Usor:IacobusAmor/Disputata anni 2011

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Gods[recensere | fontem recensere]

I reverted your change at Categoria:Satellites Iovis because it broke the link to an existing correct category. ¶ I guess the logic of your change was that you might have in mind to change the planet categories from Categoria:Iuppiter et al., where they all are now, to Categoria:Iuppiter (planeta) et al. If I'm wrong, ignore this! If I'm right, we should talk about that change before doing it. I'd be against it, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:58, 23 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your reversion should be best there, as it keeps Vicipaedia more in line with Wikipedia (en:)—a point that went unnoticed at the time; however, that quick foray into categories yesterday suggested that Vicipaedia is unusually undercategorized in the field of mythology—which seems odd in view of the prominence of the abundance & importance of mythological details in the extant Latin texts, especially poems, produced by native speakers. We still probably have articles about the offspring of Juppiter/Zeus that remain uncategorized under that (rather obvious) title, not to mention offspring of certain other gods. In contrast, UV's removal of Categoria:Deitates caeli (from some article or other) is unhelpful, since that category is needed, again following en:, as a higher-order concept for combining the categories Categoria:Dei caeli and Categoria:Deae caeli. IacobusAmor 11:25, 23 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I fully agree our mythology needs proper categorising. As you already know, I don't agree that en:wiki is the perfect model ... except in the cases where it agrees with me, see above ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:39, 23 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
I don't know UV's thinking. My comment as observer on that last detail is that Categoria:Deitates caeli, by your explanation, would only ever have two members (unless there are LGBT sky deities); so it would always be too small. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:56, 23 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary: en:Category:Sky and weather deities contains three categories (Sky and weather goddesses, Sky and weather gods, and Thunder deities) and five articles (en:Sky deity, en:Amihan (mythology), en:Dagr, en:Djanggawul, en:Sky father). That's eight subdivisions, not two. But even if only two sex-based categories existed here, listing English's 240 sky-and-weather gods separately from English's 40 sky-and-weather goddesses could be useful & appropriate, rather than listing them promiscuously. And surely more are available to be added! IacobusAmor 14:12, 24 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
I say, avoid creating or even imagining categories that would have only two members; instead, use lateral thinking. Surely, since we are writing such a concise and sensible language as Latin, Categoria:Dei caeli will cover all of them as efficiently as the sky covers the earth? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:56, 23 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
Not for users who might want to have a list of sky-goddesses. IacobusAmor 14:12, 24 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)
I suppose, when you think about it, Iuppiter was an LGBT sky deity ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:04, 23 Ianuarii 2011 (UTC)

Logout[recensere | fontem recensere]

I saw your summarium: "Just now, when I tried to save an addition to this page, the system logged me out. Is that a normal occurrence?" I believe it has always happened occasionally -- for reasons I don't know -- but I am sure it has happened more often since the new MediaWiki version. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:56, 4 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Arcanum explicatum[recensere | fontem recensere]

If you really want to know the origin of a colleague of ours, read four words of the last sentence of Eratosthenes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:13, 16 Martii 2011 (UTC)
We should never underestimate the wisdom of the ancients! IacobusAmor 11:38, 17 Martii 2011 (UTC)

"Pro tem"[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iacobe amice, I guess that comments like this "<!--Pro tem, modo Dalbiano-->" mean that you're signalling a protest about the need to link to existing categories. I wonder whether you might possibly find a different way to signal the protest (if that's what it is)? I'm as proud of my name as the next fellow, but I feel it's slightly improper to mention Wikipedians' names on Wikipedia pages; and, after all, when we're both dead or gone, these notes may be difficult for our successors to understand. On the other hand, if you wanted to put some comment on the talk pages, names are freely bandied about on those ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 17 Martii 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a protest; on the contrary, it's borrowing a term you yourself have used to support the idea (the validity of which we all surely concede) that, whenever possible, at least one category for each article should be blue. It marks the category or categories that will ultimately be deleted, after a usually lower-level category has turned blue. I've just tried a few examples of this with some novels. Of course we can omit the "modo Dalbiano" now that everybody sees what's going on. ;) IacobusAmor 13:53, 18 Martii 2011 (UTC)
Right. I agree it's an idea generally thought valid! ... hence couldn't quite see why I was being linked with it. I get it now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 18 Martii 2011 (UTC)
See what you think of the use of "PRO TEM" with some other categories that I've just made. Time's almost up for the day. IacobusAmor 14:38, 18 Martii 2011 (UTC)
No problem. And see my comment at Disputatio Categoriae:Londinium fictum. If you're going to develop that area, fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:01, 18 Martii 2011 (UTC)
I'm not developing anything at the moment because the clock has run out! ¶ Working from the ground up, as it were, gets us to Categoria:Loci ficti, rather than Categoria:Loci litterarii, but since the latter is very nearly a highest-order category, maybe its exceptionality is OK. Of course loci litterarii, if it's to be at or near the top of the chain, would have to include carmina, ludi scaenici, operae, pelliculae, etc., whereas loci ficti may more obviously accommodate locations found in nonwritten artforms. ¶ Of course the whole structure, based on fictus (for 'in fiction') might want evaluation. As we can see from an hour's exploration, any sorting by fictional places will set up a vast system of categories! IacobusAmor 15:11, 18 Martii 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't want you to waste your time so I'll just remind you of the need for categories to have four or more members ("members" meaning either pages or sub-categories). Categories which, after a couple of weeks, still have no more than one or two members risk being deleted. If you have this in mind already, enjoy yourself and ignore this intrusion! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:47, 20 Martii 2011 (UTC)
Such a need is not recognized by the major wikis, nor it is recognized at my keyboard. ¶ One notices today, for example, that Vicipaedia has many film-related articles that haven't yet been sorted (especially by their creator, often our Swiss montagnard) into categories for the studios that produced and/or distributed them. The existence of such categories invites such a sorting. Of course articles on films want categories for their directors, locations, etc., too, and everyone is invited to create & populate them! IacobusAmor 14:10, 20 Martii 2011 (UTC)
The major wikis do recognise such a need, and generally place the threshold higher than 4. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:24, 20 Martii 2011 (UTC)
Well, it took only about twenty minutes to find the following—and in the process to prove that there must be many tens of thousands of such entries in the wiki universe: en:Category:People from Wellsville, Kansas (1), en:Category:People from Morris County, Kansas (1), en:Category:People from Stevens County, Kansas (1), en:Category:People from Woodson County, Kansas (2), en:Category:People from Gray County, Kansas (2), en:Category:People from Ness County, Kansas (2), and so on for other counties and probably thousands of other locations in the United States; en:Category:People from Kipling, Saskatchewan (2), and so on, for Canada; en:Category:Fungi described in 1857 (1), en:Category:Plants described in 1772 (1), and so on, probably for each of more than a few years; en:Category:Truffles (1C, 2P); es:Categoría:Dothideomycetes (2); (1); (1); eu:Kategoria:Pezizomycotina (1); pl:Kategoria:Dothideomycetes (1); ka:კატეგორია:პანენთეიზმი (1); (3); (1 or 3, depending on what's counted); (3); es:Categoría:Onygenaceae (3). The catalog for whatever en:Category:Bermuda Triangle is in Urdu seems to have just one entry, and has three. IacobusAmor 17:11, 20 Martii 2011 (UTC)
My aim isn't to dissuade you from developing something systematic: quite the contrary. Just to save you from wasting your time. If you create and populate, you surely won't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:02, 20 Martii 2011 (UTC)
[Drafted before the preceding had appeared:] Even for important, large-scale, higher-order concepts, wikis have categories containing fewer than four entries. Here are most of those that have analogs of en:Category:Iceland and put fewer than four entries in them (one hopes one has copied their sigla correctly, in case anybody wishes to check!): bar:Kategorie:Island (3), hif:Category:Iceland (2), dsb:Kategorija:Islandska (1), hsb:Kategorija:Islandska (1~2), ia:Categoria:Islanda (1), lad:Katēggoría:Islandia (2), ln:Catégorie:Islandi (2), jbo:Category:island (1), kw:Class:Island (3), rw:Category:Isilande (1~2), lg:Category:Isilandi (1), lmo:Categuria:Islanda (3), ms:Kategori:Iceland (3), mn:Ангилал:Исланд (3), pnt:Κατηγορίαν:Ισλανδία (1), rm:Categoria:Islanda (3), kv:Категория:Исландия (1~2), mt:Kategorija:Iżlanda (2~3), na:Category:Iceland (1), tpi:Category:Aislan (1), crh:Kategoriya:İslandiya (1), se:Category:Islánda (1), szl:Kategoria:Islandyjo (2), tk:Kategoriýa:Islandiýa (1), udm:Категория:Исландия (2), vec:Categoria:Islanda (1), wa:Categoreye:Izlande (2), vls:Categorie:Ysland (1), war:Category:Islandya (2), wo:Wàll:Islaand (2), yo:Ẹ̀ka:Íslándì (1); and Hebrew seems to have 2. ¶ Hey, we could perform an experiment! We could go to those wikis and abolish these categories! Would we then be hailed as heroes? or reported as vandals? IacobusAmor 18:13, 20 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Alia res[recensere | fontem recensere]

Something much more interesting. You wrote the article Sostratus Cnidius. Can you remember what source you used? What you say is fuller than en:wiki (which has always been a tiny stub) and differs slightly from de:wiki. Maybe you used the external link: unfortunately that page no longer seems to exist. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:44, 20 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see now. You sensibly transferred some material from en:Lighthouse of Alexandria: it is indeed more relevant at Sostratus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:02, 20 Martii 2011 (UTC)

An essay[recensere | fontem recensere]

Here's a heretical thought. Can a page have too many categories? One reason for reflecting on this was your implied criticism of Helveticus above. With the recent film stubs, Helveticus has been doing something that's better for readers than adding a category for the film directors: he has been making navboxes for the films of each director. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a link? I'm not seeing any boxes in Caecilius B. DeMille. IacobusAmor 10:59, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)
Here's a link: {{Petri Almodóvar pelliculae}}. You can see it in use at Todo sobre mi madre. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine, though its own categories differ from those in Wikipedia ("Films directed by Pedro Almodóvar" and "Spanish film director templates"). IacobusAmor 11:50, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)
Someone is lumping all directores together in a category, ignoring the differences among animation directors, artistic directors, casting directors, festival directors, film directors, film commercial directors, opera directors, radio directors, television directors, theater directors (stage directors), video-game directors, directors of Apple Inc., directors of the CIA, directors of IBM, etc. IacobusAmor 10:59, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)

That method is more trouble for the editor initially -- because navboxes are slightly fiddly to create -- but it's better for the reader, who, with one click, can flip among the films of any director.

It's better for future editors, who can see (via redlinks in the navbox) what if any films still need articles creating, and (with one click from any film page) what other pages remain at stub level and need improving. NB -- this paragraph is not an argument that categories are not needed; on that issue, this paragraph is neutral. It's just making the point that navboxes, in that particular context, are better. Helveticus, on those pages, has made a useful start. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Hooray for Helveticus ! Give him a barnstar ! ;) IacobusAmor 10:59, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)
By all means propose it at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Praemia Vicipaedianis. I'll vote in favour! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:46, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)
I decided to follow up your advice: I've proposed and voted in favour. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)
thank you very much friends!--Helveticus montanus 18:38, 23 Martii 2011 (UTC)

The other reason for this reflection was that I happened to glance yesterday at the page Kalmia latifolia. We have quite a few others that resemble it in the feature I'm about to focus on. On my screen it has four full lines of categories. The English article has five full lines. In stark contrast, the French article has just two categories, the Swedish two, and the Danish three (plus a housekeeping category).Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Wikis in the lesser languages haven't caught up with reality yet. IacobusAmor 10:59, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily saying that those other languages have it covered. What I am saying is that I found it a damn nuisance, trying to find a category that I thought might be there and not quite knowing what letter of the alphabet it would begin with. I couldn't see the wood for the trees :) I think we have far too many categories in that particular area (and saying this I know very well that you have drafted nearly all of them and I have created any you left in your wake). I suspect that future Vicipaedians will delete many of them on the grounds that (a) they get in the way, (b) they take time to maintain, (c) the job they do is better done in various other ways. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)

The world's store of knowledge gets more complex over time. Information burgeons. IacobusAmor 10:59, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)

This might go on to the Taberna, but I've put it to you first because you and I create the great majority of new categories. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)

It's been said before, but can't be said often enough: so much more human computing power—several orders of magnitude more, one expects—has produced the English wikipedia that its structure & state serve as a default. Maybe someday we can produce something better, in some set of articles on some specific topic—but in general at the moment, that's not the way to bet. IacobusAmor 10:59, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if that's your only conclusion. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)
It's the only conclusion to which the pertinent facts lead. IacobusAmor 13:17, 6 Maii 2011 (UTC)

On filmboxes[recensere | fontem recensere]

One is waiting to see the Latin equivalent of a box that would convey such information as, for example:

Infobox Film
| name = The Ten Commandments
| image = TenCommandments1923.jpg
| caption = Theatrical release poster
| director = Cecil B. DeMille
| producer = Cecil B. DeMille
| writer = Jeanie MacPherson
| starring = Theodore Roberts
Charles De Roche
Estelle Taylor
Richard Dix
Julia Faye
Rod La Rocque
| music =
| cinematography = Edward S. Curtis
Bert Glennon
Donald Keyes
J. Peverell Marley
Ray Rennahan
| editing = Anne Bauchens
| distributor = Paramount Pictures
| released = November 23, 1923
| runtime = 136 minutes
| country = {{Film US}}
| language = Silent film
English intertitles
| budget = $1,475,836
| gross = $4,168,790

—not a lesser version of it. IacobusAmor 11:47, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Aliae res[recensere | fontem recensere]

And likewise other templates, as enumerated in taberna: {{Cquote}}, {{Imdb character}}, {{IMDb title}},{{Infobox character}}, {{Infobox musical artist}}, {{Infobox person}}, {{Infobox television}}, {{Infobox writer}}, {{Main}}, {{Multiple image}}, {{Nom}}, {{Official}}, {{Official website}}, {{Pending}}, {{}}, {{Won}}, and even {{Infobox Greek deity}}. IacobusAmor 12:07, 21 Martii 2011 (UTC)

Narcissi etc.[recensere | fontem recensere]

See my comment at Disputatio:Narcissus :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:46, 17 Aprilis 2011 (UTC)

Iosephus Comblin[recensere | fontem recensere]


1000 paginae[recensere | fontem recensere]

Mi Iacobe, what's going on with the 1000 paginae? I see you're making changes in pages that cease to be amongst the "thousand chosen" whereas new ones are being promoted... have the people in charged changed their minds about what is and what is not relevant?--Xaverius 18:41, 5 Maii 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the people running the show changed five of them last December and seven of them in March. Vicipaedia had fallen behind the times, so I was bringing the situation up to date, and the cataloguing of the 1000 pages should be OK now, though not in the (unupdated) lists that Rolandus and (was it) Second Wind prepared. :/ IacobusAmor 19:03, 5 Maii 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks! I was just curious about the reasons behind these alterations to "the 1000"...--Xaverius 12:59, 6 Maii 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the "reasons" are sometimes curious! For example, they deleted Graecia in favor of en:Coordinate systems! A reason given for deleting en:Greece was "We have too many countries (and especially cities) at the moment, and yes the list is very Eurocentric." In general, the recent changes favor mathematics, physics, and similar ("hard") sciences. The twelve newly added articles are: en:Function (mathematics), Probabilitas, Aequatio, en:Coordinate system, Temperatura, Vacuum (a short version of which I've just now added to Vicipaedia), en:Respiration (physiology), Phonema, Syllaba, Lingua Swahili, en:Weak interaction, and en:Strong interaction. IacobusAmor 13:17, 6 Maii 2011 (UTC)

Please don't replace bluelink categories with redlink ones![recensere | fontem recensere]

Maybe you didn't notice, Iacobe, but at Tamesis you deleted bluelink categories and replaced them with new categories that you didn't go on to create, so they remain red. This was a bad thing to do, because bluelink categories can bring people to our pages. Please take care not to do that -- thanks :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 16 Maii 2011 (UTC)

That's true, and I didn't notice. The foray into the British Isles happened because I was following a trail of crumbs to see where it might lead. As might be expected with journeys on unplanned roadways, it eventually led nowhere, or, rather, to unexpected ends. You say, "bluelink categories can bring people to our pages," but an alternate observation is also true: redlink categories can inspire people to write articles! IacobusAmor 17:33, 16 Maii 2011 (UTC)

I should add that I've marked some county-level geographical categories within England "Inops" because they only had one member. I expect your watchlist will tell you which they are. If you're going to create more pages to fill out those categories a bit, OK, my "Inops" tag is unnecessary -- I will joyfully remove it in every case. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 16 Maii 2011 (UTC)

Empty categories might inspire people to write articles to help fill them. ¶ As for the geographical particulars you cite, I'm less interested in those than in the Americas and the Pacific; besides, editors devoted to Europe might want to have a go. IacobusAmor 17:33, 16 Maii 2011 (UTC)

If you're not, it looks to me as if we don't yet have enough geographical articles about England to justify that level of detailed categorisation. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 16 Maii 2011 (UTC)

According to the second (and therefore second-most important) paragraph in VP:CAT,
§ Categoriae insuper editoribus indicant paginas hucusque carentes; e.g. e pagina Categoria:Auctores Anglici caret (die 2 Novembris 2010) pagina Iohannes Masefield. Ergo, nisi pagina de hac auctore imperfecte categorizatur, licet creare.
§ Categories also indicate to editors pages that are currently lacking. For example, the category Auctores Anglici (on 2 Novembris 2010) has no member Iohannes Masefield. So (unless there already is a page on Masefield that is not properly categorised) that page could now be created.
One can reasonably expand on this statement to suggest that red categories are a useful part of the enterprise: they alert writers to areas of knowledge that want development. In one's own experience, that's how dead-tree encyclopedias come into existence: first the outline, and then the text. In the real world, we build the scaffolding before we build the building. By nature, wikis are cart-before-horse contraptions (with individuals often adding articles without thinking of how their texts might fit into a larger whole), but that doesn't mean that editors should desist from planning ahead. ¶ Btw, our Swiss montagnard too has created categories containing only one member, as yourself have done, at least once (sorry, its name isn't extant on my desk). IacobusAmor 17:33, 16 Maii 2011 (UTC)
No need to repeat old explanations (I'll link to them if you can't find them). Please just take this as friendly advice, which of course you're free to ignore: categories with only one member are quite likely to be deleted (yes, it's happened to some of mine). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:38, 16 Maii 2011 (UTC)
And isn't it a shame that we all have to suffer such vandalism! IacobusAmor 10:53, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)
No, to be serious, we're submitting our work to others' judgment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:36, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)
I thought it just worth adding this: I think I see what you want to do, I think you want to lay out a direction for the future. But I believe that no one on any of the other 270-odd wikis uses categories for this purpose. If we reflect on this, we might look for a reason, and it might be that categories, because of their structure and the general wiki architecture, are not specially suitable for this purpose. Again, I'll link to my older explanations to you of how categories work if it would be useful. But my real point is a positive one. On other wikis (including en:wiki) this kind of planning is indeed done, but not using categories. It's done using projects. On project pages people can lay out lists of future pages, and groups and classifications of future pages; on the attached talk pages people can discuss the priorities, the pagenames, the grouping, etc. Cf. your listing and classification of most-needed pages about the Roman Empire. That is a method that really works, and might be worth your considering. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)
A good idea, except that almost everything in the whole of Vicipaedia would need projects to be put in order, and not enough hands are on deck. (Perhaps one or two small-scale concepts have been well managed so far; e.g., the one including "insignificant hamlets of Italy" and the one dealing with asteroides.) The only practical alternative is to follow the design of the most thoroughly designed wiki. For example, for someone to write an article on Tombstone and then to assign it to a promiscuous category, Urbes, instead of going to Wikipedia and seeing that it ideally belongs in several categories, not just "Cities in Arizona," but probably also "Populated places established in 1879," "Populated places in Cochise County, Arizona," "American Old West," "American folklore," and "Cochise County conflict," is not to finish the job. In that regard, of articles already begun, Aucopolis, Gainesopolis, and Marina Del Rey don't rightly belong in Urbes, and they never did. IacobusAmor 10:53, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)
I only began this because I don't like to see you, or anyone, waste their work. It's your choice! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:30, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)
The waster would not be the writer: it would be the deleter. And if the threatened deletions were to occur & stand (until of course the deleted items were recreated, perhaps by bots, in the foreseeable but undatable future), the aptest practical response might be to refrain from creating precisely calibrated categories. Let's try that for a while and see how it goes. IacobusAmor 11:53, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)
You already know that we don't agree on whether en:wiki offers a good design to follow. In some ways yes, in some ways no, is my view. Happy editing :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:30, 17 Maii 2011 (UTC)

1000 paginae[recensere | fontem recensere]

I'm glad you noticed about Dellium. I'm wondering whether you have the inclination (and time) to improve that page further. If you do, I think I'll work meanwhile to get Athenae and Roma up to 30,000. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 20 Maii 2011 (UTC)

Vincentius Bertolone[recensere | fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime Iacobe, quomodo te habes? Parvam et rapidam relecturam istae paginae tibi peto. Tibi gratias ago.

Rex Momo 10:14, 23 Maii 2011 (UTC)

Follis Volatilis[recensere | fontem recensere]

Iacobus, hi. Look, I see articles like LOOM and aikido with so many mistakes. How come the Follis Volatillis attracts your attention to the point that it deserves a -2? Honestly is the latin of the article that bad in you opinion?--Jondel 12:46, 23 Maii 2011 (UTC) Also, why the dubius at cludent? It is supposed to say Three members block lest the ball falls in their field.--Jondel 12:49, 23 Maii 2011 (UTC)

In some quarters, that's faulty grammar, for which the subjunctive remains correct: "Three members block lest the ball fall in[to] their field." (British English, but not American English, may be well on its way to losing this distinction.) The usual English terms for the area defended by a team in a ballgame that uses a net are court and perhaps side, not field. Any text that uses capites and capitorum is probably to be ranked –3 or worse; maybe the changes brought it up to –2? Cludent is future tense, not present, and it's transitive, not intransitive (it wants a direct object); maybe better occludunt (with a direct object)? or yet better obstruunt or something else? IacobusAmor 14:21, 23 Maii 2011 (UTC)
I see now my mistakes and I don't know if I was being too blunt and rude, for that I apologize. I regret using cludent which should be cludunt. Let me voice out that there just seems to be other articles with so many mistakes and mine seems get the heat. --Jondel 15:07, 23 Maii 2011 (UTC)
No, this article was not singled out because you exist: it turned up in a search for the (non)word capites. See this edit-history:
14:29, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Follis volatilis ‎ (capites--->capita + capitorum--->capitum)
14:21, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Dioecesis Massensis-Apuana ‎ (capites--->capita)
14:19, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Medius Campidanus ‎ (capites--->capita)
14:18, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Oleastra (provincia) ‎ (capites--->capita)
14:17, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Carbonia-Ecclesia ‎ (capites--->capita)
14:16, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Olbia-Templum ‎ (capites--->capita + cum 2 municipia--->cum duobus municipiis)
14:12, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Meloneus ‎ (capitem--->caput)
14:09, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Caput Ursi ‎ (capitem--->caput)
14:09, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Caput Albulum ‎ (capitem--->caput)
14:08, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Caput Histriae ‎ (capitem--->caput)
14:08, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Caput Borreanum ‎ (capitem--->caput)
14:07, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Caput Liberum ‎ (capitem--->caput)
14:06, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Caput Silvae ‎ (capitem--->caput)
14:06, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Motus Libycus anni 2011 ‎ (capitem--->caput)
14:05, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Gens Marcia ‎ (capitem--->caput)
14:02, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Daniel (rex Rutheniae) ‎ (capitem--->caput)
14:00, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Stavanger ‎ (capitem--->caput)
13:59, 22 Maii 2011 (diss | hist) m Kick-boxing ‎ (capitem--->caput)
See? IacobusAmor 14:17, 24 Maii 2011 (UTC)
Anyway. Obstruunt is fine and will be changed as such but really it shouldnt be such a big deal. Campus should really be acceptable since it is not only for agriculture but games and exercise as well, but let us change it to side(latus, latum acc)ok ?. Court (cors? for games) doesn't sound right but latus should be good enough. Thank you for your patience.--Jondel 15:07, 23 Maii 2011 (UTC)
As a metaphor, campus might be OK; on the gender & declension of latus, see the remarks below; Cassell's suggests area for 'courtyard' and 'playground'. Maybe a Renaissance text dealing with tennis, a game with a similarly defined playing-space, will be found to attest an appropriate Latin term. IacobusAmor 14:17, 24 Maii 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether latus gives the meaning you want, but better note that it's neuter 3rd decl. (nominative and accusative latus, genitive lateris). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:14, 23 Maii 2011 (UTC)

Iacobus, please accept my apologies. I didn't realize you were fine combing the grammar. The latinatas are good markers to allow editors to go back and fine tune. I was so upset I upload uncheck articles(de la salle and la salle brothers) thinking what's the use if I try to perfect the grammar? It would good a latinatas anyway. I noted about latus, and will change to area. Best regards and keep up the good work!--Jondel 12:51, 26 Maii 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain ...[recensere | fontem recensere]

the difference between Categoria:Categoriae ex conformationibus terrestribus appellatae and Categoria:Conformationes terrestres? It seems to me their subcategories should be the same; similarly for the more detailed categories that have analogous names. I have looked on en:wiki, and I find just the same questions being asked on the talk pages there (see e.g. en:Category talk:Categories named after landforms), and I haven't yet found anyone answering them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:44, 23 Maii 2011 (UTC)

One would seem to treat natural features, and the other would seem to treat categories. IacobusAmor 15:15, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think I agree. But I don't quite see why we would want categories that "treat categories".
But, anyway, the only other comment on this is on UV's talk page and he doesn't speak for or against. So, fine, if you're prepared to create and populate these categories, I have no further objection! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:04, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)

I moved ...[recensere | fontem recensere]

...your question about the "Convertimus" formula to Disputatio Formulae:Convertimus. Hope that's OK. Please look in there -- maybe you can suggest a better phrasing. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:11, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)

I removed ...[recensere | fontem recensere]

... all but one of the footnotes from Anemone blanda. They appeared to be intended satirically, is that right? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:46, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not right. They illustrated problems of attribition when facts must be borrowed from multiple wikis, and not always as translations. Since there's no single source, you can't rightly add a single "convertimus." IacobusAmor 15:08, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I've now noticed your comment on this (at Disputatio Formulae:Convertimus) and moved it to the Taberna, where it seems relevant. I've added a link to the "Anemone blanda" page in the form in which you created it. But I don't know who has proposed that kind of sourcing -- not I. [I have now added a comment on the Taberna to clarify that.] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)

About Carthago[recensere | fontem recensere]

I had a couple of comments on this which I thought I'd put on your talk page:

The obvious answer is that Categoria:Carthago was based on the more usual form of the word (according to Cassell's), and that category was then found to be in conflict with a category already in existence as Categoria:Karthago, accommodating Vicipaedia's preferred lemma, Karthago.

First, I don't like "obvious" much. It isn't Pantocrator's job, or mine, to interpret your thoughts, and Cassell's isn't an obvious or authoritative source on this issue.

Second, I had thought that when you created a category duplicating an existing one, you were doing it out of carelessness.Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:09, 14 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

It was created because it seemed the obvious category to be created. Then it was discovered to duplicate a previously (and perhaps wrongly?) created category. IacobusAmor 19:58, 14 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

If, as I understand you to say here, you're doing it intentionally, Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:09, 14 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

It was created because it seemed the obvious category to be created. Then it was discovered to duplicate a previously (and perhaps wrongly?) created category. IacobusAmor 19:58, 14 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to suppose it's wrong. The page has been headed Karthago for a long time, it is certainly an acceptable spelling, and no one's disputed it.
Incidentally, thanks very much for adding interwikis for the category, a thing that no one had done before :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:09, 14 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

please don't do it again. It creates work for others. The proper way is to point out the need for change on a disputatio page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:09, 14 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Since the existence of the problematically spelled category wasn't suspected, it wasn't searched for, and the "proper way" to proceed was to proceed. IacobusAmor 19:58, 14 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
I see. That makes much more sense. However, if one doesn't find the expected category at the expected place, one would be well advised to make a second check by looking for the obvious page about the topic (i.e. Carthage) to see how it is categorised. That way, you would have found the required category and would have saved (some) time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:09, 14 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

The advantage of that to you is that your new title is more likely to be retained when you've explained the reason for it. If you don't give any reason, it's more likely to be deleted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:09, 14 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

One of them probably should have been deleted. Welcome back! Are you enjoying Nuada's new categories? IacobusAmor 19:58, 14 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
Not fully back yet, but thanks for the welcome anyway! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:15, 14 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Sanctuarium Nostrae Dominae Custodis Derthonae[recensere | fontem recensere]

Vale, carissime amice, quomodo te habes? Please, can you correct this page that I've made now? Thank you very mauch for your help! Rex Momo 09:18, 17 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Australia[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hello. I don't know Latin so I hope you can help me. You reverted my edits to Australia saying that Respublica in "Respublica Australiana" means commonwealth. However, this seems to be a misleading translation. Commonwealth is sometimes synonymous with republic but it has no connections with republicanism in the case of Australia. "The Commonwealth of Nations" is translated as "Consortio Populorum". Sureley there's a better translation for "the Commonwealth of Australia"? Mclay1 16:28, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

1. See the definition in the English Wikipedia: "Res publica is a Latin phrase, loosely meaning "public issue" or "public matter". It is the root of the word republic, and the word commonwealth has traditionally been used as a synonym for it." (So respublica = commonwealth.)
2. In your language, the most famous commonwealth is the Cromwellian one. It called itself a respublica. For example, in Defensio Pro Populo Anglicano, Ioannes Miltonus speaks of summi in republica nostra viri (= 'the most important men of our Commonwealth'); likewise in letters of state also written by him.
3. For the Cromwellian commonwealth, the equivalence of respublica and commonwealth is attested in later publications; for example, in 1787 in the title of Prestwich's Respublica: Or A Display Of The Honors, Ceremonies And Ensigns Of The Common Wealth ([1]).
4. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has long been attested in Latin on Harvard University's diplomas as Respublica Massachusettensium (litteratim VNIVERSITAS HARVARDIANA CANTABRIGIAE IN REPVBLICA MASSACHVSETTENSIVM).
¶ The English word republic eludes precise definition—as its etymology predicts and the first few paragraphs of Wikipedia's article show. Furthermore, one might argue, with tongue not entirely in cheek, that, in the broadest English sense, Australia is already effectively a republic: the queen hasn't done any notable governing there since the constitutional crisis of 1975. IacobusAmor 17:16, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
I noticed Mclay1's edit (there had been no revert at that point) and commented on the Disputatio:Australia page. It may make more sense to continue the discussion there. Mclay1 is surely right thus far, that we mustn't call it "Respublica Australiana" without a source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:39, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
We may. The principle of noli fingere doesn't prohibit this sort of translation. IacobusAmor 19:24, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
We could temporarily say "Respublica Australiana" with a convertimus tag, but we face the problem that "Respublica" has several equivalents in English, and the difference between them is quite clearly contentious. I suggest you think again, Iacobe. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:39, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)
"The Commonwealth of Australia, the word is the exact equivalent of the Roman Respublica—otherwise our modern republic" (Sydney Morning Herald, 3 Aprilis 1891). IacobusAmor 19:24, 21 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Chemistry Project[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve! I've just started to substantially edit Vikipaedia and have noticed that the coverage of most chemical elements are lacking at best. I posted here that I was interested in starting a Chemistry Project, but other users said that it would be more effective to just have dicussions on a user talk page. They also said that you and User:Rafaelgarcia are frequent editors in the chemistry portal. If you would like to help me expand on the information in the chemistry portal (specifically the elements) visit my talk page where I also invited Rafaelgarcia. Gratias ago. Cbrick77 15:16, 31 Iulii 2011 (UTC)

Chemical terms sometimes appear in texts I happen to contribute, but they're not at the forefront of my concerns. Vicipaedia needs work in that area. If you can do it, more power to you! IacobusAmor 14:45, 7 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

I was looking ...[recensere | fontem recensere]

among pages you've written recently, intending to suggest one as a pagina mensis. Because you start so many pages of all lengths, I couldn't immediately identify a longish, fullish one. But I know they are there, lurking. Would you care to suggest one or two yourself? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:26, 7 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the article about the world's largest butterfly! I've started it offline and hope to post it this morning. Maybe I'll leave a few sentences untranslated & hidden, for others to have a go. Alternatively, somebody might like to do Hyalophora cecropia, North America's largest moth, but that's not on my agenda. Wikipedia's article on the largest European moth, Saturnia pyri, is disappointingly short in English, but has more text in German and better photos in German & French, but again that's for someone else to try (at the moment). These and a few other papilio articles have colorful illustrations, and the creatures' status as the largest or most vivid of their kind might attract visitors. In general, the Pagina Mensis hasn't included many creatures from the natural world. Fishes & flowers too would offer colorful illustrations. ¶ The recently contributed articles have different lengths because they're paragraph for paragraph what's in the English Wikipedia. Usually when I omit something that's there, I add the hidden comment "PLUS IN EN:." IacobusAmor 12:15, 7 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
Ecce Ornithoptera alexandrae‎. IacobusAmor 14:45, 7 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I missed this comment till now. I have suggested it as a pagina mensis and AMahoney proposes November. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:11, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

De insectis[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve, Iacobe! I haven't much (or at all) followed discussions on butterflies or other bugs, because I can't boast on any expertise or interest in them. When looking into Ornithoptera croesus to which you directed my attention, a few general questions, more general than those relating to your translation of Wallace's remarks, crop up. ¶ You're treating the word ornithoptera as a feminine singular. Do you know why it is feminine, not masculine (ornithopterus), though a natural headword would be papilio. i.e. papilio ornithopterus 'a bird-winged butterfly'? ¶ O. croesus, o. priamus: Though these are obviously proper names, they're not being treated as such (having, as they do, small initials), which may mar cultural historical references. Do small initials belong to the syntax of binominals? Why? ¶ I don't understand, why it is o. alexandrae but o. aesacus and o. priamus. Why are aesacus and priamus indeclinable? I know this is not your fault, but I find this rather annoying. (Too many cooks spoiling the broth?) ¶ I left these issues untouched, when I tried to tamper with your translation. There were a couple of syntactic constructions in it that needed rewriting. Best, Martinus (Neander 20:14, 8 Septembris 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for the queries. The questions addressed in order: ¶ In Linnaean taxonomy, genus-names, being the fundamental designations of plants & animals, are singular, so this Ornithoptera (genus) has to be singular (and therefore because of its morphology, probably feminine). Names above the genus-level are plural, so the common term ornithoptera (Anglice birdwings, butterflies of genera Ornithoptera (genus), Trogonoptera, and Troides), like the standard term Lepidoptera, have to be plural (and therefore because of their morphology, probably neuter). ¶ The naming of plants & animals, like the naming of asteroids and other things rigorously classified by science, is governed by officially constituted bodies, which exercise authority within their fields. The capitalization of species epithets used to vary according to whether the names were proper or common; but at some time (or various times) in the twentieth century, the bodies that exercise authority in this matter decreed that all of them would be lowercased. It wouldn't be surprising if the reason wasn't that certain scientists and their secretaries & typesetters, ignorant of Latin, history, and mythology, wouldn't know what to do with a word that looked like aesacus. ¶ Whether the species epithet is a noun in apposition or a noun in the genitive (or an adjective) is up to the person who names the taxon. I've read somewhere that a few names at several taxonomic ranks are widely acknowledged to be infelicitous, or even misspellings, but since the rule is that the first formally published name stands, there's nothing anybody can do about them. For example, the preferred spelling of a famous genus is Crocodylus, but the preferred spelling of the order based on it is Crocodilia. As Wikipedia says: "The use of -y- in the scientific name Crocodylus (and forms derived from it) is a corruption introduced by Laurenti (1768)." (See also the comment below.) ¶ Thanks for leaving these issues untouched; occasionally, though, you may have changed a technical term into something else (see Mactridae). Even where scientific uses are nonclassical, the world respects them. IacobusAmor 13:01, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
A scholary taxonomic blunder that just came into view is Acronicta atristrigatus. As the species epithets americana, brumosa, cinerea, digna, sagittata, and others plainly show, the genus-name Acronicta is feminine; but there's that atristrigatus, looking as masculine as can be! IacobusAmor 15:20, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, Iacobe! Most of those things so nicely explained by you were totally beyond my knowledge. That scientific terminology is or should be highly standardised is a matter of course, but what has perhaps blurred my insight is that, every now and then, as it seems, good Latinity has to yield to the law of first occurrence (which may involve a slippery slope especially wrt that kind of Latinity that Vicipaedia officially professes to promote). [Somehow this brings to my mind what a friend of mine from the classics dept told me a couple of days ago: She had a call from an advertisement bureau, and the caller asked whether it's correct to say opus magnus. Having heard that opus magnum is the proper expression, the caller concluded that, still, maybe it's better to say opus magnus because it sounds better.] ¶ If — by way of a curious markedness reversal — some of my bona fide corrections to Mactridae were incorrect in the world of Naturwissenschaften, feel free to re-incorrect them back. :-) I shrink from the thought of being like an elephant in a china shop! Thanks again for those explanations! Neander 16:18, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
I would agree that we should follow, almost unquestioned, the rules for the naming of taxa. I think we are really very lucky that in this area there is an authority, maintaining and encouraging the use of Latin, even if its decisions are not the ones we would have made. The wonderful result is that whenever we want to write a page about a species or higher taxon, we always have a reliable name for it. No other language has this!
When it comes to the text of such articles, I guess there may often be creative dispute between the way a botanist would write and the way a classicist would write. There, I'd say, all bets are off, but we should surely aim closer to Cicero (and Pliny) than Linnaeus did! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:27, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
If any sort of morphological (or even dyslectic?) error is consecrated by the law of first occurrence (witness Acrinicta atristrigatus), one's belief in the self-correcting power of science is put to test. The book on Botanical Latin by William T.Stearn [which I haven't seen] has been characterised as "a bible for botanists", but if bibles like this have no normative power over the the principle of first occurrence, one begins to wonder ... Anyway, I hope Stearn's bible fares better than this catechism I run across in my internet adventures. Under the title "A few simple rules", it states that "Generally the masculine ending is -um, the feminine ending is -a and the neuter ending is -us". Lux populo! ¶ Because I may be unable to distinguish grammatical errors from professionalistic idiosyncracies (witness solum vs substratum in Mactridae), the best service I can do for the trade is to keep off from zoology and botany — things I have no understanding of. Neander 12:36, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
No! no! no! Please continue to venture among the plants & animals! They will thank you for it! Others will watch out for scientific idioms. ¶ As for Stearn, the coeditor of my encyclopedia knew him and affirms that he was a nice man! It isn't Stearn's book that authorizes the spellings of botanical Latin. That honor/duty falls to the International Botanical Congress. See more on Stearn in the new section below. ¶ As for substratum, Merriam-Webster assures us it's an attested medieval term, and the prime sense of its English derivative, substrate (first used in 1810), is "the base on which an organism lives" (h.e., not necessarily the ground); also, the Latinate English word substratum was first used in 1631. In the article in question, we're referring to the seabed, so your implied sense of solum was solum maris. Is that OK? IacobusAmor 13:30, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
I'd say solum is OK here (witness Ovidii Metamorphoses 4.298-9; Seneca, Agamemnon 475; Curtius Rufus 3.4.8; etc.) In fact, the polysemic structures of solum and modern Latin substratum overlap to a degree. Nonetheless, I now think that substratum is a useful technical term in scientific texts. Maybe I was temporarily struck by syndrome überclassica. :-) Neander 18:20, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with your conclusion here! Accept the names of taxa as proper names (indeed, the names of genera and species are normally italicised to help us do this). But Latin text is Latin text, and it requires your friendly severity, Neander, when it's bad Latin text.
I don't dispute Iacobus's example, but quite a few other species names have been officially adjusted because they were ungrammatical. I'm afraid that some botanists fail to study their Bible.
I bought my copy of Stearn second-hand at Heffer's in Cambridge in 1970 (it has been my lifelong practice to buy grammars and dictionaries of all languages when cheap). This one cost me £2 12s. 6d., which was a lot. My purchase angered a botanist friend, who argued insistently that I would never use the book, and should have left it for someone who would. Well, I used it heavily when I needed to understand fully the structure of Latin taxon names for my Food A to Z in 2003 ... a mere 33 years after I bought the book! If you encounter a copy, Neander, I recommend it as bedside reading. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:08, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
Having now begun to check (because my experience has been different from Iacobus's on this point) I do gently dispute his example. "Acrinicta atristrigatus" is not often found in the wild on the Internet (though it is listed, like some other things of uncertain validity, in the English Wikipedia). I suspect the species may have been renamed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
I took my point from Wikipedia; as you say, some exceptions may have been made, but looking for them is beyond my powers this morning. IacobusAmor 14:04, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
In the A to Z I indexed nearly 1000 species names (deliberately using the old-fashioned capitalization, incidentally, as I explained in the preface), and I did not come across even one that was officially accepted and ungrammatical. That's what I mean when I say that my experience has been different from Iacobus's. But I fully agree with him about the three possible patterns, all equally acceptable: Genus plus adjective in correct agreement; genus plus noun in apposition; genus plus noun in the genitive. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

Something I don't understand ...[recensere | fontem recensere]

... is the difference between Categoria:Personae Shakesperianae in zoologia and Categoria:Animalia ex personis Shakesperianis appellata. They seem to have the same contents, listed in the same order. And surely they always would, wouldn't they? So I'd propose merging them, but I wanted to ask you first, because I felt you must have some reason for creating the two, which I can't yet see :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. It must have been conceived to be placed in the articles for the characters themselves, where the contents would indeed differ from those had it been placed in the articles for the animals named for them. IacobusAmor 15:25, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I get it now. Well, I might write one or two of those Shakespearian character articles anyway. If I do, then it can be used as you originally planned! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:58, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. These categories may still need rethinking. "Categoria:Personae Shakesperianae in zoologia" is currently a subset of: "Animalia | Ars acroamatica | Categoriae eponymae | Gulielmus Shakesperius | Ludi scaenici | Taxinomia | Theatrum" ; whereas "Categoria:Animalia ex personis Shakesperianis appellata" is a subset of "Animalia ex dramatis personis appellata | Gulielmus Shakesperius." Because of your query, I refrained from adding Acronicta perdita to the former category yesterday. Should the rest of those articles be removed from "Categoria:Personae Shakesperianae in zoologia" then? Or should Perdita be added, the differential hierarchies be left standing, and yet another category be created for your new articles? Or what? The English Wikipedia seems not to have considered any of these questions, so we're caeci volantes here, so to speak! IacobusAmor 11:42, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
Looking at what's true (which, admittedly, is not necessarily a wikipedia concept!), those species really are "Animalia"; they really are not "Personae". So I think we agree that they really belong in a category called "Animalia ...", not in the other one. Anyway, there is no point in having two categories of identical content; if "Animalia ..." lacks some appropriate supercategories, they can simply be added to it.
When that's done, I think the articles for species should be removed from the "Personae ..." category. I'll write an article about Romeo today, and he can go in it, as a start. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:04, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
By all means! IacobusAmor 13:30, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

Stearn on botanical Latin[recensere | fontem recensere]

For the record, here's Stearn's definition of botanical Latin (from the 1983 edition, pp. 6–7): it's "a modern Romance language of special technical application, derived from Renaissance Latin with much plundering of ancient Greek, which has evolved, mainly since 1700 and primarily through the work of Carl Linnaeus (1707–78), to serve as an international medium for the scientific naming of plants in all their vast numbers and manifold diversity." A further comment by Stearn (p. 11) may be worth putting into the record here:

The relation of botanical Latin to classical Latin is that of a former dependency[,] which by vigorous economic growth over many years has established traditions and divergencies arising out of its special conditions and history that must be accepted, if need be, by proclaiming its status as a language in its own right. From this it follows that there is no good reason to change under pretence of reform the standard spellings and procedures of Latin as used by botanists to make them conform to those of classical Latin. The latter are indeed to be rejected as archaic and incorrect in botanical Latin. Thus acris (m.), palustris (m.), laevis, laevigatus, annulus, bacca and sylva, for example, are correct in botanical Latin, acer (m.), paluster (m.), levis, levigatus, anulus, baca and silva preferable in classical Latin.

That's not to say that Vicipaedia, since it isn't cast in botanical Latin, can't follow classical style as much as it likes, except of course when it's quoting a botanical source. IacobusAmor 13:30, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

Stearn on bad spellings & grammar[recensere | fontem recensere]

Stearn (p. 13) deprecated bad Latin:

Reviewing David Don's Prodromus Florae Nepalensis (1825), John Lindley said it is 'written in so strange a language, that we can scarcely guess its name, unless, indeed, it be a specimen of some new kind of Latin which may be written "with great facility, after three lessons of an hour each", without the incumbrance of previous education' (Bot. Reg., 11 : sub t.872: 1825). Don's work is, however, polished by comparison with some descriptions published in 1962 in which herbae lignae inferior ; ramuli annulares ; ramuli radicantes tangentes terra ; dens laterales clarissimae ; radix superioris is supposed to mean, according to its author, 'herbs woody at soil level ; branches annual ; branches rooting in contact with the soil ; lateral teeth distinctly subtending ; radicle superior', and frutices roundatei, 1/3 lignei ad monei ligneilaminae linearis ad oblanceolatebracteae fructeae pedicelles ad 4 mm., ovoidales, cum 4 pennis 'rounded shrubs, the lower 1/3 woody to woody throughout ; blades linear to oblanceolate ; fruiting bracts on pedicels to 4 mm. long, ovoid, bearing 4 wings'! The plants to which these words refer are members of a family which received much attention from Moquin-Tandon, Fenzl and Bunge among others. Study of descriptions by his learned predecessors would have helped the author to make his own descriptions more in keeping with the need of science for intelligibility and accuracy.

Heh. IacobusAmor 13:47, 30 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

Stipulae[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve tu quoque, Iacobe! My quick writeup on stipulae is at Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_17#Nova_stipula_desiderata -- if you want to give it a try, we can find out whether the instructions are adequate, and perhaps then move towards turning them into actual documentation some time (in Latin, naturally). It wasn't all that hard: just copying from existing examples and changing whatever applied to the old animals to refer to the new ones! A. Mahoney 18:48, 2 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I may try it tonight. (Have to go now.) It's a matter of regret that I didn't do something similar when I started on the Lepidoptera, since scores of them are now fluttering around our pages (including the current pagina mensis), but they've been made to consort promiscuously with the other Insecta. At least the Lumpers among us will be happy. :/ IacobusAmor 18:55, 2 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

Ara Flumen[recensere | fontem recensere]

verifing the name in latin 11.11.11 Hey Iacobe! I have found this name in "de:Prümer Urbar" 893 a.c. (only in german Wikipedia) There are some villages called "ad aram". ¶ I have asked also our [ ... ? ] ¶ the nominative is "ara" ¶ May be you can help me: How can I connect the wiki commons from de: AHR to the latin version Guido Galle ¶ User buergerverein or bewahrerderwerte

I happened to see this first. I am not sure if I understood the question, but I have linked the Commons page from ours, and also our page from the Commons. Hope that solves the problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:56, 12 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Blair, Resurrected? Zombie?[recensere | fontem recensere]

Hi Iacobus, I hope you are fine. Please don't get too peeved with the classificanda affair, you know it is my works that get screwed or undermined.The truth is I admire your works like Cultura which is awesome. I accept th -2 ratings. On another note, I couldn't help notice you like to use "mortuus fuit" instead of the standard "mortuus est". Is he resurrected like Lazarus and Jesus? A zombie? Best regards and hope you have fun editing with Latin! :)Jondel 10:09, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

Echinodermata[recensere | fontem recensere]

Salve, Iacobe -- formulam novam tuam perpulchram iam vidi; tibi gratulor. A. Mahoney 18:03, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

Caribicum as a noun?[recensere | fontem recensere]

Some of those category names you've essayed today seem to use "Caribicum -i" as a noun. Am I correct? It looks strange and obscure to me. Would it maybe be better to use "Insulae Caribicae" or "Mare Caribicum" as some existing categories do? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:59, 9 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

It's an adjective. I was thinking of arbores [maris] Caribici. Or perhaps it could be arbores [regionis] Caribicae. Suppressing the noun is on the model whereby the Oecozona Palaearctica is usually called just the Palaearctica and the Oceanus Pacificus is often called the Pacificus. If this isn't OK, a noun could be spelled out. If so, the most appropriate noun might be subbioregio aut sub-bioregio, quae est pars bioregionis Neotropicae secundum WWF; aliter, Maris Caribicum non videtur oecozona sui generis. IacobusAmor 12:56, 10 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
However, since the higher-level category Flora insularum Caribicarum has already been established, let's make Arbores insularum Caribicarum parallel with it. Of course these formulations will be excluding the pelagic flora of the Caribbean, if any exist; seaweeds come to mind, but those are algae, which don't count as flora, or do they? IacobusAmor 13:09, 10 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether they do or not! I leave that to the author of so many articles on biota ... Yes, thanks for your thoughts, I feel that specifying a noun will make things clearer -- especially since category names sometimes have to be read without a surrounding context. But you are evidently right that neither "mare" nor "insulae" covers the whole required sense. I would be very happy with "regio", for example. If you so decide, we could change existing category names to match. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:15, 10 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Virides et virentes in Policino[recensere | fontem recensere]

Ave. Viridis et virens mihi sunt dissimiles; viridis is green and virens is greenish, ita differunt in descriptionem progressus Policini. Dum tuam commentationem non intellego, quaeso explicare potest? Sorry. --Achillus 15:06, 15 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Secundum Cassell's, viridis est 'green, grass-green, pea-green, sea-green', et virens etiam est 'green' (et 'vigorous, fresh'). Nomen adiectivum sempervirens est 'evergreen', non 'evergreenish'. Sed secundum Strearn's Botanical Latin, "Virens, virescens, viridulus, viridescens, are shades of [green]." Ergo, fortasse virens est OK. Si autem requiris verbum pro 'light' in locutione 'light green' (et 'light blue,' etc.), Stearn nobis verba dilutus et pallidus dat. IacobusAmor 15:25, 15 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago. Et pro dark? By the way, greenish is not dark green... --Achillus 15:54, 15 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Secundum Stearn, atro- 'dark' et per- 'deep'; ergo, atroviridis = 'dark green' et perviridis = 'deep green'. IacobusAmor 17:26, 15 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Intellecta. Gratias ago. Dum quid nomen praeferitur pro greenish? 'subviridis' est suggestio nova. --Achillus 14:08, 17 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

"Wikisource" formula[recensere | fontem recensere]

I notice you sometimes transfer the "wikisource" template unchanged when translating an English page. I don't think it will ever be usable on Vicipaedia as it stands, and I don't think it can be adapted, because it depends on the name of the English page (not the name of the Latin one). If you want to refer to the English wikisource on our pages, it can be done, but not using this template: you would have to verify the name of the Wikisource page and then insert a link to it. I've done this on the Ioannes Zoffany page, and if you want, I'll explain exactly how it's done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:12, 15 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Now you're confusing me. In taking these things over from the English wiki, you or some other knowledgeable party once advised us to borrow the template intact (of course turning the command into Latin, according to whatever command-formula has been adopted here), but after a pipe to add the Latin equivalent of the English title (in the accusative, since it's going to be the object of a verb). So just now I've created Categoria:Eumeninae with an item at the top that in Wikipedia was
{{Commons cat|potter wasp}}
but in Vicipaedia is now
{{CommuniaCat|potter wasp|Eumeninas}}
and as you see, it still "depends on the name of the English page," but is printing appropriately anyway. Is the wikisource template uniquely different? IacobusAmor 16:27, 16 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see this till now. My fault. Might as well answer now, in case it's useful. The answer is, the advice that you cite works fine with Commons because Commons is a multilingual project, not separated out by language. What I was talking about above was Wikisource, and, unfortunately, there's a different Wikisource for each language. That means that the method you learned with Commons will not work with Wikisource (or with Wiktionary, or with Wikiquote). Bad luck. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:36, 15 Iulii 2012 (UTC)