, so I am a bit biased ... A positive rule could be: "Everything what is mentioned in the article, can/shall be a redirect, too." So, if 5 names are mentioned, this article could have 4 redirects or more. Redirects do not hurt, is my general principle, however, from the content of the article it should be understandable why the redirect exists. This will automatically limit the number of redirects, I think. However, having all these redirects should not be a must for the original author but just a target we are aiming at. Otherwise creating an article could become hard work, sometimes ;-) --[[Usor:Rolandus|Rolandus]] 07:09, 13 Septembris 2008 (UTC)
 == Translation of Names? ==