Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 5

Hac pagina taberna vicipaediae est. Nunc iam sunt 138 920 articuli. Hodie dies Martis Aprilis 2024.

Quaestio nova
Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide Vicipaedia:Taberna/Vetera

Template for missing interwiki links

Vide Disputatio Vicipaediae:Nexus carentes. --Roland2 07:42, 23 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Now most of the articles with missing interwiki links are tagged with {{Nexus carentes}}. Using the CatScan tool someone can find the articles in a specific category which do not have interwiki links. See the examples on Vicipaedia:Nexus carentes. --Roland2 09:07, 23 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Are there any Wikiprojects in Vikipaedia? If it is not, i think wikiproject:lingua latina deserves to be the first. even if it exists wikiprojects, the topic is worthy of a project. We should provide a broad, precise source to latin. We ought to be the best. I will do my best to contribute. What do you say? Ehjort 16:26, 3 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

While part of me certainly agrees with you, the other part wonders which among us are qualified for this project. I certainly know a great deal about grammar in general, and about latin grammar specifically, but you say we should "be the best"; this might require a few more pieces of paper hanging up on my wall before I can with any amount of certainty claim my grammatical wisdom to be superlative by any means. To answer your question, there are a few projects apud vici, but with so few actively contributing members, it can be hard, in my experience, to actually get any where with a project. One that interests me a great deal is a theoria musicae project. All this being said, I would be happy and interested to work on a lingua latina project. Tell me what I can do to be useful.--Ioshus Rocchio 16:31, 4 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Btw, new posts should go at the bottom of the page.--Ioshus Rocchio 16:33, 4 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

I am not a very qualified person myself, as I have only learnt latin for a year. However, this is a great way of learning. And, I am sure, we could cover latin grammar pretty good in cooperation. Of course "the best" is very far away, but we should aim for covering all issues on grammar, all conjugations, declinations, cases, tenses, structures, etc in an easily accessible, well arranged and educating manner. If we managed this, it would really be something to be proud of. I do not expect you or any other to possess this knowledge all alone, but in the vicipaedian spirit it should be possible. As far as I remember, grammar and music are two of the essential artes. I will sketch up a plan and present it here as soon as possible. Ehjort 18:48, 4 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Wasn't really sure cuz it got no responses. Glad to hear from you :) Ehjort 18:48, 4 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Do you know http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Latin ? --Roland2 19:00, 4 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! That's a nice one. Though it seemed a little lacking when it comes to the different ablatives. I'll erad better tomorrow. Ehjort 20:09, 4 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

One thing I would like to make sure we do, is include both classical and archaic latin forms, quoi for cui, ducier instead of duceri or duci, indicative in indirect questions, etc. I don't so much care (or even know, for that matter) about medieval/neolatin grammar, but perhaps we should address that as well. Like you said, aim high, if aim at all.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:41, 5 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

then Classic and archaic it is - Sine ira et sudio. i currently trying to figure out a structure for our work. One thing we should do is to decipe upon one verb of each conugation and one noun of each declination to serve as a standard examples. I propose the verbs amare(a), monere(e), ducere(3rd), facere(3rd) and audire(4th). In addition esse should be used. Irregular verbs should be listed in all tenses. For nouns I propose villa, servus, bellum, consul, nomen and fructus, dies. You get the idea. Next all cases must be covered, and all other parts of speech, lingvistics and syntax. But first: do we need a project page to coordinate our efforts? A page that also should be used to develop a standard for the articles.Ehjort 16:06, 5 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

I definitely am against servus and bellum as paradigm nouns. Slave and war are not the mental images I want in any student's head when they are trying to remember the second declension. Probably out to include a deponent verb or two, and fieri.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:17, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

OK. Was just using the examples that I've learnt to use. AFter all that's an important part of roman history. But; let's find some other examples. I'd be happy if you decided on the deponent verbs. And fieri. Ehjort 05:37, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

I will spend my easter holidays terribly offline. Where I live, this means I will not be back until 17 April. That will be the start of this little project, to speak for myself. If you want something to do you could write articles on the different tenses and conjugations. Or something compeltely different. Ehjort 19:04, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

How about amicus and donum for our 2nd declension? Loqui would be a good deponent, especially since apud vici it is so often misused.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:19, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ehjort 23:07, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Is there an accepted translation of Wikiproject? If not, may I humbly suggest Collaboratio Vicipaediae (or similar) and offer my services on the project? I'm in the middle of learning Latin at school (just finishing my third year of it) so I'm right in the middle of all the grammar. Dbmag9 18:30, 24 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Behold, it has arrived! Vicipaedia:Vicicollaboratio Lingua Latina is the new page. There is lots of work to be done! Daniel (☎) 17:56, 29 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

You ought to know that this makes me happy. Well done! Ehjort 22:32, 29 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Yay, I made someone happy! Daniel (☎) 18:32, 30 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Lucky you.Ehjort 20:28, 30 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

formulam novam feci

Salvete! Formula urbibus mundi feci : Velim aliquem formulam legere ut corrigatur. Formula est Formula:Urbs Mundi cum Provincia. Formulam legere potestis in rebus his: Hispalis aut Toletum. Nesciebam quo modo monstrarem me velle auxilium in ipsa pagina ut hoc scribam.

Howdy! I wrote a formula for cities of the world (with provinces) and would like it if someone could read it for correctness. The formula is Formula:Urbs Mundi cum Provincia. You can see the formula in these articles: Hispalis and Toletum. I didn't know how to show that I needed help with the formula on its own page, so I wrote here. Sinister Petrus 15:50, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Ut in pagina ipsa opem vel auxilium quaesas, {{reddenda}}, aut si opem permaxime dandam sit {{maxcorrigenda}}, scribe ad summum articuli. Hoc monstrat:

Formula:Reddenda
Formula:Maxcorrigenda
--Ioshus Rocchio 23:23, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Salve Sinister Petre ; Dicam " tempus regionis" vice " regio temporis". Correxi etiam tuam sententiam latine. --Marc mage 23:28, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Multas gratias tibi ago. Sinister Petrus 02:15, 7 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Parvas emendationes formulae feci. Incertus de nomine recte "Time zone", at regio temporis...vix meo animo licet. Sed dic mi, necesse est rescribere "provincia nationis" si super scripseris nomen nationis?--Ioshus Rocchio 23:31, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Hem, video ut regio temporis non mihi solo displacet =].--Ioshus Rocchio 23:34, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

1. Heu! "Regio temporis" in formula e Urbibus Americae dicitur ut corrigenda illuc etiam requirantur. Quo modo melius dicere nescio (anglice for a second, I really don't much care what it is called, but I thought "regio temporis" ((region of time)) sounded more latine than "zona horaria" ((hour zone)) even though I didn't make either one up). Quod scio, usus sum, quamquam illam formulam quoque feceram. In animo vero, in re de Sancto Iacobo prime visi. Zonane horaria melius sit quam "regio temporis"? 2. Si provincia est, volo lectores scire provinciam esse. Si non provincia est, aliam formulam faciam. An tuam quaestionam non intellego? Sinister Petrus 02:15, 7 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Category vs. categoria

I think, the term "Category" in the footer of the pages in the article namespace should be translated. I would prefer "Categoriae". The user namespace says "Categoriae paginarum" ... shouldn't it be "Categoriae paginae" (or just "Categoriae")? --Roland2 09:09, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

[[Categoria:MyCategory]] works as well. The pages that still say: <nowiki>[[Category:XYZ]] can just be switched to read Categoria</nowiki>. (I think I understood the question.) --Tbook 15:48, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Now I see what you are talking about. Articles that only belong to one category, like Isidorus Hispalensis say Category: at the bottom. If they have more than one, it says: Categoriae paginarum. Also the titles on the category pages themselves aren't translated. --Tbook 15:54, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I did not realize that this effect depends on the number of categories. (I thought it depends on the namespace.) - Yes, the configuration files should be translated, not the content of the articles. --Roland2 17:54, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

{{Delenda}}

It seems like no one has gone through Categoria:Deletiones propositae to delete pages for a long time. Is anyone interested in doing that? --Tbook 16:33, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that only admins could delete, or I'd have gone through them a while ago.--Ioshus Rocchio 16:49, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Translatio nominum propriorum

I have created a draft policy on how to handle the translation of proper names. It is only my not-very-set opinion at the moment—I would appreciate if others could look at it, offer criticism, and help build a policy out of it. —Myces Tiberinus 15:40, 15 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Marcus Magus respondit Myci Tiberino.

Salve

• Oblitus es acronymatum. ( eg ONU, USA)
• Mea opinione,si nomen proprium posse videtur capere casum latinum, addendus est, e.g Georgus Bushus.
• Quod attinet ad nomina quae non possunt capere casus latinos, oportet addere appositionem ut certiores res fiant.
• e.g Urbs Roissy est pulcherrima.

--Marc mage 19:35, 18 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Dissentio. Ad nomina non romantica, suffices latini non opportet nobis addere. Multum Georgius Bush meliorst quam Bushus.--Ioshus Rocchio 03:37, 19 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

1. Vero, de acronymis non scripsi. Ut mihi videtur, melius est nova acronyma notasque non creare. Si iam acronymum interlingue sit, id possumus uti, sed alioqui...
2. Etiam dissentio. Fortasse si extra Vicipaedia scribas—aut ita scribam—sed non hic, ubi melius est non nomina creare (non ‘verifiabilia’ sunt).
3. Iam ‘urbs Roissy’ est quomodo nomen non redditum tractandum est, nisi fallor, secundum linguae normas. —Myces Tiberinus 22:08, 24 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

nexus in aliis linguis

Si quis sciat quomodo cito addere nexus in versionibus aliarum linguarum, benignus sit si dicat. --Marc mage 19:35, 18 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Latina/English?

Sorry if this is in the wrong place. What is the policy here on talk page languages? I suppose that Latin is the prefered (to enable contributors who know Latin in addition to something other than English) but should conversations be in Latin at all? Should they be in both? I should like to know the consensus on what is appropriate. Dbmag9 18:19, 24 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Presumably any language is fine; the only question is exactly how widely you plan on being understood :p English is probably the most likely to be written and understood; writing messages in Latin, depending on the skills of the reader (and in many cases the writer as well), may be gambling on being understood, but certainly isn't discouraged. —Myces Tiberinus 21:52, 24 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Penso che anche l'italiano vada bene e in generale qualsiasi lingua di origine latina. L'importante è capirci. Dario de Judicibus

To this end, Roland and I put together a template for your babel box...if you prefer latin messages on your user talk page, type {{Nuntii latine placent}}, which will display

Huic usori maxime placent nuntia Latine scripta in pagina sua disputationis.

Cf my or Roland's talk page.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:25, 25 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Where is a good email group or forum about Latin?

I looked in the Yahoo groups and there I tried http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LATIN_101/ , but it seems to get next to no messages.
If I merely make a general text web search for "Latin", I drown in references to Latin America.
Is there a good email group or forum about Ancient Greek? (not Modern Greek) Anthony Appleyard 17:57, 25 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of interesting discussions on Google Groups (formerly Usenet) (here). Any specific questions or thoughts you have will be answered on my Talk page, although I can't guarantee anything more than my thoughts on the matter. Dbmag9 18:08, 25 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

I looked there and I found nothing useful. Please could someone tell me directly a good email group or forum for Latin language, and a good email group or forum for Ancient Greek. Anthony Appleyard 11:39, 26 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. If you do find something, please post it up here. A useful tip on Google is to put a hyphen "-" before a word to remove it from the results. Try searching "latin -america language group" or "ancient classical greek group" for more specific results. Dbmag9 19:01, 26 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Słupsk and Koszalin

Can someone, please, write here articles about en:Koszalin and en:Słupsk? Some information is on fr.wiki, es.wiki, ro.wiki, en.wiki and pl.wiki. Thanks a lot! Michał 18:31, 26 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

I will make stubs, but I must confess not to have a terrible lot of interest in these articles, not being Polish, and finding geographical articles boring and no fun to translate. Kozsalin, Slupsk.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:17, 26 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Koszalin is "Scurgum" ([1]; Hofmann. Lexicon Universale: "SCURGUM Germaniae urbs Ptolom. Schmeben Villanovano, in Pomerania."). Słupsk (Kashubian/Pomeranian: Stolpsk; German: Stolp), a city in Middle Pomerania, is possibly "Stolpe" (Hofmann. Lexicon Universale: "STOLPE oppid. Pomeraniae ulterioris Metell. in Wandalia tractus, iuris Brandeburgens. ad Stolpam fluv. 3. leuc. supra eius oftia in Merid. 7. a Leoburgo in Occasum, Colbergam versus 13.") -- Alexander Gerascenco 07:11, 27 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Gratias Alexandro convertendo. Stipulae factae sunt.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:25, 27 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

• Słupsk and Koszalin did not exist in Roman times and we may as well use the modern names to avoid confusing people: Słupsk quid Germanice erat Stolp, Koszalin quid Germanice erat Köslin. Anthony Appleyard 06:54, 1 Maii 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, Varsovia (Warszawa), Resovia (Rzeszow) and many other cities didn't exist in Roman times either - but still are called here by their latinised names, not real Polish ones, despite it can also cause confusing people. I think in the case discussed we might use modern non-latinised placenames only to make redirects from them, or - only if is considered to be necessary - form new latinisations (e.g. Slupscum and Cosalin), more similar to the modern names. -- Alexander Gerascenco 08:31, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Contractio?

Non habemus contractionem Vicipaediae, ut facile ad paginas perveniamus. In Vicipaedia Anglice, est 'WP' pro 'Wikipedia'Cur non 'VP' pro 'Vicipaedia' habeamus? Me paenitet si adhuc est, et linguae Latinae terribilis. Daniel (☎) 21:19, 28 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Non, nondum compendia habemus. Potes ea facere, si vis. —Myces Tiberinus 01:48, 30 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Completus! VP:T est prima compendia pro Vicipaedia Latina. Daniel (☎) 19:31, 30 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Facere posses compendiam per paginam facens qui forma VP:Compendia habeat. Diende addide formula {{Compendium|xxx}}paginae. Daniel (☎) 19:36, 30 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

System Messages

There are quite a few system messages here (ie things in the MediaWiki namespace) that still need translating. I will keep a record of the ones that I find. Who are the admins on this Wikipedia? Daniel (☎) 12:01, 1 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I think Usor:Myces, Usor:Tbook, Usor:Roland2, and Usor:Iustinus are the admins here.--Ioshus Rocchio 12:53, 5 Maii 2006 (UTC)

No I am not an admin, this is the list: Vicipaedia:Magistratus. --Roland2 15:03, 5 Maii 2006 (UTC)

If you find a particular message or few (not the whole list please!) that needs (re-)translated let me know which and where it is used and I'll look into it. —Myces Tiberinus 15:32, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Number 1: #Category_vs._categoria (see above) :-) --Roland2 15:41, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Done. (The 'categoriae paginarum' seems to have been a remnant of how the 'categories' message is also used by the software as the title of Special:Categories.) —Myces Tiberinus 17:12, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

A small list (added as I find them) is at Usor:Dbmag9/Works-in-Progress/System Text. Daniel (☎) 11:44, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)

New articles - Novae res

... can be made only indirectly via a link. Or am I wrong?

...non fieri possunt nisi via indirecta per nexus. An erro?

Alex1011 19:56, 5 Maii 2006 (UTC)

It can be made by several ways, e. g. via page Nova pagina, however, the recommended way is to find an appropriate parent page and create a "red link" there and then click on that red link which opens the edit window for the new article. Articles with no parent pages are listed on Specialis:Lonelypages ;-) --Roland2 22:52, 5 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I type the title into the URL ie http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_article. Daniel (☎) 10:27, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup: Neither categories nor interwiki links (20 articles)

These pages have neither categories nor interwiki links: [2]. Can you help with some of those 20 articles? --Roland2 14:25, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

... or those 74 articles in Categoria:Dubcat? --Roland2 14:43, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Whoah, Rol...20 is a lot better than 74! =] I'm starting with the 20 first. Catana et Sanctus Dominicus facti sunt ad tempus hoc scribendi.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:45, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Ok, to be precise:

• About 20 articles are tagged with {{dubcat}} and {{Nexus carentes}}.
• About 74 articles are tagged just with {{dubcat}}.
• There are many articles with {{stipula}} which have no category but "stipula"
• There might be some other articles which need some work too ... ;-)

Ok, Roland and I have done some work, we are down to these 10 pages which still are dubcat. 
I'm at a loss for some of them, some of them are reddenda, some are move ad victionarium:

Articles in category "Dubcat" There are 10 articles in this category.

• B Breviarium Pauli VI
• C CN*Caliburnus
• F Formula:Dubcat
• M Magisterium*Montis Iordanis statio ferriviaria
• P Politica Italica
• S Scuba
• U Uncia
• V Vicipaedia:Index formularum Vicipaediae Latinae

Help if you can. --Ioshus

--Ioshus Rocchio 03:45, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Wow. :-) --Roland2 06:17, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I think, the work does not need to be done systematically, however, if the one or the other thinks, that the one or the other article could be easily cleaned up, this would help on the long run. :-) --Roland2 15:05, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Nota Homogeneitas, et Homogeneus materias victionario esse, ita non categorias seu nexus addidi.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:01, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

See my remarks above. Maybe some of these articles should be just deleted or merged with other articles. --Roland2 15:05, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

You asked ... habemusne formulam pro suggerendo movere articulum ad victionarium? - I think we do not have such a template and so I like this idea very much! --Roland2 15:11, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Ok...now all that are both in dubcat and nexus carentes are Lexicon Nominum Locorum and Poesis lyrica. Both are reddenda, and are largely indecipherable, and more urgently I don't know how to categorize. The nominum locorum thing should be delenda in my opinion. Outisde sources will be much more researched than we will be. As for the victionarium template, I will work on that myself.--Ioshus Rocchio 05:05, 7 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we now have Formula:Move ad victionarium, which is {{move ad victionarium}} or

Suademus haec pagina moveatur ad Victionarium. Sententiam tuam profer in pagina disputationis. Haec formula ({{Movenda ad Victionarium}}) plus quam 30 dies sine recensionibus in pagina mansit.

. Feel free to change color or text.--Ioshus Rocchio 02:37, 8 Maii 2006 (UTC)

More Admins?

Perhaps we could use some more admins to keep up with deleting pages, fixing system messages, etc? On the Vicipaedia:Magistratus page, only four active ones are listed, and I only see two of them around here very often. Perhaps Usor:Roland2 or Usor:Ioshus Rocchio might be interested? --Tbook 16:40, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I think, my knowledge of Latin is too poor for this job. I'd vote for Usor:Ioshus Rocchio. --Roland2 16:57, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

So would I. Daniel (☎) 17:21, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Gratias multas amicis. I would certainly accept a nomination. But I would also revote for Roland. His latin is much better than he credits himself, and his knowledge of the technical side of things certainly supercedes mine. Also his ethic is impeccable, and we could trust him with deletions/management. On a wiki as small as this, obviously utter fluency in the language is not a requisite skill for any contributor.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:26, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Many thanks to the current admins, especially Usor:Mycēs & Usor:Iustinus for all their good work! --Tbook 20:27, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Without question, I've certainly taken a bunch of guidance from all three of you, and the prior research you guys have done, ie fontes nominum locorum, the translatio nominum propriorum, etc has made the paths to useful scholarship much more quickly traversable.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:10, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so Tbook isn't an admin either? I was always under the impression that he was.--Ioshus Rocchio 12:55, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)

oh, well, enough with this byzantinism... It looks like a polite "pavane" (Josh knows what I mean) of reciprocal appraisal. What are we waiting? I'm afraid I'll have to start candidations out myself (poor lurker coming only once in a while)... as far as I'm concerned your dedication to the project is a guarantee. Is Latin language the problem? I think that communication between users in case of doubt is the real problem, and in your case it's a false problem. Oh well, let's get this party started!! εΔω 15:11, 12 Maii 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if Latin is the problem... if noone is around to help drop me a line as an extrema ratio, I'm all but "wikiwiki" and very busy in it.wiki and it.source, but I like classical languages too much to refuse an answer.

New Formula

I felt that I should notify all about a new formula. {{fnp}} is the same as {{fn}} but it enables you to put another parameter in, so {{fnp|Vicilibri|Latina}} would appear as {{Vicilibri|Latina}}. For more than one parameter just use the <nowiki> tags. Daniel (☎) 17:21, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Roman numerals/numeri romani

Vide etiam: Vicipaedia:Numeri Romani --Roland2 15:01, 14 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd put it up here, as Roland and I have been discussing this. The current accepted policy is to use roman numerals only for articles about numbers themselves. All other usages should be in arabic. Whom does this not satisfy, and why? My reasons for using arabic are these:

1. They are infinitely easier to read.
2. They are almost always smaller than their roman counterparts.
3. Mathematics with roman numerals is unfeasible to someone without great training.
4. We use several modern orthographical variations to classical orthodoxy, such as spaces, commas, periods, colons, semicolons, the letter v, lowercase letters etc... IHOPENOONEISSUGGESTINGWEDOAWAYWITHTHESEITHINKTHATWOULDBETHEHEIGHTOFABSURDITY. If not, we should accept arabic numerals as a supremely useful development in the history of mathematics, akin to the invention of the alphabet's influence on modern language.

Any thoughts?

Putavi id hic ponere, ita de eo Roland et ego conloquebamur. Ratio quae ad tempus accepta est numeris romanis uti fere pro paginas de numeris ipsibus scribendo. In modis omnibus aliis, opportet arabicis. Quoi haec non placet et quia? Rationes meae pro arabicis utendo sunt hae:

1. Perfaciliores sunt lectu.
2. Fere semper parviores.
3. Mathematica vix potest facier sine docendo magnum
4. Adhibemus hic plurimas inventiones recentes orthographicas insimiles moribus classicis, it spatia, commas, punctos, colones, semicolones, litteram v, litteras parvas, etc... SPERONEMOSUGGEREHASDIMITTESUMMUMPUTEMHOCABSURDITATISESSE. Si non, debemus arabicos accipere quam inventiones utillisimas in historia mathematicarum, sicut vocalia in historia abecedarii.

Cogitationes ullas?

--Ioshus Rocchio 15:34, 7 Maii 2006 (UTC)

SICUTDIXISTIETMIHIPLACETVSVSNUMERORUMARABICORUMMAXIMECUMOPPORTETNOBISHABEREUNITATEMSTYLORUMSYMBOLORUMQUE. --Tbook 20:01, 7 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for using some "U"s ... ;-) Ok, these are reasons why you do not want to write or read (i. e. "decode") Roman numbers. I think we have to face, that Roman numbers are funny - or maybe are even fun - and some people like to see it. And they are awaiting to see it especially here. (Maybe like people think, that Austrians are wearing Lederhosen, are riding a Lippizaner and communicate by yodelling.) Obviously this is not encyclopaedic, however, it has some of the spirit old manuscripts show: The monks had fun with writing the books, they drawed little pictures and decorated the letters, sometimes in a way which decreased readability. In that time writing and reading was not something for everybody and the people had time enough to decipher the writings. In our days books are just for providing information, aren't they? They shall offer precise, clear information and it shall be possible to pick up the information quickly and without annoying extra noise. This attitude is even mirrored in other aspects: The wording, the use of "modern" fonts, the use of summaries etc. - I must admit, that I think Roman numbers are a nice decoration for a text and that the Roman numbers are not my biggest problem when I want to read a Latin text. ;-) I think the question is: Why does nowadays someone write some information down in Latin and not in English? It is something more than just the intention to provide information? Just providing information is being encyclopaedic. A word which I avoid. I am looking for a word for "providing relevant and some irrelevant information which is either correct or tagged as dubious, which can be proofed and which is offered in a manner that makes it attractive for the reader". That's not at all what people understand by "encyclopaedic". So, what are we awaiting from this encyclopaedia (sic!)? P. S.: I myself do not like to write or decode Roman numbers, but I think these are aspects which should be considered. --Roland2 21:50, 7 Maii 2006 (UTC)

It's hard not to have POV on this issue. If we decide it attractive to some readers, how do we encourage edits? Myh inclination would always be to delete roman numerals and use arabic ones. I would not be overly inclined to do something like replace CCX with [[210]] ([[CCX]]), because I think it looks sloppy and doesn't help any modern reader, accept the few who care to have fluency with roman numerals. First and foremost we are a provider of information, and hardly an organization that caters to fancy and whimsicalness. Roman numerals, as has been argued, detract from the ready conveyance of information. As such, if not shunned, policy should certainly be to have arabic numerals first and then roman as an afterthought. But I still think we should discourage their use altogether, as Tbook said, we need to have a unified system.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:34, 8 Maii 2006 (UTC)

One more thing about this. If we wanted to get down to it and use a Roman system of dates including Roman numerals, we would have to use an AUC or a co. form of the date. Thus an event in America in 1977 would be CCI auc, or Carter et Mondale praesidentibus. We still would not be using Roman numerals the way that some do here.--Ioshus Rocchio 12:39, 8 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Vide etiam: Vicipaedia:Numeri Romani --Roland2 18:54, 8 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Actually I should mention that I thought the practice had been that articles about the numbers themselves were to be named, not numbered, e.g. viginti rather than XX, or duo rather than II, which seems more sensible. It is hard to tell though, as from the early days some user created identical content on all three titles (name, Arabic numeral and Roman numeral) for many numbers, and they have been cleaned up differently by different people. In general I tend to discourage Roman numerals and replace them with Arabic ones, because people are generally much less, 'fluent' I should say, with Roman numerals, meaning they are harder to read and errors are more likely to creep in and go unnoticed longer. —Myces Tiberinus 22:42, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, I wouldn't be able to tell at a moment's glance what any roman numeral over 500 would be. I think naming articles about numbers themselves with the actual number name makes infinitely more sense.--Ioshus Rocchio 02:41, 11 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Though, shouldn't duo rather be binio?

--Ioshus Rocchio 03:28, 11 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Puto quod pro numeris annorum etiam numeros Romanos uti possumus. (Nunc magnopere facilia sunt: MM, MMI, MMII etc.) Hic usus erat per saecula saeculorum in multis ecclesiis et in aedificiis publicis in multis civitatibus. Etiam simpliciter quaestio exercitionis est romanos numeros legendi. Alex1011 14:50, 14 Maii 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what we were arguing, that no, it isn't at all easy to read. Simple numbers like 200, yes easy, long ones not easy at all. As far as saying the church used it for years, you're right, but the church has never really had understandability as their prime objective. I mean they thought the worl was flat for 1000 years, their precedent is not really my icon. To use roman numerals for years would require the renaming of all the articles on years, and would require many edits to existing articles. Note that the policy has been around year for years to use arabic numerals and use roman for basically nothing, we are debating here whether there is a good reason to change policy. That roman numerals are easy for you to read and use I do not think equates a good reason to change.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:18, 14 Maii 2006 (UTC)

85.156.137.66 ... vandalism?

[3] ... vandalism? --Roland2 18:00, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I mean, while I will grant him the point, merda does advenit ex culo, it certainly seems to be vandalism. Blockable, for sure.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:54, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

The users' edits have been reverted. --Roland2 18:36, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Link on template "delenda"

On template {{delenda}} the link Vicipaedia:Cito Delenda is a REDIRECT to Disputatio Usoris:Nickshanks. This might be confusing. I propose to write some information on page Vicipaedia:Cito Delenda. Maybe, that the user shall visit the Vicipaedia:Taberna. --Roland2 21:32, 15 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Sardegna

Per favore, qualcuno può dirmi come si chiamano in latino i giudicati sardi? Grazie. IzTrsta da slo:wiki

Prego. Giudicare è da la parola latina "iudicare" quindi "iudicator" o "iudicatores". Sardegna è "Sardinia", così giudicati sardi sara "iudicatores Sardiniae".--Ioshus Rocchio 13:52, 16 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ma purtroppo è un po' più difficile: leggendo it:Giudicati sardi sono definiti

entità statuali autonome che ebbero potere in Sardegna fra il IX ed il XV secolo

governate da "giudici". In latino si potrebbero descrivere iudicata Sarda, parva regna Sardiniam insulam administrantia inter IX et XV saeculum, quorum rex "su judike" nuncupabatur. Altre notizie su it:Storia della Sardegna dei Giudicati - εΔω 16:42, 16 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Grazie a tutti e due. IzTrsta da slo.wiki (I miei precedenti ringraziamenti sono stati erroneamente rollbackati.)

216.36.138.14 should be blocked first ...

... and then his contributions should be checked. Disputatio Usoris:216.36.138.14 --Roland2 18:56, 17 Maii 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be the users provider:

OrgName:    Westman Communications Group 
OrgID:      WMAN
Address:    1906 Park Ave.
City:       Brandon
StateProv:  MB
PostalCode: R7B-0R9
Country:    CA

OrgAbuseHandle: WCGAB-ARIN
OrgAbuseName:   WCG Abuse 
OrgAbusePhone:  +1-204-571-7307
OrgAbuseEmail:  abuse@westmancom.com

--Roland2 19:06, 17 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Permaxime consentio. Is podex est perfectus.--Ioshus Rocchio 23:53, 17 Maii 2006 (UTC)

All the user's edits have been reverted. --Roland2 18:46, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

dirty dirty work needed

Dear commensales,

I noticed that more admins are really needed here since Categoria:Deletiones propositae has fifty-five pages chock full of crap, errors, test writing, et cetera, presumably forgotten by our super busy elsewhere current admins (I understand, since I'm very busy myself on multiple projects, so I mean no offence on them). I didn't check the subcategories, this single number speaks by itself. Another path can be followed clicking on Specialis:whatlinkshere/Formula:delenda... is it better understood if written down in Latin? Briefly:

Magistratus opus sunt, ut multas veteres delendas paginas extinguantur.

I hope not to seem rude. If I don't know the actual situation that originated this forgive my impudent ignorance. - εΔω 17:09, 18 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Actually I had been clearing out Categoria:Deletiones propositae not much more than a week or two before this note was posted. It's just that this wiki is ‘chock full of crap, errors, test writing,’ etc. and people had been shy of populating it further earlier, because it was still full and neglected-looking. The subcategories don't indicate their articles need deleted, BTW, just that the category description itself is to be deleted. Er, and what error are you referring to in labda ? —Myces Tiberinus 19:07, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I think the error there is that it is supposed to be laMbda--Ioshus Rocchio 19:12, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

In English maybe. It seems not in Latin or Ancient Greek. This was already brought up on Disputatio Formulae:Abecedarium Graecum and is stated on Abecedarium. —Myces Tiberinus 12:18, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Entries from the Victionarium

You can find a list of Victionarium entries there: Usor:Roland2/temp2. --Roland2 18:12, 19 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Is this a list of all Victionarium entries? Is it a list of those that need moving here? What does it tell us? Also, quite a lot of the entries are just gibberish which do not (rightly) have an article anywhere. Daniel (☎) 20:05, 19 Maii 2006 (UTC)

It's a list of all titles they have. See http://download.wikipedia.org/lawiki/latest/lawiki-latest-all-titles-in-ns0.gz It seems they are mixing up several languages. The link in brackets points to the target page in the Victionarium, the title (= the word before the brackets) is blue, when there exists such a page in the Vicipaedia. The list shall not tell anything, however, I think it's interesting. --Roland2 20:19, 19 Maii 2006 (UTC)

If it works anything like Wiktionary, the inclusion of words from multiple languages is no accident. The idea is that the words are in all languages and the definitions are in, in this case, Latin... --Alynna Kasmira 00:23, 20 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Tabula Rasa

At VP:PC there is a Tabula Rasa. What is it? It is not doing anyone any good. I added an edit-this-page link, but it really should have some content. Might I self-promotingly add some kind of notice about VP:VLL? Daniel (☎) 18:15, 20 Maii 2006 (UTC)

66.162.225.66 is a vandal

See http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Specialis:Contributions&target=66.162.225.66 --Roland2 16:10, 23 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted several of his vandalistic efforts. I wish we could block his IP, if an administrator took note of this.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:12, 23 Maii 2006 (UTC)

The user's edits have been reverted. --Roland2 18:49, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Popular pages in the English Wikipedia

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mostrevisions

25 May 2006

1. George W. Bush ‎(30,026 revisions) Georgius W. Bush
2. Wikipedia ‎(16,544 revisions) Vicipaedia
3. Jesus ‎(13,627 revisions) Iesus
4. United States ‎(12,596 revisions)
5. Adolf Hitler ‎(11,825 revisions)
6. Hurricane Katrina ‎(10,779 revisions) ** Missing in Vicipaedia Latina **
7. World War II ‎(10,547 revisions)
8. RuneScape ‎(10,041 revisions) ** Missing in Vicipaedia Latina **
9. Michael Jackson ‎(9,235 revisions) ** Missing in Vicipaedia Latina **
10. John Kerry ‎(8,291 revisions)
11. Canada ‎(8,284 revisions)
12. Islam ‎(8,235 revisions)
13. Britney Spears ‎(8,049 revisions) ** Missing in Vicipaedia Latina **
14. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake ‎(8,002 revisions)
15. Anarchism ‎(7,995 revisions)
16. Bill Clinton ‎(7,800 revisions)
17. September 11, 2001 attacks ‎(7,404 revisions)
18. Christianity ‎(7,339 revisions)
19. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy ‎(7,185 revisions)
20. Pope Benedict XVI ‎(7,153 revisions)
21. September 2005 ‎(7,133 revisions)
22. 2005 Atlantic hurricane season ‎(7,046 revisions)
23. Terri Schiavo ‎(6,830 revisions)
24. List of ethnic slurs ‎(6,788 revisions)
25. Scientology ‎(6,687 revisions)
26. Wiki ‎(6,671 revisions)
27. India ‎(6,632 revisions)
28. Homosexuality ‎(6,497 revisions)
29. Wii ‎(6,373 revisions)
30. Fidel Castro ‎(6,341 revisions)

--Roland2 18:24, 25 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Oh damn, we should IMMEDIATELY start the page for Britney Spears =].--Ioshus Rocchio 18:43, 25 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Noli me temptare! Sinister Petrus 21:12, 25 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Though, now that I think about it, how would one even say Kevin in Latin? I thought about that, and couldn't think of a ready source at home or where on the internet to look. Hem. Sinister Petrus 14:33, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Kevin is Coemgenus. (Blame the Irish for that.) —Myces Tiberinus 16:07, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I never would have guessed that...--Ioshus Rocchio 17:49, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Haha yeah. That's what divergent evolution will get you... —Myces Tiberinus 18:57, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. Perhaps an article about C-fed (my very own tabloid favorite) is also in the works. Sinister Petrus 03:40, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I've put the information above into page Vicipaedia:Plurimum mutata. Although it might not be that interesting to write pages about several pop stars, I think we should have at least a stub where the Latinization of popular terms could be discussed. Where else, if not here? It's not the content, it's the title, we should have. --Roland2 15:05, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree Rol, just laughing about the idea "Britania Spears, musica, mater, meretrix..."--Ioshus Rocchio 15:37, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Talking about laughs? Si "Spears" nobis vertendum erit, Quid reddetur? Britannia pilum? aut Britannia telum? Aut secundum evangelia Britannia lancea? Argh! I'll never go that far with Latin! - εΔω 11:12, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Redirectio

Please have a look at Vicipaedia:Redirectio and the discussion there. --Roland2 13:48, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Formula:MaximaeUrbesAmericanae

Urbes Civitatum Foederatarum maximae

Albuquerque · Angelopolis · Antoniopolis · Arlintonia · Arx Vorthensis · Atlanta · Austinopolis · Baltimora · Bostonia · Campi · Carolinum · Cleveland · Columbopolis · Dallasium · Denverium · Detroitum · Didacopolis · El Paso · Fontes Coloratenses · Franciscopolis · Fresno · Honolulu · Hustonia · Indianapolis · Iosephopolis · Jacksonville · Kansanopolis · Litus Virginiae · Long Beach · Ludovicopolis · Memphis · Mesa · Miamia · Milvauchia · Minneapolis · Nasburgum · Nova Aurelia · Novum Eboracum · Oklahomapolis · Omaha · Philadelphia · Phoenix · Portlandia · Quercupolis · Sacramentum · Seattlum · Sicagum · Tucson · Tulsa · Vasingtonia · Wichita

Opus geopoliticum • Index urbium maximarum Civitatum Foederatarum • Maximae urbes orbis terrarum • Porta Civitatum Foederatarum

Capsae cognatae: Urbes maximae Americae Septentrionalis

Formulam novam feci. Hic est. Sed miror. Suntne nomina urbium correcta? Nomina in vicipaedia et aliis locis videram ut correcta nomina haberem. Sed usque miror. Si scis nomina meliora quam nomina invenita, scire volo. (Anglice: Seriously, if you have more correct names for the cites listed, I'd appreciate it. The corresponding English template is at en:Template:USLargestCities.) Sinister Petrus 18:43, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

"Sanctus Iacobus" ... that would be Santiago, wouldn't it? San Diego would be Sanctus Didacus—or better, Didacopolis as Traupmann (who also has Franciscopolis for San Francisco) has it, or at least Sancti Didaci, as the city is not Saint Diego, but Saint Diego's, and the same for all the other 'Sanctus ____' in the list). For 'Dallas' Traupmann has "Dallasium", for 'Austin,' "Austinopolis" (urgh!), for 'Oklahoma City' actually "Oclahoma Urbs", "Miamia" for Miami, and that's all the suggestions I have to hand from this book before I leave for work. —Myces Tiberinus 11:22, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with the Saint Xxxx places, since both Traupman and the Catholic Church do list them as Xxxx-opolis. But for the most part, I did go by the city names (especially those in California) as listed as they exist here already, which is not to say that they cannot be changed. Now as far as say, Cansianopolis and Oclahomopolis, I did crib those directly from the Catholic Church's diocesan web list. Again, none of this is to say that I'm all the way right. I'm merely reporting where I got which names. I will be correcting Dallas, since I forgot to find that in Traupman (vae mihi!). Sinister Petrus 15:15, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Ask and you shall receive. No? Myces, thanks for moving Sanctus Iacobus to Didacopolis. I'll tinker with the formula as articles get created and moved to the right place. Sinister Petrus 02:08, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Deleting unused redirects like 197. dec.

Shall we delete unused redirects like "197. dec." (= of the form /^\d+\.\sdec\.$/)?

1. Pro --Roland2 13:59, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)
2. Pro, but make sure that they're really unused first. Daniel (☎) 14:52, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)
3. Pro Cum Danihele concurro. Quamquam nullos usatos nexus constamus. (Spero correcte scripsisse) Sinister Petrus 15:31, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)
4. Pro, like Daniel said. (Some of you may have guessed ;-) ) --UV 23:58, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)
5. Pro, sorry for being late =].--Ioshus Rocchio 21:44, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Deprotecting Chilia

Should we try to deprotect page Chilia? If yes, I suggest a template, saying something like "Due to repeated vandalismus this page shall be edited only by registered users. Anonymous users please add your comments to the talk page. If you want to become a registered user, see {{invitatio}}, please. Thank you!" Maybe this will work ... --Roland2 16:43, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think we could try deprotecting it, only takes a click to reprotect it again.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:45, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Deprotecting with or without leaving a message? --Roland2 21:44, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps with a message first,s ee if anyone beats down the new membership door to try and vandalize it.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:51, 2 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Vicipaedia Debates

We seem to have a whole new lot of Vicipaedia namespace pages that are simply debates. I'm not against this at all, but we ought to have a page recording these, or perhaps just a category for them. Perhaps Vicipaedia:Controversia would be appropriate. It could have a list of ongoing dicussions, as well as detail for conduct and methods of discussion. Daniel (☎) 18:29, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a growing pain, so to speak. We've been getting new members rapidly, and much more work is being done per day than has been historically the case, so we are getting into points where evolution needs to take a decisive, undivided, and unfactioned step forward. Compromises will have to be reached, and everyone's mind needs to be open to change when presented with scenarios. I'm blabbing now But yes, you're right we should probably have a locus disputandi where we keep track of such debates, maybe summarizing the cruces of the various arguments and listing a decision when one is reached. Kind of funny, though, to make another vicipaedia namespace page for our congressional purposes =]. Good suggestion.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:08, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we use the Disputatio Vicipaediae namespace for discussions, and the Vicipaedia namespace for established (or nearly established) rules? --UV 21:06, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, sorry for not being clear above. What I think Daniel was suggesting was just having a page to keep track of all the "rules" which are, ad tempus, being formed. We should definitely have the format be like Vicipaedia:Redirectio where the vici page just shows what the debate is and where to go to say what to whom, while the debate goes on in the disputatio vicipaediae.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:43, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Support to all of these ideas. Maybe Vicipaedia:Disputatio instead of Vicipaedia:Controversia? There should be also a template/category for not answered questions. There are so many questions, spreaded over so many talk pages ... --Roland2 22:46, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of the word controversia, just simply for aesthetic, the mind is easily tricked when reading "Vicipaedia:Disputatio" to the much more common "Disputatio Vicipaedia:", especially for users like me, who might imsonmomaniaclly (like that neologism?) making edits at ghastly hours, perhaps after a pint or two (who me? =]). Semantically though, controversia might be a bit much, it often has the sense of animosity between the controverseurs and often connotes the debate of a trivial pedantic matter, a hue a little too heavy for our purpose. Whatever we decide, it should be plural; Vicipaedia:Disceptationes I might, suggest. We might also add a bit of info on this page from en:Wikipedia:Discussion though probably we do not need to be nearly as thorough. On second thought, that might want to be it's own page, there is a page somewhere around here which lists wikipedia namespace policy pages that we should translate, not sure where. If we decide this is a good idea, it would make sense to cleverly name the currently proposed hub for ongoing debates so that we will avoid confusing it with the name of the subsequent english policy page translation. We might therefore want to save Vidipaedia:Disputationes for the policy page, and have something maybe a little longer like Vicipaedia:Regulae quae ad tempus disputantur. Thoughts?--Ioshus Rocchio 23:06, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Latin–Portuguese?

What do you think of the following bunch of pages? Delete? Move to Vicipaedia namespace in order to help portuguese-speaking contributors write articles? Move to wikibooks? Shut eyes and hope no one will ever come across these? ;-)

• Numeri Numeros Em Portugues → Numeri Numeros em portugues
• Verba Principalia Palavras Basicas Em Portugues → Verba principalia Palavras Basicas em portugues
• Verba Principalia Basic Words → Verba principalia Basic Words
• Tempus Et Diem Ascribere Time And Dates → Tempus et diem ascribere Time and Dates
• Tempus Et Diem Ascribere Horas E Datas Em Portugues → Tempus et diem ascribere Horas e datas em portugues
• Loca Lugares Em Portugues → Loca Lugares em portugues
• Iter Facere Viagem → Iter facere Viagem

Similarly for Plattdeutsch:

• Numeri saxonici → Numeri Saxonici
• Verba Principalia Saxonice → Verba principalia Saxonice

Similarly for english:

• Iter Facere Travel → Iter facere Travel
• Loca Places

Greetings, --UV 00:53, 30 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I am in most cases against deleting ... in most cases moving is better:

• it fullfills the requirements as well ("the thing is away") and
• it does not destroy information

I think we should

1. see the several projects as a whole: vicipaedia, victionarium, vicifons, vicilibri, ... and
2. give the user a good entrypoint to all of the information

So we should:

1. maybe move some information to Victionarium and keep a reference here
2. maybe move some information to Vicifons and keep a reference here
3. maybe move some information to Vicilibri and keep a reference here

The reference needs not always to be an article of its own, however, it should be simple to find it, if you are looking for it. So maybe we need some new articles here, to keep these references, e. g. something like "Travelling", "Lists of words", etc. I think wikibooks could be a good container for some sort of information:

• language courses for several languages
• the Latin grammar in details (we should have at least the entrypoints here) ... Daniel, what do you think?

But we should not move these pages before we have a target where to move them. If we cannot wait such long, we should move it to the Vicipaedia namespace and put them additionally - by using a template - into a special category, maybe "waiting for being moved". --Roland2 21:38, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

I'm half and half, as I always seem to be in discussions between us 3 =]. The various numeri pages, I think would be cool to contribuendize. Numeri in Linguis Romanticis or something of the sort, where we can show the similarites between several different languages, maybe with a history of representation of Numeri Arabici. This should probably be deleted: Verba Principalia Basic Words, and this Tempus Et Diem Ascribere Time And Dates might go in the translator's guide.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:54, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Or even maybe put them over in Wikibooks (though I am somewhat mystified as to why there is a Latin Wikibooks. I get the Vicipaedia and the Victionariium and the Vicifons, but Vicilibri?) Whatever the case, some of the basic words could be moved there as kind of a FL primer for Latin. Mei nummi duo. Sinister Petrus 14:30, 4 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from b:Wikibooks:Porta Communis#Make useful Content:

Vicilibri and Vicifons are two very different things. Vicilibri is for textbook-style content that you have made yourself, while Vicifons is for public source material that is notable for some reason. They are both important and useful, but they are very different.

In my view, the pages listed above would fit quite well for Vicilibri. Greetings, --UV 15:47, 4 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

As I seem to be the official Vicilibri spokesperson, I suppose that I should say something. The pages above seem good for moving to Vicilibri, so I'm happy with that. They really ought to have some kind of textbook-style framework (Latin guide to learning English or suchlike) but at the moment we (Vicilibri) need content so much that it doesn't really matter. Additionally, if anyone here is in any way inclined, I would be extremely grateful if they were to come to Vicilibri and help out there. Thank you! Daniel (☎) 19:23, 4 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can buy that rationale. Sinister Petrus 04:54, 5 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Vicilibri Latina

If this shouldn't be here, please delete it.

I've been made administrator at Vicilibri Latina. The whole place is a shambles, and I don't know where to start. I'm translating the interface into Latin (using here as an example) but what the place really needs is content. I think there are around 16 'books', all of which need to be moved to Vicifons. There are about 2 users, one of whom isn't really around. If anyone from here wants to help out, please go and sign up there! Leave me a message at b:la:Usor:Dbmag9. Daniel (☎) 10:59, 30 Maii 2006 (UTC)

This shall be here, I think. Since Vicipaedia has the biggest community of the several projects (vicipaedia, victionarium, vicilibri, ...) I think it is reasonably, to use Vicipaedia as the platform for project crossing affairs. --Roland2 21:43, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, see no reason this is a bad palce for your post.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:45, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Renominatio

Velim quemdam "bureaucratum" (quid..?) me renominare in "Steinbach", quia hoc jam est meum nomen in pluribus Vicipaediis. Valde difficile est habere plures quam unum nomen usoris; male me recognoverunt et fortasse "developers" "single login" introducturi sunt. Caesario 14:25, 30 Maii 2006 (UTC) Sorry for my bad Latin, I haven't practiced it for over four years, sed spero vos mihi intellexisse.

(I'm not one, but BTW, bureaucrat apparently = grapheocrates, from Greek γραφειοκράτης.) —Myces Tiberinus 11:13, 31 Maii 2006 (UTC)

victionarium

Quomodo nexus fit exempli gratia "lapis" in vicipaedia cum "lapis" in victionario? Alex1011 20:15, 3 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Melius est uti formulam Formula:Victionarium: scribe {{Victionarium|Lapis}}.

Etiam possibilis est scribere wikt:Lapis.

Salve! --UV 22:09, 3 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Theodisca vel Germanica?

Both are used rather freely here. I have had people change when I have written lingua germanica somewhere, and also when I have written lingua theodisca. What is the "correct" or "official" policy? Theodisca sounds to my ears a bit antique, but the change would be easy to make.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:01, 4 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Ego quoque. I'm curious as to what German Latin-wikipedians would say. One would think they would know, though us American Latin-wikipedians have a difficult time agreeing on what our country is called (hint: CFA abbreviatio eius est). Heus! Germani! Estisne Germani an Theodisci? Sinister Petrus 20:12, 5 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Responsum datis, quaesemus!--Ioshus Rocchio 04:30, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

De hac re non facile est iudicandum. Ut sciamus, quid scribendum sit, ad auctores saeculi sexti decimi spectare oportere censeo, inter quos tamen ipsos certa ratio populi Germanorum hodierni designandi non conveniebatur. Quamobrem equidem reor linguae et Theodiscae inusitata et Germanicae et Teutonicae solita voce uti posse Vicipaedianos, dummodo ad eundem nexum omnes referant.--Irenaeus 06:48, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, I think, that in the English language (and may be in some other languages) no difference is made between "Germans" and "Germans", whereas in the German language there are "Germanen" and "Deutsche". Therefore, Germans, I think, tend to use "Theodisci" for "Deutsche" (which comes from Theodisci) and "Germani" for "Germanen". (For me it looks, for instance, somewhat strange to read in an English history book "In 250 the Germans invaded Rome" and "In 1940 the Germans invaded France", as if these two were exactly the same people.) "Lingua theodisca" might be also a clearer designation for modern German language, whereas lingua Germanica could mean all kind of different languages ever spoken by all kind of different Germanic tribes. (On the other side, Theodisci might sound a little bit more "national" than "Germani", but so does "Teutoni".) Alex1011 08:44, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Non tecum, Alex1011, consentio. Nobis, quid placeat, minime videndum est, sed cum rebus ipsis, tum latinitati optimae studere debemus, si hanc Vicipaediam alicuius pretii esse volumus. Percontemur igitur opera auctorum litteris renatis qui scripserunt, ut eorum exemplum sequamur. Ut maiores nostros antiquos a civibus hodiernis separemus, de Germanis veteribus recentioribusve loqui possumus. Maximi mihi momenti esse videtur, ut omnia, quibus utantur Vicipaediani, verba ad Germanos aut Germaniam significandam ad hos duos nexus, Germani dico et Germania, referantur. Quod si fit, Teutonesne an Germanos an Theodiscos dicas, nihil ad rem. Moneo autem, ne Alamannorum aut Alamanniae voce utaris, cum Alamanni vel Suebi etiamnunc tribus Germanorum sint, quorum dialectus Alamannicus nominatur. --Irenaeus 13:43, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Disputatio:Chilia

We should do something with Disputatio:Chilia ... This page is heavily edited and some users even remove information from there. Maybe this is because page Chilia is protected, see above, and they see this talk page as a content page, where removing of content is appropriate. However, I think the problem will not be solved when we unprotect Chilia. My suggestion: There should be several pages, covering different aspects of Chilia, like Geographia Chiliae, Nomen Chiliae, Praesidentes Chiliae et cetera. The idea behind it is to find out, what topics are the problematically ones (regarding vandalism) and split them up again, until the disputed aspects are on single pages where the dispuation does not affect the main page Chilia. Then, when there is no more reason to edit Chilia, because all content is on referred pages, we can protect it or watch for vandalismus. Any change to Chilia will then be either vandalismus or just the adding of a new topic, which can be moved to a page of its own again. However, it will need some work to cleanup the content of Disputatio:Chilia and eventually revert some deletions which should not have been done. — Please could someone create some pages with proper Latin titles (see examples above)? Then we can move the content ... --Roland2 10:10, 5 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we do something ...? See e. g. [4] ff ... --Roland2 05:12, 22 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Nuntii Latini

The Nuntii Latini here seems to have dried out. However, you may be interested in Nuntii Latini, which looks very good. Daniel (☎) 18:53, 9 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

It is good, but usually slow in updating. The latin is quite readable though, good for all levels, I'd say.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:07, 9 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, Josh targeted the spot: Vicinuntii would be faster (wikiwiki) and less exposed to POV, but until we don't have a community or at least an enthusiast contributor (with a readable Neolatin fluency, which is not that common), our Finnish journalists are unsurpassed.I'd suggest to use that link for a more useful address (like this Vicipaedia:Taberna). Admins.. what about it? Usor:OrbiliusMagister

Aeneis

Heu! Nonnullas formulas faciebam. Navigatio esse tam facile hoc loco quam Vicipaedia anclica debet. Nos plurime de litteris latinis cognoscimus.

Si vobis placet, spectetis hic. Dicite mihi quas res videre vultis. Formulae faciendae mihi placet. Ponite sententias vestras in disputatione mea, non in arena mea.

I think our stuff about ancient Rome should look the best and be easiest to navigate. This is after all the heart of the project, is it not? I'm thinking about making formulae for consuls, but haven't thought up anything I like yet. Same for emperors. What works of literature might deserve formulae? Certainly the Aeneid. What about Cicero's works? Or maybe the Latin League? or the Delian League? We could make some killer stuff to make navigating through classical antiquity easer and more attractive. I think so anyway.Sinister Petrus 21:19, 11 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Mirabilia! You have the hand of a painter and the vision of a sysop! I was trying to simulate with tables the rightmost part of a PC keyboard to write about greek letters input, but I had to give up before puonding my head against the wall... so let me say: "Congratulations".

As for templates, you are quite right. I'd like to distinguish between necessary templates and accessory templates: I think that categories accomplish their duty

• when we don't have to keep a chronological trail (for example kings, popes, etc.) which can be kept with proper templates and can't be kept by a category.
• when we don't have to create a category for two or three articles (Character in the Aeneid similar...)
• when a category lets you got through many articles in a single click. A navigational template lets you choose among articles of different categories.

That's my humble opinion. I didn't write about graphics and glitters that make templates far more attractive than categories, but I'm trying to be rational... - εΔω 07:07, 13 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Gratias ob sententiam tuam tibi. Meae sententiae: Categoria and formulae are different from each other in several ways (as I see it). Categoria is an in depth look at the article that allows a serious user to find related topics. Formulae allow for impulse browsing or better presentation of information. That said:

• The Aeneid should have some sort of navigational box. It is the gem of Roman epic. Certainly the category listing will help, but since the Aeneid is an epic, by nature it isn't very suitable to chronological orders and other linear things. So a box would be good.

Maybe there are other works deserving. Nothing is coming to mind just yet.

• Popes, presidents, kings and their kind can be pretty easily taken care of with the succession boxes when they are historical (vide aut Ronaldus Reagan aut Iacobus Carter), but perhaps there is need for some sort of box when they are somewhat mythical and we cannot pin down the dates (vide Romulus). I think the pope navigation template at the English wikipedia is perhaps too much.
• Certainly Roman imperial provinces merit a formula. Not linear, in many separated categories. Anything else like this? Maybe the Delian League (mostly because I think it would be funny to do that.)

I think a pleasing appearance will enhance a user's enjoyment of the wikipedia. Latin can be intimidating to some beginning students who want to read outside of class. Or overwhelming to someone who took some Latin in school many years ago. At least with a more user friendly look, these users will get more out of our hard work. Mei duo nummi. Sinister Petrus 16:47, 13 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Vae mihi! Iam formula Provinciis Romanis est! But it's not complete, so that will need to be fixed. Fortasse ego nocte formulam refaciet. Sinister Petrus 19:22, 13 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Again about USOR

Hello you all! I'm quite new on it.wiki (username: Luccaro), and I was surprised to see that the latin babel template uses the word usor. I looked for some discussion page about it on it.wiki, and I found nothing. Here, on la.wiki, I found this one, even if it isn't very complete. I think usor is not a latin word and it sounds very strange that in the template saying "this user knows latin" there is a not-latin word! In my humble opinion, I suggest to use utens, which is a real latin word and can well translate the word user. Luccaro - 14 june 2006 - 09.04

I've just found this list of technical words, where user is translated with utens, -entis!!! Luccaro 10:55, 14 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

I definitely disagree with utens, as it mean something more like using than user. Usor seems fine with me. It is usefully similar to the English, and it does mean user as far as I know. However, my Latin is not good enough to follow the discussion at that link, and so I am not at all qualified to give judgement. Daniel (☎) 17:47, 14 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Careful, Daniel, as a substantive, the active participle "utens" certainly could be interpreted as a noun "user" some one who is using is a user, after all. But Luccaro, I have to take issue with your statement. Usor is fine latin, well formed, and attested... Daniel, if you want a translation of the conversation at the link, let me know.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:28, 14 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

If you say that usor is fine and attested, I believe you. But it was impossible to me to find it in my dictionaries, that's all. And when I tried to translate-back the word user (italian: utente) into latin, I found utens (looking on vatican "Lexicon recentis latinitatis", on Bacci's "Lexicon Eorum Vocabulorum Quae Difficilius Latine Redduntur" and on Mir-Calvano's latin dictionary). Luccaro 08:29, 15 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Commons vs. Communia

I've copied the small variant of the Commons template from the German Wikipedia. {{Communia}} is - from the parameters - compatible to {{Commons}}, however, fits well into the "Nexus externus" section. It has the advantage of making less formatting problems. It looks like this:

Vicimedia Communia plura habent quae ad Taberna spectant.

See the articles:

• Legio ... Legione
• Asterix ... Asterige

Especially when the text is very short, like in L. L. Zamenhof, the small template looks nicer. --Roland2 23:46, 16 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Great job! I agree that this template, while conveying relevant information, is much less obtrusive than the big box. Thanks for your efforts to replace it all over the article namespace! --UV 17:25, 17 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Pulchre facta! Yeah, this is much better since it's smaller. Though I've found that you need to say something like "brackets" Communia|Res|Re "close brackets" to make the name of the article match up with the "in." But that detracts from the overall goodness of what you've done. Sinister Petrus 05:10, 18 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Bad news: The 2nd parameter belongs to the Latinists. It is the ablative of the title. ;-) Good news: I've created a template {{vicicitatio}} & {{vicifons}} as well. --Roland2 11:55, 18 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Specialis:Allmessages et vultus Vicipaediae

Nuper interpritare incepi omnia nuntia systematis vicipaediae Latine, ut spem, recte. Hic est labor magnus, et probabiliter errores faciam quod tam celerrime tempto eum finire. Quaeso valde ut vos omnes quae scripsi inspecturi ullaque sub spatium nominis MediaVici mala correcturi sitis. Si nota aliquid non Latine scriptum circumstare, dicite mi, ut corrigam. Etiam gnarum me facite cuius malum inveniatis de vultu Vicipaediae aut eius paginarum. Gratias, amici.

Recently I have started to translate all the system message into latin, this is a large project and I am apt to make mistakes, just because I am trying to ge through it as quickly as possible. Please review what I have done under the MediaWiki namespace and indicate in the discussion page anything you see wrong. If you see anything else around here not in Latin, tell me so I can fix it. Also let me know anything about the aspect, or appearance of vici or its pages you don't like. Thanks, yall.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:21, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Addam, potestis imprimiendo nexus superstantes videre quod nuntium est delictum Anglice. Pax vobis.

I should add, yall can see what the default message is supposed to be in english by clicking on any of the three links above. Peace.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:28, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Fontes

Please see Vicipaedia:Fons. --Roland2 21:53, 22 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Mentlua?

I can't find this one in my dictionary, but I can take a guess what it means... Vandalism? --BradKittenbrink 01:43, 23 Iunii 2006 (UTC)