Usor:IacobusAmor/Disputata anni 2009

    E Vicipaedia

    Dioecesis Harlemensis[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Dear Iacobus, The name of this diocese has changed as of Jan 1, in: Diocese of Haarlem-Amsterdam. Could you change the lemma's title and heading? Thanks! RJB-nl 21:10, 5 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    Schools of music[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Guessing that there may be a demand, I've just begun a category structure for alumni of schools of music (and it would work for "professores" as well). If you add such categories to biographical articles, I'll incorporate them into the structure. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:13, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    I responded to your (second!) query on my talk page. I have restored the "Musici ..." category and I don't think I deleted anything else. :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:28, 11 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    Bisbona[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Salve! Quid errati est in pagina Bisbona a me creata? Cur "Latinitas -3" scriptum estne? Vale!--MarcusXC 23:36, 9 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    Oh, the Latin is mostly fine (except for passages like Certe Regnum Bisbonae in MCCIC a.D. exsistit 'Certainly Bivona's kingdom comes into existence within 1299 in the year of our Lord'), but the Roman numerals and the dating in reference to our Lord's year are taken by many to be inappropriate. Don't be discouraged, as -3 on a scale of +1 to -7, despite the verbal characterization as "maxdubium," isn't bad at all! IacobusAmor 04:22, 11 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    Taivania[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Salve. Video te revertisse Taivaniam. Nunc sunt tres commentationes de Taivania:

    Sit duae: alter de insula, alter de civitate.

    Tibi consentio: coniungantur Formosa et Taivania, nomina insulae, et stet Respublica Sinarum, nomen civitatis. IacobusAmor 16:04, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    Igitur anonymus bene fecit (ut formula ab UV posita iam monuerat) et reversio Taivaniae minime necesse erat. Non oportet Taivania ad Formosam redirigere quia nexus fere omnes ad Taivania de re politica, non de re geographica, disserunt.
    Ergo Taivania rursus in redirectionem converto, et in summam paginam Res Publica Sinarum nota de nova pagina geographica Formosa addo. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:01, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    Negas ergo Taivaniam esse insulam? Vide en:Taiwan: "Taiwan (historically 大灣/台員/大員/台圓/大圓/台窩灣) is an island in East Asia" et "This article is about the island of Taiwan. For the state that governs Taiwan, see Republic of China. For other uses, see Taiwan (disambiguation). "Formosa" redirects here." Sicut in en:, nobis oportet redirigere Formosam (insulam) ad Taivaniam (insulam)! IacobusAmor 21:22, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    Ibi quaestionem alteram ponis quam in pagina Disputatio:Formosa debemus disputare. Ego inter nominibus Latinis insulae Formosam praefero.
    Ergo hanc disputationem ad Disputatio:Formosa copiavi et pastavi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:05, 13 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    Anglia[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Thank you for your help; I share your preference for the ablative absolute in the first sentence of the 'invasion' section, but my caffeine-deprived brain couldn't piece it together. I'm happy to keep writing English history into the article, as long as people can put up with the schoolboy quality of my Latin. You wouldn't, off hand, happen to know the right Latin term for the civil war known in English as the Anarchy, would you? Many thanks. AlexTiefling 14:42, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    Not offhand. Maybe articles in the English wiki would offer clues. Since that wiki is the biggest & most comprehensive, most new articles in Vicipaedia will want to start out as translations from whatever has already been published over there. IacobusAmor 14:47, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    Perhaps. But in the case of English history, the en.wikipedia material is extremely detailed, and much of the narrative has been forked out into more focussed articles. A decent starting page on the subject might well not look like the 'finished' effort on en.wikipedia. For example, a brief description of the Norman Conquest is (IMHO) more effective than a vague reference to it and a link which requires a longer, more detailed article in order to work properly. AlexTiefling 15:48, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    But let's think big! Eventually, as online participation grows, Vicipaedia will be bigger than en: is now (of course en: will then be bigger too). The least effortful way to produce this growth will be to plan for it. The most thought-out plan for a big encyclopedia is the English wiki. Therefore, the best model for us to be using now is the English wiki. (We can supplement it, of course, with additional information from the other large wikis.) That's my rationale. IacobusAmor 15:57, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    I follow the train of logic but I wouldn't want us to feel bound by it. We already have pages that are surely better than en:wiki's equivalents. There are areas where en:wiki is very weak, areas where it's vulnerable, areas where it's illogical. It isn't a perfect model.
    But I also agree with what Iustinus has said elsewhere, that to translate or adapt the introduction from an English (or other-language) article can be a good start for us. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 15 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    Staple crops[recensere | fontem recensere]

    The Romance languages seem to use expressions like "Alimentum basicum" --Iustinus 16:08, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    Are we allowing ourselves to use basicus, -a, -um? I've had many a dance with primus & principalis so as to avoid it! ¶ Over in that other thread: it's unclear to me why "Holera" is a better category than "Alimenta," but people must have their reasons. IacobusAmor 16:41, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    1. It seems to me that it technical contexts we may allow ourselves such indulgences as basicus. Classicism is a good default, but it's not mandatory nor even desirable in every instance. Keep in mind also that basicus means not just "primary," but "fundimental," which seems to me to fit well here.
    2. categoria:holera is a subcategory of categoria:cibus, a subcategory of categoria:alimenta.
    --Iustinus 19:48, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    Cassell's doesn't offer a Latin gloss for 'basic', and the next best alternative to it seems to be 'fundamental', for which Cassell's gives primus, principalis. I suppose some senses of 'radical' could be brought to bear on the concept, in the forms of innatus and insitus. ¶ I didn't know about the hierarchy of those categories. In general, categories are mysteries. IacobusAmor 20:49, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    In principle, I think we must allow ourselves to use "basicus" in very technical contexts, but I don't think "staple crops" or "staple food" is of that ilk. Let's this time forget Italian (whose heuristic value in general I don't deny) and try to express the meaning by Latin "staple words". I'd propose "cibus cotidianus" (let the Bible have its "panis cotidianus" :-). --Neander 21:40, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    Hear, hear! By the way, what difference is there between the categories cibus and alimenta? The reason why I brought all this up (inspired by Iustinus' Categoria:Holera) is because the categories cibus and alimenta are very large and unspecific. I thought it might be a good idea to subdivide them. Perhaps we should move this discussion to the Taberna. --Fabullus 22:06, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    Cibus cotidianus igitur agedum! Quis umquam dixit Vicipaediam cachinatione carere? Inter iocosissima quae umquam audi, hoc dictum Neandris "let the Bible have its "panis cotidianus"" constat.:)--Rafaelgarcia 22:15, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    Cibus significat "food" (qui édi potest); alimentum significat "food and drink" (quod nos alit). Wikipedia anglica has categorias quoque dividit.--Rafaelgarcia 22:24, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    Eandem differentiam agnoscere videtur etiam Hermann Menge, qui "cibum" opponit "potioni". (Lateinische Synonymik § 277.) --Neander 00:14, 15 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    So "alimenta" should have rather few members (most potential members being either foods or drinks but not both). Thanks, everybody! I never understood that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 15 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    Linnaean binomials vs. animal & vegetable (by)products[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Another question I would like to bring up is the multiplication of pages you, IacobusAmor, are proposing. Personally I am perfectly happy to have just one page covering the potato-plant and the potato, and also just one page covering the eggplant and its fruit. --Fabullus 22:10, 14 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    Maybe it's the influence of the English language, or maybe it's something idiosyncratic, but, to me, except when speaking imprecisely, a potato is not a potato plant, a blueberry is not a blueberry bush, an apple is not an apple tree, and so on. Perceived with precision (and without the conceptual sloppiness to which casual speech is prone), a potato is a tuber, not necessarily a plant; a blueberry is a berry, not necessarily a bush; an apple is a fruit, not necessarily a tree. Consider the prime definition of apple in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary: "the fleshy usu. rounded and red or yellow edible pome fruit of a tree (genus Malus) of the rose family." In this case, even the old Romans & Greeks had separate words for the fruit (malum, mēlon) and the tree (malus, mēléa). A reasonable way of sorting these concepts is to have an article Malum for the fruit and an article Malus domestica for the tree (not to mention Malus (genus) for the genus). ¶ The easiest principle to invoke is this: each genus, and each binomial, will have its own article; special cases, usually reflecting cultural particularities (such as the named utilitarian byproducts of plants, the parts used for food or other purposes), will have their own articles too. The article for the binomial will be a universally valid description; the article for the byproduct will cover cultural factors. In an English dictionary or encyclopedia, an article on mutton will not have the same text as an article on Ovis aries. You wouldn't expect to find in an English encyclopedia a discussion of the plant ' under the lemma (one of its famous byproducts), or under the lemma (another of its famous byproducts). IacobusAmor 14:42, 15 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    All this is true: it still may sometimes be better to get started with an article that covers both the species and its uses. In fact hundreds or thousands of articles in en:wiki take exactly this form: it is only in the case of major domesticated species (and not all of them) that human uses are put in a separate article from the discussion of the species. Smaller wikis (and, let's face it, that's where we are) are even more likely to combine the two aspects in a single article. This can be positively helpful, especially where the articles are still quite short; if a principle opposes it, so much the worse for the principle! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:55, 15 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    I know there must be a reason[recensere | fontem recensere]

    ... why in your recent pages, although you put such effort into translating the en:wiki categories, you don't translate the external links. It would seem to me much more useful to translate those: at present they appear in English on your pages and so diminish their Latinity. But, as I say, I'm sure you have a reason! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:44, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    I thought we weren't to translate the titles of published things (books, movies, plays, internet pages)! IacobusAmor 13:47, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)
    Ah, I see it now! Well, I don't think our policy mentions internet pages in this context, and it could be said that internet pages differ rather strongly from those other media: e.g., sometimes they have useful titles, sometimes they don't. I haven't ever investigated this but I would be surprised if the words inserted in en:wiki, in external links, are always titles. My impression is that they are often devised as handy descriptions by the editor who inserted them; if that's the case, I guess there would be no particular reason for us to retain their veil of Anglicity. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:18, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

    Scott(us) Joplin[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Gratias tibi multas ago! Scripturus hanc rem eram. An "Scott" aut "Scottus" adhibendus sit - hoc tantum dicerem quia Baeda quosdam incolas Caledoniae "Scottos" vocat. Tergum violinae 13:47, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

    Est etiam attestatio sepulcri Eduardi I: "Edwardus Primus Malleus Scotorum hic est." IacobusAmor 13:55, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
    Do you want to do Iacobus Scott then, while I compile the index of Joplin's works? I'm having another cup of coffee now, and that's when Latin comes to mind (good for another half-hour, unless the plumber comes early). IacobusAmor 13:57, 7 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

    Gratias![recensere | fontem recensere]

    Gratias tibi ob meam paginam (Thapsi Pugna) corrigendam. Superbus eram de illa pagina, itaque tuo auxilio et arte, superbissimus factus sum! Iterum gratias! --CeleritasSoni 04:46, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

    Macte, amice! Btw, secundum Cassell's, 'proud of a thing' = re elatus (the thing being in the bare ablative), but of course there may be other ways of saying it. IacobusAmor 05:00, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

    I think you're too modest ...[recensere | fontem recensere]

    I notice that you mark your comments and edits as "recensiones minores" more often, perhaps, than they deserve! I only mention it because, if they are marked "minor", others who look through the "Nuper mutata" may never see them at all -- and hence may never reply to them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:15, 9 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

    Maybe Vicipaedians should discuss this issue (in taberna?) and seek agreement on the most appropriate distinctions between minor & major recensions. In the absence of bigger-than-one-sentence additions or subtractions, merely improving the typography, design, grammar, style, and spelling doesn't seem like a "major" activity to me. Can specifically distinguishing criteria be developed? IacobusAmor 15:21, 23 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
    "merely improving the typography, design, grammar, style, and spelling doesn't seem like a "major" activity to me" -- I agree. It's because you seemed to be marking some much bigger edits "minor" that I thought it worth mentioning. It's easily done, of course, ticking that box before clicking "servare".
    I now recall the specific example that made me write this. On 8 February you created a category (!!) Categoria:Insulae Samoenses and in the summarium you wrote "Andrew, this seems to be how you said to create such a category. Is that right?" -- and then you marked the creation as "minor". Therefore, it was only by the merest chance that I ever saw the category and your note to me. But, anyway, this is such a minor matter that I am tempted to mark this comment "minor" ... Salve, amice! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:14, 23 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
    Oh. OK. Then that was a blunder, a mistake, an error, an actual error! I should think the creation of any new article to be nonminor. On the major–minor scale, such a creation would meet one of my criteria for majorness. IacobusAmor 17:46, 23 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

    Explaining about categories[recensere | fontem recensere]

    I am happy to give time to explanations, but you have to meet me half way. You say on the Taberna that you never navigate categories. Begin to do it now. Start on any page, follow the bluelink categories, look at the other pages that they lead you to, go on to other categories the same way, observe if they lead you to anything of interest, observe that they make you reflect "Something missing here! I could write a page on that!" That's how people use them. If you really never do it, believe me, it could enlarge your world!

    Redlink categories are OK in themselves, at least briefly: Hendricus, for example, makes redlink categories which agree with our structure but are in uncertain Latin. Someone else (e.g. me) checks the Latin etc. and makes them blue. It takes time but I don't mind doing it: it improves Vicipaedia. But unplanned, unstructured redlink categories, translated ad hoc from another language, are really bad.

    But, in spite of that, I don't ever delete your redlink categories. Those that have real equivalents, I correct. Those that have fairly close, more general equivalents, I convert. Those that fit the structure but don't yet exist, I create. Those that don't yet fit any existing structure, I "comment out" -- still there for you to work on later if you want. Some of your pages take a while. And I'm still hoping that one day you'll thank me for it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:28, 23 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

    OK, since you say you do sometimes browse categories, here's a brief answer to your question on the Taberna. First the theory:
    1. Categories are a form of taxonomy.
    2. Taxonomies that use words in a language (unlike the Dewey system) cannot reliably be translated word-for-word into another language: words have different ranges, and, as anthropologists know so well, languages have different ways of classifying reality.
    3. As all users of the Dewey system and of the Linnaean system (to name but two) soon discover, taxonomies need a certain structure and a certain symmetry. Why?
      1. Because these are crucial to making the systems easy for users to grasp; and because
      2. For classifiers, although each new category makes work (it has to be linked into the structure), still, if the structure and the naming systems are systematic, the work is easy and quick.
    4. Since you, Iacobe, scarcely ever create categories, you depend on your friends to be your classifiers and you have an interest in lightening their work.
    5. To make your friends continually investigate the details of another classification system created by other people in another language, for no other reason than to verify whether its structure could somehow be transferred to ours in order to accommodate the new categories that you (alone) are suggesting, makes your friends' work heavier, not lighter.
    And now the wikipractice:
    1. Naming categories is not like naming pages, partly because they need to form a logical structure, partly because it is slightly complicated to move them. It is much better to have some idea of the structure you intend to apply (and to have discussed it with others) before you start creating and naming. Therefore
    2. Although you can make redlink categories just as easily as you can make redlinks to unwritten pages, they are hot stuff. If users are tempted to create the new pages, that's good! That's what redlinks are for! But if users are tempted to create the new categories, that may be a damn nuisance, because they may be in bad Latin (not yours of course); they will surely conflict with one another (because there is no way of cross-checking them till they turn blue); and they may contradict the existing structure to no good purpose, and in all these ways they make make hard work for the classifiers (your friends) and the users (whom we want to help). Therefore redlink categories should be kept to a minimum, and
    3. Whenever we want to start or improve a category structure in a new area (e.g. religious believers -- American Episcopalians etc.!) yes, let's do it, but first let's agree how we're going to structure it. Since we're writing Latin, let's start from what works in Latin. Since we're categorising our pages, let's start from what is (and is about to be) written on our pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:21, 24 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

    Locatio imaginum in pagina Abecedarium Graecum[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Non intellego novam locationem imaginum in pagina Abecedarium Graecum. Nonne tabula distributionis abecedariorum epichoriorum prope verba de ea re scripta collocanda est? Et idem de imagine tabulae Marsilianensis. Cur hanc non ponimus prope verba de ea re composita? --Fabullus 14:11, 8 Martii 2009 (UTC)

    Hodierni encyclopaediarum typographi tales coniunctiones magni momenti non esse mihi dixerunt, et formam sic vincere omnia praetendunt; paginam autem si reficere praeoptas, omni ope atque opera imagines restitue! IacobusAmor 14:30, 8 Martii 2009 (UTC)

    Please correct if I was wrong[recensere | fontem recensere]

    I tried to link the existing old article "Aevum cupri" (which I assume is about the Bronze Age) from your scheme at Aetas Lapidea. I may have done wrong, since I see that you equate "Aetas cuprea" with "Chalcolithicum". I had better leave it alone now; if I have got it wrong, I'm sure you can fix it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:19, 12 Martii 2009 (UTC)

    en:Bee[recensere | fontem recensere]

    I have created a stub Anthophila to correspond to en:Bee. If agreed upon it can always be moved to Apis, but in the meantime we need to have something. By the way, my congratulations for your enormous efforts to create more articles in the 1000 pages category! --Fabullus 08:23, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)

    That's a good solution, at least for the present. Thanks for the appreciation! I'm working on another of those pages right now; it'll be longer even than Gulielmus Wordsworth, and will therefore take several more days (of intermittent effort). IacobusAmor 12:14, 15 Martii 2009 (UTC)

    La Très Sainte Trinosophie[recensere | fontem recensere]

    The Most Holy Trinosophy, was a book edited by Count Saint Germain. Here is a link to a book in spanish PDF. La Santísima Trinosofía I request if anyone who has advanced knowledge in Latin language could take the time to translate this book. The original version of this book was in latin but it get lost many centuries ago. The main topic is occultism, alchemy, and predictions a kind like Nostradamus. a link to the book in English.

    Praecolobinus[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Verbo praecolombinus, -a, -um usus sum quia in linguis romanicis verba similaria sunt (hispanice: precolombino, -a; francogallice: précolombien, -enne). Fortasse, secundum te, verbum rectius praecolombianus, -a, -um est quia verbum italicum pro hac expressione precolombiano, -a est.--Le K@l!Face-glasses.svgnuntia? 05:10, 4 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

    Colonialism[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Hello, I notice you have recently translated part of the English Wikipedia page to Latin. I currently giving the page an overhaul and I don't want you to waste your time! The first two sections (including the first section, which you translated in full) I have already changed significantly and I'm pretty happy with them. The whole section on neocolonialism is likely to get a big cropping. Yaris678[1] 13:12, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for the heads-up! As you see, I merely translated the beginning and the headings, so what's there can easily be changed. The point was to have something on the topic in Vicipaedia, since the article is one of the 1000 pages every wiki should have ([2]), and therefore your work is more important than usual. I figured the discussion of neocolonialism would someday be sent to en:Neocolonialism. Best wishes! IacobusAmor 13:55, 29 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

    De stratis[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Salve Iacobe. I knew that in English strata is used, but I've been checking my dictionary and it gives me that the word in latin is stratus, -us rather than stratum. Are both correct?--Xaverius 13:55, 15 Maii 2009 (UTC)

    Cassell's gives only stratum, which is what you'd regularly expect: the neuter of the past participle (of sternere) used as a substantive. In English, the only plural I think I've ever seen is strata—which again means that the Latin must be neuter. According to my English dictionary, stratus is New Latin for a kind of cloud formation. But of course if you've got archaeological attestations of stratus in reference to geological layers, then by all means use it! IacobusAmor 14:02, 15 Maii 2009 (UTC)

    Bisbona[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Salve Iacobe! Velim de Bisbona paginam ampliare, sed in dubio sum: estne de civitatibus paginarum structura particularis? --MarcusXC 11:45, 23 Maii 2009 (UTC)

    Respondere potes? :) --MarcusXC 14:00, 24 Maii 2009 (UTC)
    Iacobo fortasse absente, ego respondeo: formulam immutabilem non habemus; sed structuram potes ex exemplis aliis derivare, vide e.g. Berolinum. Sed de Bisbona optime laboras, Marce!
    Si habes quaestiones speciales, potes et in Taberna responsa petere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 24 Maii 2009 (UTC)
    Macte, Marce. Commentarius est melior quam multi. Nonnullos locos paululum polivi. Omnino extende! [Vel Anglice:] Well done, Marcus. The article is better than many. I've polished a few passages a little. By all means continue! IacobusAmor 14:27, 24 Maii 2009 (UTC)

    De declinatione mixta[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Hi, amice, maybe I was too castigatory, when reverting your correction, or rather amelioration, "exeuntes" => "exeuntis". I'm sorry! You're quite right: "exeuntis" is the preferred and preferable form, especially in republican Latin. As a Ciceronian, I ought to be especially keen on writing "exeuntis" and the like, yet I'm not; nor do I write "caussa" or "divissio", though we know that Tullius did so. (Well, maybe I could write "exeuntis", but then, probably, I should write "tenacis", "duplicis", "triplicis" as well. I had seven years Latin in the school but learned only the "exeuntes" type. This is obviously due to the humanistic tradition that besets our school grammars and school editions of texts. It was not until at the university that I became aware of the "exeuntis" type.) The Latin variety dubbed as "classical" isn't quite tantamount to Ciceronian, but rather a humanistic adaptation and conventionalisation ad usum scholarum. I'm pretty sure most of us are more familiar with the "exeuntes" type, and for that reason (besides respecting the author's choice) I did the reverting. /// WRT, both "-e" and "-ī" are admissible though they're not (entirely) in free variation, the main rule being that when a present participle is used in an absolute ablative construction, "-e" is compulsory ("exeunte saeculo", "urbe florente" 'when the town is/was flourishing'), but when the pres.ple functions as an adjective, "-ī" can be used (besides "-e"): "in florenti urbe". s.v.b.e.e.v. Martinus (Neander 00:28, 1 Iunii 2009 (UTC))

    Amice, I don't find the ablative-absolute distinction in A&G, but I'll take your word for it! IacobusAmor 18:23, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

    Media Asia[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Cur, si 'Asia Centralis' tibi displicet, 'Media Asia' scribis? Nonne adiectivum postponendum est? --Fabullus 13:12, 3 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

    Ah, ut videtur verbum centralis non est classicum (ante Plinium). Cassells ait: "the center of anything is usually expressed by medius, agreeing as adj. with the thing itself (e.g. media urbs, the center of the city)," et nobis dat idioma: "the center of government, sedes imperii." Ainsworth's Dictionary verbum centrum stellat ut verbum non adhibitum fuisse in Aetate Aurea monstret, id definiens: "the point in the midst of any round thing, the centre of a circle, the standing foot of the compasses," et diserte dicit Ciceronem hanc rem geometricam appellavisse punctum, non centrum. IacobusAmor 13:46, 3 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

    Pandora[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Quomodo correxisti Pandoram ut "[2]" et "[3]" appararent? Non-intellgo erratum meum et quippe nolo facere iterum. Gratias! CeleritasSoni 01:52, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

    Te plene non intellego ego quoque. Haec "[2]" et "[3]" in meo computatro apparent. "January 3, 1986" et "naming the moon" sunt verba Anglica, non Latina. IacobusAmor 05:07, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)
    Intellego translationem ab Anglica ad Latinam totaliter, Illi numeri "[2]" et "[3]" non-apparent mihi. Si alii videre possunt, laetus sum. CeleritasSoni 18:00, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

    Patres Albi[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Vale, carissime Iacobe, quomodo te habeas? I created this new page, I put in custodire, I adviced some friends to watch, because I write in a poor Latin, but none visited. Can you help me, please. Tibi gratus sum Rex Momo 07:19, 9 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

    Ioannes Milton Ward[recensere | fontem recensere]

    I tried the effect of avoiding suus where the word doesn't refer to the subject of the sentence. Perhaps I was being pedantic (wouldn't be the first time). Please check, and, if you think what I did doesn't work, change back! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

    Condita est vs Condidit[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Iacobus, I hope you are fine. Please understand that there is a lot of work of more significance to be done. Do you really have to make corrections like the above? As long as the grammar is correct, please allow people to write as the feel because it is easier to understand. Is there a particular reason why do you do corrections like that?--Jondel 13:59, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

    See my comment at Disputatio:Pampanga. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:12, 12 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

    Regio XIII Chilensis[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Non est regio XIII in Chilia. Leges factores putaverunt Metropolitanam Regionem terdecimam esse (etsi numerum non habet) cum regiones XIV et XV creaverunt. Regiones I ad XII stricto ordine de septentrione ad meridies habent, XIV et XV autem non. Tristis res est, adiuvabat enim ordo studentes. Cato censor 14:13, 9 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

    Don't forget ...[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Civil War battles (generously defined) should go in Categoria:Proelia Belli Civilis Americani. Historical events of any year (including battles etc. etc.) should go in Categoria:1852 or whatever year it is. I'm enjoying reading these nice new pages ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:44, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

    OK, I'll try not to forget! IacobusAmor 14:47, 24 Iulii 2009 (UTC)

    Corazon Aquino[recensere | fontem recensere]

    I noticed your corrections and the truth is I'm an insane maniac who wants to eat your children grateful and appreciative for you additions to the Corazon Aquino. Well done! I apologize for being too abrasive if I was. Mihi erranti ignoscendum est. I hope you don't mind if I make more corrections to the Corazon article. :) --Jondel 02:56, 2 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

    Translatio[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Vide, quaeso: VP:T#Translatio--Le K@l!Face-glasses.svgnuntia? 17:28, 13 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

    Why not revert?[recensere | fontem recensere]

    I check pages marked for deletion about once a week. So, today, I found Cestoda, which you marked for deletion on 11 August, with the summary "Sunt magistratus caeci hodie?". Why do that? You could have reverted the vandalism in a moment; instead, since you marked your edit as minor, no one saw your summary and the nonsense has remained on line for a week :( Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 22 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

    Because I have no power to punish miscreants. If I'd reverted it, the vandal could have gone on his merry way, rather than to the block. ;) IacobusAmor 12:48, 22 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
    I knew there'd be a reason! Still, no punishment resulted. Better to revert another time, maybe. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:33, 22 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
    The punishment can still result, and should be perpetual. Surely there's no statute of limitations on vandalism? IacobusAmor 15:16, 22 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
    In reply to that: since you did not revert the vandalism or bring it to anyone's attention, it has gone unnoticed for more than a week. It was an edit from an anonymous IP address, and I explained to you fully, just a couple of weeks ago, the disadvantage of blocking an IP address for one momentary incident of vandalism. In this case now, a week after the event, it would be not only completely pointless but also counterproductive. We've been through all that.
    I'd love to get you to accept this simple main point, Iacobe: when you see vandalism, notably if it is offensive, you should revert it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:45, 22 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
    Only if you promise to notice the reversion and punish the miscreant! IacobusAmor 01:00, 27 Februarii 2010 (UTC)

    Inhabitants of US counties and towns[recensere | fontem recensere]

    I wonder whether categories as detailed as this are a bit ambitious at present considering the size of Vicipaedia. I wonder whether it wouldn't be handier to create categories for inhabitants of each state (on the pattern Categoria:Incolae Virginiae: none of these yet exist) and watch them grow ... But, having dropped that thought into your talk page, I don't want to interfere. It's up to you! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:32, 23 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

    Whatever you choose to do, however, all these new categories need to have two super-categories, not just one. One for the state, as you are already doing; the other will always be Categoria:Incolae Civitatum Foederatarum. Please add this each time! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:33, 24 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
    OK, I'll try to remember. It strikes me as unuseful, however, to have a category that's eventually going to list hundreds of thousands of names (or, of course, if our founder's vision of Wikipedia comes true, hundreds of millions of names). IacobusAmor 11:33, 24 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
    This seems to be an argument for not having any categories in case they grow bigger; but I think maybe you mean that it will be unuseful. I agree with the future tense, not with the present. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:46, 24 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
    In the same way, any category you make for Homines [Ludovicianae etc.] in Bello Civili Americano always need to have two super-categories, not just one. The first for the state, as you are already doing. The second will always be Categoria:Participantes Belli Civilis Americani. This is what will link them in to the overall category structure that I started at your suggestion. So please add the two supercategories each time! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:33, 24 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
    OK, I'll try to remember. I'd thought that "Categoria:Milites Belli Civilis Americani" would logically have been a subset of "Participantes Belli Civilis Americani," because the larger set would include not just soldiers, but nonsoldiers: sailors, marines, guerrillas, railroad engineers, civilian balloonists, telegraph operators, judges, businessmen, and even women. Btw, participare in Cassell's has only the senses of 'share' and 'cause to share'. IacobusAmor 11:33, 24 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, that categoria you suggest seems perfectly logical to me. Go ahead and create it. It doesn't affect my point, though.
    Participants share. But if there's a better word for "participants", let's use it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:46, 24 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

    Religious believers[recensere | fontem recensere]

    What fun! Your category Categoria:Catholici Romani Civitatum Foederatarum points the way to a whole new structure of religious-believers-or-members-of-religious-groups-by-country. So we need a nice simple Latin word to cover the first seven English words in that compound term of mine. Since Religiosi is already in use in a different sense (members of orders) I am suggesting Credentes, and thus a supercategory, Categoria:Credentes Civitatum Foederatarum and a super-super-category, Categoria:Credentes secundum civitates digesti. If you can suggest a more precise or classical or otherwise preferable formulation rather than "Credentes", now's the time! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:18, 24 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

    For these purposes, credentes might be OK; but as an anthropologist, I'd want to stress the affiliating part (attachment to a social organization), rather than the believing part (adoption of a particular doctrine). We can't certainly know what individuals believe(d), but we can at least observe their actions in joining an organization or attending its events. Nevertheless, I don't know what a better Latin word than credentes would be. ¶ Should there be a distinction between attenders and joiners? Beniaminus Franklinus, for example, may not have been a member of the Anglican/Episcopal Church, but he liked & attended its services, and at least one prominent Anglican cleric (Aaron Cleveland) was such a good friend that he died (of apoplexy) in Franklin's house. And what would we do with Thomas Ieffersonius, who, though culturally an Anglican/Episcopalian, demonstratively didn't believe many of Anglicanism's tenets, or even certain tenets shared by all Christian religions? Who could adequately characterize what happened in the recesses of his mind? And then there's Abrahamus Lincoln, who may never have associated himself with a particular church. Btw, most U.S. presidents have occasionally attended services at the Episcopal church across the street from the White House, but of course that doesn't make them Episcopalians. ¶ Also, because people can change their minds, an adequate system of categorizing should allow for listing under multiple religions. ¶ And should there be a category for lapsed religionists?—those who abandon religion altogether? Gulielmus Tecumseh Sherman, for example, attended Roman Catholic services until the start of the Bellum Civile Americanum, when he seems to have stopped attending and maybe even to have stopped believing. What would a category for agnostics be called? and for atheists? IacobusAmor 11:58, 24 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
    Categories completely avoid the problems of lapses and changes and multiple membership, so don't worry about that. You can belong to as many categories as you want, though not necessarily to as many religions as you want! Anyway, if you come up with a better word than "credentes", let me know. I agree it's far from ideal. Maybe even "Religionum participantes"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:04, 24 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
    And maybe "Religionibus haerentes"? I like that one because it reminds me of "haeresis", although there seems to be no etymological connection. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:01, 25 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
    Hehe. And since Vicipaedia must want to have a supercategory for heretics (subdivided into categories for Arians, Gnostics, Sabellians, etc.) it makes for even more fun! IacobusAmor 16:26, 25 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

    One more thing ...[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Keep in mind as you're making categories that the vast majority will need to belong to at least two supercategories, not just one. If you look back at the ones you've recently created, and look at the second supercategory I have nearly always added to them, you'll get the idea, I think. This is the way in which Wikipedia categories differ most strongly from classification schemes, which often have a tree structure and a single parent. ¶ If you can't think what the second one might be, don't worry: I always keep an eye on new categories. But if you can think of it, it saves me work! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:46, 25 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

    Could you explain why they want to belong to at least two supercategories? I'd thought one should suffice. In this regard, see the subcategory I've just added to Categoria:Necati. IacobusAmor 01:41, 26 Augusti 2009 (UTC)
    Well, I can try, but you might grasp it more easily if you do as I suggest above. Anyway, to take your own example, your new Categoria:Milites necati in Bello Civili Americano. Say to yourself: what is this concept a subset of? And try not to be satisfied with just one answer. Answer 1: it's a subset of Necati. You thought of that. Answer 2: it's a subset of Categoria:Milites Belli Civilis Americani (the category you suggested above, but haven't yet remembered to create) I've created it for you now!, -- or, if you decided not to create that one after all it's a subset of Categoria:Participantes Belli Civilis Americani. Do you see?
    Now that second answer takes you back exactly to where you began a few weeks ago. You asked for a series of subcategories of Categoria:Bellum Civile Americanum. I started the series for you, but whenever you don't link your new categories into it, you're forgetting to develop the new category structure that you yourself asked for. So, again, think to yourself each time: is my new category related to Categoria:Bellum Civile Americanum or one of its sub-categories? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:11, 26 Augusti 2009 (UTC)

    Rex Momo[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Vale, carissime Iacobus, quomodo te habeas? Novam paginam scripsi et tibi adiutum peto, de ista pagina ad scribendas novas res. Non bene Latine scribo, sed in pagina Italica et Francica ire potes. Tibi gratias ago Rex Momo 16:54, 18 Septembris 2009 (UTC)

    Categories for Origanum and Galtonia[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Your time's your own, but you might be wasting it by creating categories for something as detailed as a genus. Just as on en: and many other wikis, categories that don't gather multiple members within a fairly short space of time are at risk of deletion :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:36, 9 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

    OK, no categories for genera then, and the lowest level from which the hierarchy of categories will rise is that of families. IacobusAmor 11:21, 10 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
    That certainly seems logical to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 10 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
    Bear in mind, however, that the English wikipedia categorizes genera by genera, not families! IacobusAmor 11:55, 11 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
    Not in these two cases, it seems. I checked.
    But in any case that wouldn't be a convincing argument. en:wiki has a hundred times as many pages as we have, and therefore can be expected to have from tenfold to a hundredfold more detail in its categories. To introduce such a level of detail in la:wiki categories at this stage would be time-wasting and extremely unhelpful to readers. Let's write more articles! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:17, 11 Octobris 2009 (UTC)
    See , , , etc. Vicipaedia already has as many pages as Wikipedia has, but they haven't been written yet! ¶ Both your arguments ("time-wasting," "unhelpful") are unpersuasive in brief—but that's a discussion for another time & place! IacobusAmor 12:24, 11 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

    But as for Lepetopsoidea ...[recensere | fontem recensere]

    How right you are! It is a "non stipula"; and there are dozens of others like it. What do you think we should do with them? It's possible, and simplest, to mark them all "non stipula" and, seven days later, delete them. On the other hand, that does no one any good and significantly reduces the number of pages in Vicipaedia. They appear to have valid contents: just no text at all. Should we bite the bullet and add a line of text to them all? I just don't know ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:41, 10 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

    Maybe their creator(s) would enjoy being invited to come back and finish the job; or, rather, to finish starting the job! IacobusAmor 11:26, 10 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

    Ordo patriarchalis Sanctae Crucis Hierosolymae[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Salve, carissime Iacobe. Tibi gratias ago causa adiuti in hac pagina. Adfiliati est adepti. Iam sripsi novum verbum. Rex Momo 16:15, 11 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

    GRAZIEEEEEEEEEEEE Rex Momo 16:20, 11 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

    Nostra Domina Portus Salutis[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Salve amice, quomodo te habes? Can you watch this page and see if my bad Latin is good to read, about the new picture I've put? Tibi gratias ago Rex Momo 21:54, 13 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

    Philippus Maakaroun[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Vale, carissime Iacobe, quomodo te habes? Tibi parvum adiutum peto, si haec pagina corrigere potes, quia mea Lingua Latina non multum bona esse!!! Tibi gratias ago Rex Momo 16:59, 17 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

    non stipula[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Salve Iacobi, whats the meaning of adding all these non stipula's on articles about zoology? there is more information to it than Tabula and lots more lemma's. Ok your absolutely right to say there should be a better opening line in the upper part, but don't you think it's a bit a stab in the back? - no offence ofcourse, Hendricus 17:43, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

    It's just a technical correction, inviting anybody who wants to add a definition to do so. According to the "non stipula" sign itself, if a lemma is undefined, its article must be a non stipula. Andrew recently added a non stipula sign to one of my articles, and now I've forgotten which one it was. IacobusAmor 18:47, 22 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

    De excavatione/exfosso[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Salve, Iacobe. Nescio verbum verum pro "excavation". Puto fortasse excavationem et exfossum amba recta esse. Quod est melius?--Xaverius 14:33, 27 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

    Cassell's dicit Anglicum 'excavation' esse cavum !!! Sed nota: excavare = 'hollow out', sed effodere = 'dig out, gouge out, gut, rummage', et fodere = 'dig, dig out, excavate, prick, prod'; ergo, excavatio = 'a hollowing out', sed fossio = 'a digging, an excavating'. (Vide Anglicum Australianum 'fossicking'!) Effodere et fossio ergo mihi optima videntur. IacobusAmor 15:25, 27 Octobris 2009 (UTC)

    Translation request[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Hi IacobusAmor! Would you be so kind to help me translate this article into the wonderful Latin language? Please. If you think that article is too long, here is a short version: "Lu Xun was a Chinese short story writer, editor, translator, critic, essayist and poet. He was most famous for the novella The True Story of Ah Q." Thanks a lot and best regards:)--Amaqqut 03:36, 3 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

    Cypros, Lawsonia inermis et Alchanna[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Dear Iacobus, I have reverted some of your edits to Cypros (arbustum) and Lawsonia inermis. Please see my comments at Disputatio:Lawsonia inermis. --Fabullus 09:26, 10 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

    Flacourtiaceae[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Si estas pensando en el clásico, estaría; pero la intención de mi lema era citar solo las Salicaceae --Penarc 00:38, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

    Necesitamos también una página de Salicaceae. Por supuesto, ¡scríbala si quieres! IacobusAmor 14:22, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

    Medica[recensere | fontem recensere]

    This was a page about the species "Medicago sativa", known in classical Latin as "Medica". There was also a redirect from the botanical name Medicago sativa.

    On 3.58 on 1 November, at Medica, you added a taxobox about the species -- no harm in that -- but edited the first sentence of the text so that it now claimed to be about the genus "Medicago". Here's the diff: [3]. And yet you knew there was already a page about the genus, because you immediately moved on there and improved it.

    Then, at 4.05, you came back to the page about Medica, removed the pinacotheca (although it was relevant to the species "Medicago sativa") and marked the page for deletion (summary: "Delenda. Duplicates "Medicago" (the bigger file) with a different name.") Here's the diff: [4].

    And yet the only duplication was the sentence adjusted by you so that it included the word "genus". The page was about a species, and if your "deletion" request had been honoured, Vicipaedia would have lost its page about the species.

    I don't think you're vandalising: I think you're trying to impose your new rule about botanical names, and doing it too fast, without reading the pages you're marking for deletion. But the result will be fewer pages and less information on Vicipaedia, and this isn't good.

    Your copy-and-paste moves are also causing problems (see my recent note at Disputatio Usoris:Xaverius). I'd like to ask you to think back or look back over your recent contributions -- urgently, before going on with further edits -- to consider whether there might be other such cases. Looking for them and correcting them are time-consuming, and you could help here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:00, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

    My reading suggested that medica was a classical term for any of several species of genus Medicago (not always Medicago sativa). Articles about classical etymology should always be welcome, but they aren't the same thing as articles about the modern taxonomy of plants & animals. No further time today! IacobusAmor 15:10, 11 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
    OK, I think your reading was maybe hasty, but never mind. I've restored the article, and I think I've tracked the strange deletes. I wish I wasn't always complaining. Your new pages are so good, and there are so many of them! I don't know how you find the time ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:33, 12 Novembris 2009 (UTC)
    I don't, except when sipping coffee for breakfast and no longer bothering with the dead-tree newspaper I used to read. Sometimes an extra hour or two will become available, but one can't predict when. ¶ On the identity of the plant(s) in question, en: says "Most alfalfa cultivars contain genetic material from Sickle Medick (M. falcata), a wild variety of alfalfa that naturally hybridizes with M. sativa to produce Sand Lucerne (M. sativa ssp. varia)." If so, then medica = (1) Medicago sativa and (2) Medicago falcata and (3) their hybrids. IacobusAmor 13:08, 13 Novembris 2009 (UTC)

    Hostes antiquus[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Salve, Iacobe. I was wondering if you could explain me whether if I've been using the future participle in Hostes antiquus. I've used it a couple of times there, but I haven't really used it before. Cheers, --Xaverius 23:33, 5 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

    Those examples look OK, but I've added another one for your delectation! The present titles may be doubtful, especially hostes antiquus (not least because hostes is plural, but antiquus is singular); were you thinking of hospites? ¶ Re "if you could explain me": a Colombian correspondent of mine has used exactly the same phrase, so one wonders if its structure isn't leaking in from the Spanish; in explain to me, the to is obligatory; with the verbs tell & show, it must be omitted, but explain, indicate, suggest, &c. require it. Cheers! :) IacobusAmor 13:32, 6 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks for your help. I didn't pay too much attention to the hostes antiqui (as it should be). And it is certainly hostes rather than hospites: the Spanish at least hueste (*güeste) implies hostes. Regarding the explain to, I hve to admit that after five years living in England, I still cannot understand properly how prepositions work! Thanks a lot, I'll try to sort things out in the article.--Xaverius 13:45, 6 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

    Presidente del Gobierno[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Salve, Iacobe. It happened that I moved the templates from "Primi Ministri Hispanici" to "Praeses Hispanici". An unknown usor pointed out that the plural is praesides (and that in fat, I was wrong thinking that it was praesis, -es). However, I just realised that this may cause confusion, because the "prime minister" of Spain is the "president of the government" not simply "the president". What do you reckon is better in this case, praesides gubernationis or praesides rectionis?--Xaverius 15:26, 10 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

    Um, I really don't have an opinion! Except to point out that in Cassell's, rectio = 'a ruling, direction'. Is this president really the president of a direction? What's his/her title in Spanish? IacobusAmor 22:21, 11 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
    The title is "presidente del gobierno" (further here).--Xaverius 09:55, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
    So you need to know how to Latinize gobierno. Cassell's has two sets of suggestions: for 'the business of governing', administratio, gubernatio, procuratio, cura, and for 'supreme power', imperium, regnum, dicio. One wonders whether praeses regni could be right, since you already have a king (who might be considered to play the role of presiding over the kingdom), but there you are. IacobusAmor 12:59, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

    Havaiane kala[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Ave Iacobe! Quamquam nugatorium est, facere non possum, quin dicam Havaianum sermonem et Finnicum commune habere verbum kala. Finnice 'piscis' est, Havaiane 'naso unicornis', qui etiam piscium generis est. Credo similes res fortuitas subfacetas in linguis reperiri, quarum verba CVCV structurae favent. --Neander 14:59, 12 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

    Stipulae[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Alrighty, I made a few stipulae and all the categories that go along with them. See a list of them here. I did not add them to any of the pages yet, because I figured that would be a terribly gruesome endeavor--so if you have any painless way of doing it, please go ahead! Also, I was unsure about the declensions of a few of the words, so if something's wrong, let me know! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 06:55, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

    Woohoo! I'll make a note of them and start changing them when I get the chance. They old ones aren't technically wrong, since they're all correctly described as being zoological, so they can stand for the time being, but the new ones, being more precise, will be an improvement. The only declension-related problems that come to mind so far is that it's not insecta, -ium, but insectum, -i (the name of the class, Insecta, like the names of all classificatory levels above that of genus, is plural), and similarly not amphibia, -arum, but amphibium, -i. Thanks for your good work! IacobusAmor 12:43, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
    Hmm. On second thought, you've made those for birds & fishes singular and those for the other groups plural. As a rule, should the signs for stipulas be singular or plural? IacobusAmor 12:54, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
    Well, I would think plural, but I'm not sure I understand what it is trying to say. What does spectat ad ___ mean? Is it some sort of idiom, or is it just this stub looks toward birds? --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 18:01, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
    Toward birds or toward a bird: that's the question! This notice could refer to the set (e.g., Aves in general) or to the individual being discussed (e.g., a particular avis). Checking how other stipulas work might decide the issue; however, be sure to ignore those that have to be singular, like the one for "zoologia." The English ones that I've checked use the plural; e.g. "[Logo of a perciform fish] This Perciformes article is a stub"; but that construction makes the most important word a noun pretending to be an adjective (i.e., an objective noun), whose plurality sounds awkward, since objective nouns in English tend to be singular (bedtimes, not bedstimes, pear trees, not pears trees, train whistles, not trains whistles). Meanwhile, though, I don't see what's wrong with
    Haec stipula ad piscem spectat. Amplifica, si potes!
    (and thanks for that pretty little fish!), which I take to mean something like 'This stub considers a fish'. ¶ I do wonder, however (and this goes for all our stubs) whether better wording wouldn't be Haec stipula piscem tractat. IacobusAmor 18:31, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)IacobusAmor 18:07, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, I think that the singular does sound better. I'll get to changing them soon. But we'll still use the plural for categories (e.g. categoria:stipulae piscium), right? I also fixed the error on the taxobox. It had to do with conservation status, which now works (vide paginam Leo). Parts of it still needs translated, but the template works! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 19:07, 16 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, categories are plural, except in cases like Categoria:Cibus (and I have no idea why that one isn't plural too). Having the stipula box singular is OK with each genus & species, but maybe not for higher-level ranks, all of which have plural names (e.g., Coleoptera = 'the beetles'). A puzzlement! IacobusAmor 18:32, 18 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

    formula:taxobox begin[recensere | fontem recensere]

    So, what's the deal with this other taxobox (Formula:taxobox begin)? This is a seperate taxobox, right? Is it obsolete? It looks much more difficult to use. But over 100 pages are still using it (e.g. vide Homo sapiens). --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 18:11, 18 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

    I was told that the old set of formulae (... begin, etc.) ought to be entirely superseded by the newer taxobox ... but it has never been replaced on the pages on which it is used. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:19, 18 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
    When I began tinkering with botanical & zoological topics, I noticed that those formulas usually occurred in articles written early in Vicipaedia's history and not (or hardly) updated since. (Some early articles had no taxobox at all.) I've been importing the new taxoboxes (usually from en:) at every chance I could get, largely because they contain more & better information than the old taxoboxes. IacobusAmor 18:26, 18 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
    Is there any easy way to convert them all? I would offer to do it myself, but like I said there are over 100 of them! --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 18:35, 18 Decembris 2009 (UTC)
    I don't think we'd want to, because the new taxoboxes (at least in en:) contain more & better information. Anyway, all those old stipulae are begging to be rewritten & enlarged! IacobusAmor 18:40, 18 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

    De nomine chronovistri[recensere | fontem recensere]

    De nomine huius mirae machinae dedi responsum inter responsiones ad hanc symbolam pertinentes. Vale.--Bruxellensis 14:53, 23 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

    Denuo respondi tuae novae quaestiunculae.--Bruxellensis 15:49, 23 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

    zingiber[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Hey Jacob, long time. Since you have created zingiber, Andrew and I want to ask your opinion on this question on how to align two different English pages en:Zingiber and en:Ginger to the one Latin word. Cheers. --Ioscius (disp) 22:31, 27 Decembris 2009 (UTC)