Usor:IacobusAmor/Disputata anni 2012

    E Vicipaedia

    Thank you[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Thank you, IacobusAmor, for your work on the page Santorum. Your encyclopedic contributions add value to the project. Cheers, Cirt 19:53, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

    argumentum vs. thema[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Hey Iacobe, I'm a bit doubtful of your changing 'thema' to 'argumentum' in our Harry Potter page. While the section Actio deals with what happens in the books (this, in my opinion, should actually be renamed Argumentum, but that's beside the point), the section that used to be called Thema, now Argumentum, deals with the books' themes. I've always seen argumentum being used in reference to plot, as in argumentum dramatis &c., which seems to make the whole thing a bit confusing. Thema is the best word I could find that obviously dealt with themes. Qua igitur ratione haec mutavisti? Mattie 23:57, 30 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

    Thema is probably OK (and of course you're free to revert it), but Cassell's tells English-speakers to translate theme as res, propositio, propositum, id quod propositum est, quaestio, id quod quaerimus, institutum, and argumentum. IacobusAmor 00:04, 31 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
    Hmm, these mostly look like theme as in an essay's theme, more than a novel's; then argumentum looks more like plot. So I'll revert it. Thanks for the quick answer! Mattie 00:07, 31 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

    New weights[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Have you seen the prototype new-weights table, here? We'd be 38th (and Catalan would actually fall to second). Looks good to me! A. Mahoney 13:13, 3 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

    State universities[recensere | fontem recensere]

    See my comment at Disputatio:Universitas Civica Kansiensis, and please feel free to move again if you think best! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:03, 3 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

    Portalboxes[recensere | fontem recensere]

    NB -- This discussion began at Disputatio Formulae:Capsa hominis. Since that formula is being merged, it seemed to make sense to move this here: is that OK? I'll tell Robert this is where it is. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:35, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

    The English wiki has some portalboxes (or whatever they're called) that seem unable to be imported as they stand. For example, in en:Pontus (mythology), see the box coded merely as {{Greek myth}}, nine letters and a space, elements that together generate the following data, albeit inside a box and much more nicely formatted, with links for all the nouns (I've added boldface for clarity here, but the typography is automatically set in the original):

    Topics in Greek mythology
    Primordial gods and Titans
    Zeus and the Olympians
    Pan and the nymphs
    Apollo and Dionysus
    Sea-gods and Earth-gods
    Heracles and his Labors
    Achilles and the Trojan War
    Odysseus and the Odyssey
    Jason and the Argonauts
    Perseus and Medusa/Gorgon
    Oedipus and Thebes
    Theseus and the Minotaur
    Triptolemus and the
    Eleusinian Mysteries
    Satyrs, centaurs and dragons
    Religion in Ancient Greece
    Greek mythology portal

    Howsoever it's done, it can't be imported into other wikis without additional effort. The compression of the coding is presumably considered a virtue over there in Wikipedia; but until more programming is done here and elsewhere outside the English wiki, it doesn't help other wikipedias, at all. Or does some preexisting (but not generally known) link to these portals permit the desired importation? IacobusAmor 15:57, 10 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

    It's only a formula, and it seems to carry over quite easily. If you want it, though, we'd need translations for all the terms that appear. You can go ahead and play with this one, and when you're done, copy the result to Formula:Mythologia Graeca. So the only thing remaining would be to define Porta:Mythologia Graeca. Do we have portals, though? --Robert.Baruch 02:11, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
    Res in mythologia Graeca
    Res cognatae

    Portal-puzzle.svgPorta mythologiae Graecae
    We have one: Porta:Antiquitas posterior, set up by Xaverius. I've always felt I wanted to get more pages written before having fun with portals, but if Iacobus wants to set one up for Greek mythology, I'd be very happy. No one could dispute that the topic needs development. Crying out for it, in fact. Go for it.
    I lightly emended the redlinks in your message above, Robert. Hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
    OK, I've tried to domesticate it. The red that remains could entice people to write some essential articles on the topic generally. What do you think? IacobusAmor 14:14, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

    Bibliographies[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Please have a look at my comment at Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney/1000 Paginae epitome! I'm really not sure about this -- I just wanted to see what you thought. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:07, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

    Lucilla Teasdale Corti[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Vale, care Iacobus, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvam relecturam istae pagine. Tibi gratias ago. Rex Momo (disputatio) 14:27, 6 Martii 2012 (UTC)

    Tibi gratias ago! Rex Momo (disputatio) 15:26, 6 Martii 2012 (UTC)

    Missouri Compromise[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Iacobus I appreciate your corrections (to the plural foram) in the Data and recent Missouri comprimmisum article inter alia. I wondering why we need a (fons) latin for the name ?In other language wikis, sources are not required. I am not saying we eveninvent Latin words. If the Miss. Com. article is translated into Spanish, it would even be strange to see a requirement for the Spanish words.Cheers.--Jondel (disputatio) 00:49, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

    Latin is a special case. :) The custom of footnoting lemmata that would be unknown to Cicero seems to be an ancient one here. It's not obvious that the current lemma is the best. Cicero's compromissum isn't a compromise in the present-day sense, but means (according to Cassell's) "a mutual agreement to abide by the decision of an arbitrator." The present-day sense is a not unexpected twist on that, but still. Also, given the two nomina, we have six reasonable possibilities for a lemma: Compromissum Missuriense, Compromissum Missurianum, Compromissum Missuriae, Missuriense Compromissum, Missurianum Compromissum, Missuriae Compromissum (not to mention a seventh, your original lemma, Missouri Compromissum). I've suggested that the first is perhaps the best, but the second seems perfectly legal, and we shouldn't discount the possibility that someone (Neander, ubi es?) will come up with something altogether different. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:17, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
    Alright.Could we use the first one? In the future please already make the move to a lemma which you think is alright because there is so much work that I feel needs to be done. thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:43, 25 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
    In general, we can be safe in following botanical (scientific) conventions in preferring the suffix -ianus for adjectives derived from personal names (see Mare Beringianum for an example), and it's then not unreasonable to reserve -ensis (and -icus) for adjectives derived from placenames—but the Romans didn't draw such a bright line, and so we seek attestations. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:17, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
    I guess I should add botanical nomenclature to my study list. Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:43, 25 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

    Nice finds[recensere | fontem recensere]

    ... those actors' names. I edited the pages slightly to include their common names as well: hope that's OK -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 28 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

    classica[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Hi Iacobus. I just want to say that it is good that you make a stand for classical style like our civilizatio versus humanus cultus discussion before.I myself am trying to make things more classical like changing identificare to agnoscere, etc. To make things more classical, perhaps there should be some symbol on some articles that signifies something like this article is notable for ciceronian style of latin, etc. Please understand that holding back to 'pure' latin is like holding back the sea. And of course if the word exists in classical, then there is no problem just remove the neologisma and replace with classica.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:25, 9 Maii 2012 (UTC)

    "moderna"[recensere | fontem recensere]

    I've deleted Lingua Persica and you're free to make the move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:01, 10 Maii 2012 (UTC)

    OK, thanks! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:03, 10 Maii 2012 (UTC)

    Isaias Tegnerus[recensere | fontem recensere]

    I quite agree with you that there was no need to cite a dictionary on this page, so I took the citation out. You might want, however, to cite a source on the page for the Latin surname "Tegnerus"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 12 Maii 2012 (UTC)

    Statores[recensere | fontem recensere]

    If you have any suggestion at Disputatio Categoriae:Statores, I would really welcome it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio)

    Dakar(um)[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Thanks for your very helpful response to the question above! I can't quite see the reason for the move from Dakar to Dakarum, though if there is a good reason I'd be the last to object. Could you maybe comment at Disputatio:Dakarum? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:16, 30 Maii 2012 (UTC)

    I was thinking Leo Latinus was a reputable source? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:08, 3 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, didn't see this before. He may be, for all I know, but who is he and where is he cited? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:10, 15 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

    Elizabeth II[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Bene fecisti ... Keep going ... The first paragraph is deadly stuff, but I know, I know, that's how it is with ceremonial heads of minor states ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 3 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks. We've just now finished the first four paragraphs of the entry in en, which, despite the sea of redlinks, were desperately needed as heft for a pagina mensis. Perhaps more later, but other attractions beckon! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:02, 3 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

    Notitiae causa[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Iacobe, si quid habes quod addas huic disputationi, quà recensionem tuam defendere conatus sum, quin tuum teruncium ("2 cents") adiungas. Nescio, an, quo consilio recensionem tuam feceris, recte iudicarim. Neander (disputatio) 14:53, 15 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

    Ioannes Passannante[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Hello! You are english right? I don't know latin. At least, can you translate the following period <<known to have attempted to assassinate king Umberto I of Italy. Condemned to death, his sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. His penalty was denounced as inhuman and drove him insane.>>. Thank you! -- 17:39, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

    Nomismata valoris militaris[recensere | fontem recensere]

    I wonder whether the whole province has to show military valour, or only some of it? And whether it all has to fight on the same side? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:41, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

    Setting that aside, I've finished my expansion of Expeditio sacra, at least for the present, so all corrections and tweaks are welcome! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:09, 6 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
    Woohoo! Think of all the points we're gaining this month! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:25, 6 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
    I'm going to have a go at Hierosolyma now. Luckily, several of the 1000 pages relate to my current (self-chosen) research topic. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:59, 6 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
    I have now reached 30,000 with Hierosolyma and will leave it there for the present. Please correct if you have time -- all improvements welcome! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:00, 10 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
    I see that your work continues ... As for me, I've finished with Saladinus for the time being, and corrections/improvements are welcome as always. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:35, 14 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
    OK, coming right up! Meanwhile, Li Bai may need 100-200 more characters to be >10K, if you or anyone else would like to help him out! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:53, 14 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
    Right, I'm looking at Li Bai now. OK, tipped the balance. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:28, 14 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
    Macte! Our score for August should show a big improvement. (Esperantica delenda est!) I have to go offline now, into the Real World for the rest of the day. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:37, 14 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
    See comments at Vicipaedia:1000 paginae. I am drinking your health (mine too, of course) right now. 16:23, 3 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

    Salvus sis Iacobe![recensere | fontem recensere]

    Te saluto amicum et gaudeo te non nimis acerrime quasi "bellum editoriale" sicut alii scripta mea accepisse x). Quamquam hac in encyclopaedia omnino novus sat multa Latine legi et studiosus sum auxilium vobis praebendi quibuslibet in rebus! Primum omnium ergo valde miratus sum te tam cite potuisse animadvertere me quaedam mutavisse in illa Daniae pagina. Quomodo? Artaynte (disputatio) 20:29, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

    Vide paginam nuper mutatorum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:19, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

    Suntne alia quae tua sententia mihi nota debeant esse? Gratias tibi maximas et in posterum! Artaynte (disputatio) 20:29, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

    Inter commentarios hesterno die additos qui mea sententia auxilium requirunt sunt Argilla et Urbs Vetita. Alioquin apud nos commorare et perge legere et scribere! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:19, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

    Praeterea dudum monstravisti quaedam paginarum nomina quibus fortasse nomina melioris Latinitatis invenienda sint. Scisne peritior qui es ubi invenire possim indicem horum quendam vocabulorum!? An forsan mihi ipsi quaerenda sunt omnia? Iterum gratias tibi ago. [Scripsit Artaynte.]

    Categories about individuals[recensere | fontem recensere]

    The categorization of Categoria:Petrus Eliae filius Čajkovskij dissatisfies you, I think, but it follows these principles, quoted from VP:CAT:

    Categorias de singulis hominibus oportet creare si de pluribus rebus huic homini relevantibus commentationes habemus (e.g. de homine ipso, de operibus, de familia, de rebus ab eo gestis) ... Categoriae de hominibus singulis inserendae sunt:
    semper in supercategoriam Categoriae ex hominibus appellatae
    semper in unam categoriam vel plures generaliores quae notabilitatem principalem eius hominis exprimunt (e.g. Categoria:Pictura; Categoria:Historia Russiae)
    sed non in subcategorias categoriae "Hominum" (e.g. Categoria:Incolae Russiae): minime categoria sed commentatio de eo homine in eum categoriarum arborem inserenda est

    Keeping this group of categories separate from the Categoria:Homines category tree allows automatic maintenance of those categories and at the same time allows us usefully to put non-biographical pages, such as the lunar crater, in the individual's category. So please don't war about it: it really works, helps users, and saves time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:24, 13 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

    Musicologi ...[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Hi, Iacobe. When we subdivide categories for people by nationality, we do it using the genitive of the country name: so, Musicologi Franciae, not Musicologi Francici. We agreed this pattern back in 2007, I think, and we have thousands of them now. I'll change the ones you've just made: please follow the pattern for future ones. You can see the style to follow if you look at the subcategories of Categoria:Homines secundum civitates digesti. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:38, 15 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, as you can imagine, I was sleepily following Wikipedia's convention (except where English writers use American to mean 'of the United States'). Sleepily because PBS has just finished showing (and yours truly has just finished watching) the entire Ring, in the Met's recent staging (in which the set consists almost entirely of twenty-four huge planks, hinged along the same axis), ending at about 1:35 this morning. I'm about to start on my third cup of coffee now. ¶ There's a category for Homines munere digesti (into which Categora:Musicologi should go), but its exact wording isn't coming to mind yet. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:53, 15 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
    At present they are under Categoria:Eruditi which itself is under Categoria:Homines secundum munera digesti. That seems OK to me, but if you think it would be better to put them directly under the latter category, no objection.
    Incidentally, the reason why some of those general category names include a "secundum" and some don't is because, although everyone agrees that form needs changing, you and Neander (long ago) never quite agreed on what would be better ... and I don't think anyone else expressed a view. No consensus, therefore. I wish we had a consensus, because being consistent on that detail would make it easier to remember the correct name when wanted! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:08, 15 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

    Gratias propter Amstelodami paginae emendationem![recensere | fontem recensere]

    ¡Gratias tibi!Artaynte (disputatio) 11:27, 16 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

    Ecclesia sancti Francisci de Paula in Catona[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Tibi gratias ago, please, correct me every time you want! Rex Momo (disputatio) 21:58, 11 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

    Restula[recensere | fontem recensere]

    I'm happy you've now found a source for "restula", but there was no call for you to hide the alternative view, which is well sourced, that ristra is a derivative of Latin "restis". Corominas gives a long and (I'd say) convincing explanation of the route by which the form "ristra" was reached, and it's not obvious that he's wrong. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:24, 26 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

    deviantART[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Ave Iacobe. Mutes nomen ad commentationem DeviantART ad deviantART cum littera minore incipio? Hic est iustum nomen. Donatello (disputatio) 01:05, 7 Novembris 2012 (UTC).

    Mutavi. --UV (disputatio) 00:58, 9 Novembris 2012 (UTC)
    Gratias tibi UV. :) Libenter vide illo situ UV et Iacobe. Multae iucundae artes pro vero.
    Donatello (disputatio) 16:16, 11 Novembris 2012 (UTC).

    Timewasting[recensere | fontem recensere]

    At Disputatio:Zoltan Deme you make it clear that you were "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point" -- and also wasting my time. I thought I was suggesting a good way to make the page viable: it seems that wasn't the aim. I expect an apology. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:21, 30 Novembris 2012 (UTC)

    In the cited text, no such thing was made clear. Seldom (to one's knowledge) has a passage of my prose been so egregiously misinterpreted; however, since I've always argued that the job of a nonfiction writer is to make sure that a reader cannot easily go astray (and a nonfiction writer is therefore at least partly to blame for a reader's going astray), I can hardly refrain from apologizing to you, and to myself, and to the whole world of potential misreaders. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:21, 3 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
    Please glance again at Disputatio:Zoltan Deme. For the reasons I give there I would now like to delete the page without delay, and I'd prefer to do so with your agreement. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:00, 2 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
    Let me first save the text to my userspace so he can be resurrected, should he prove as worthy of inclusion as certain happily included hamlets, whose few dozen people have never done anything notable beyond receiving a corporate name. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:21, 3 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
    OK, thanks, Iacobe, I've moved it to Usor:IacobusAmor/ZD. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:40, 3 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
    That was quick! But you're inspiring me to do a little housekeeping here, as this page, unarchived since 2007, is getting unwieldy. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:45, 3 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

    Identitas[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Iacobus, it is good that you strive to keep the language here pure and of high standard but I think that you are being extreme, counterproductive or even cultic? For example, with identitas, please try to substitute or suggest a good latin word. We've been here a few years now and I really have years of study, couldn't you be a bit more lax? Thanks.Jondel (disputatio) 02:21, 3 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

    Identitas is a Late Latin word. It perhaps wasn't bad in itself, but I marked it and nearby words {{dubsig}} because the phrase didn't make much sense: symbolus vel identitas securitatis societatis 32 bitionis = 'token or identity of freedom from care of a partnership of 32 of a (single) bition' (whatever a bition might be). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:21, 3 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

    Does societatis always mean partnership?!! Iacobus, we've been here a long time, Please understand that words are POLYSEMIC in another language(NOT JUST LATIN!)! .societatis can also mean association. In translating to other languages you need to select the most appropriate meaning ie be contextual! You can't just get the first meaning from the dictionary then conclude the interpretation is wrong! A security association ID is an ID which is registered with a society or group that can verify that the owner of the ID is not malicious. (So how would you express SAID, a 32 bit Security Association ID?!!)

    Apparently, by ID you mean 'particular number (given to a specific computer)', so if I'm now understanding it right, maybe something like: numerus proprius 32 bitorum a societate salutis confirmatus/concessus? If numerus proprius doesn't work for that, maybe signum proprium or nota propria? Part of the problem in translating security may be that you should perhaps be trying to say 'safety' (salus), rather than 'freedom from care, peace of mind' (securitas). Instead of making up phrases "out of the blue," it would be better to see how they're expressed in current Latin prose on the topic. Is there any way of searching Radio Finland's site? and the sites of Ephemeris and other such resources? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:06, 4 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

    You know Iacobus when you put that dubsig next to the identitas word, it's like making me slam into a brick wall! I investigated and researched if we can use symbolas instead, only to find out at the taberna that 'identitas' is acceptable. Jondel (disputatio) 03:53, 4 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

    Identitas is "acceptable" for certain senses, but it may not be the best way of referring to an object that serves as an ID. Vide supra. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:06, 4 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

    Are we going to have long protracted debates about every single term? Why not let's use classical when we can and accept when we can't AND RECOGNIZE IT AND NOT PLACE DUBSIGS OR -3 or -2 LATINATIS!! Jondel (disputatio) 03:53, 4 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

    What's needed is a dubsig that applies to a group of words, because the greater problem there isn't with a single word: it's with a phrase. This reader has no idea what the phrase 'token or identity of peace of mind of a society of 32 of a (single) bition' might mean. You ask readers to take "the most appropriate meaning ie be contextual," but the context isn't fully explanatory, so it wouldn't be surprising if most native speakers of English would be puzzled by the phrase security association ID. By the way, that phrase doesn't appear in the first few paragraphs of the analogous article in the English wiki. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:06, 4 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
    You can do that, if you want. You can enclose a phrase or sentence in the formula {{Verba Latinizanda}} (or {{Verba verificanda}}, as preferred). Here are typical results: -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 4 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
    {{Verba Latinizanda|Thisus est a Latinam sententiam}} gives you Thisus est a Latinam sententiam[latinizanda].
    {{Verba verificanda|Caesar vivit!}} gives you Caesar vivit![verificanda]
    That's good to know! Thanks! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:46, 4 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
    Oh dear. A "security association" apparently isn't a company that issues identifying numbers, so the gloss suggested above, based on what you'd written earlier, is inaccurate. Wikipedia says a security association is "the establishment of shared security attributes between two network entities to support secure communication." For that kind of association (i.e., an associating), maybe a noun like coniunctio would be best. And for 'shared security attributes' maybe communicatae salutis proprietates. Do other participants have suggestions? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:18, 4 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

    Pan (genus)[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Iacobus do you have to delete the whole thing? Aren't being extreme? Come on! What are you doing? Is it to hard to rewrite? An encyclopedia is supposed to be a source of information. You seem to be witholding it. Jondel (disputatio) 08:42, 3 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

    Isn't withholding bad information badly expressed a good idea? Let's translate the deleted matter into English (visibly accommodating misspellings):
    . . . ceteris linguis simpanze appellatum. Pan genus in Africa vivit, et naepissima animalia homine est. Sunt duae species de Pano geno: Simpanze normativus, bonoboque. Bonobi minus dynamici sunt, sed non sentiuntur Facire instrumenta. Simpanze normativi senti erant simianes.
    . . . with respect to the other languages called simpanze. The Pan genus lives on in Africa, and is the most naepus animals than man. There are two species from the Panous gene: the "normative" Simpanze, and for the bonobus. Bonobi are less "dynamic," but are not felt to Mook tools. The "normative" simpanze had been foolt "simianes."
    That's a curious way of giving the kind of information that belongs in a first paragraph. Compare the English version, and see what's been left out:
    . . . the genus Pan. The Congo River forms the boundary between the native habitats of the two species:
    • Common chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes (West and Central Africa)
    • Bonobo, Pan paniscus (forests of the Democratic Republic of the Congo)
    Chimpanzees are members of the Hominidae family, along with gorillas, humans, and orangutans. Chimpanzees split from the human branch of the family about four to six million years ago. The two chimpanzee species are the closest living relatives to humans, all being members of the Hominini tribe (along with extinct species of Hominina subtribe). Chimpanzees are the only known members of the Panina subtribe. The two Pan species split only about one million years ago.
    Note that, despite the statement that Pan is called simpanze in the other languages, it isn't called that in any of the linked wikis; the closest appears to be the Azerbaijani Şimpanze. And bonobus doesn't appear to be a Latin word (nor, for that matter, does bonobo appear to be an English word of long standing; it's not in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary of 1985). The best way to present the data given in the English version is to scrap the inefficient & misleading wording and (when time permits) to start over. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:48, 3 Decembris 2012 (UTC)
    1.)Somebody else is going to badly express, better you do it. (But I understand it takes sooo much time and effort)
    2) Even if it is badly expressed, somebody else can improve it later, better to 'seed'(stipulate, whatever) it.
    3) Better badly epressed than dead, zero, nada, nullo, nothing, inanis (?)
    I feel uncomfortable when you simply delete somebody's else(hard ) work.
    OK. I get your point also. .... (this is an encyclopedia. :( ). - - (sigh) - - Jondel (disputatio) 14:30, 3 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

    Sorry[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Apologies for conflicting -- I should have left it a little longer. It's such a curious topic, I couldn't resist adding a link :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:53, 9 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

    No problem: these things happen, even with so few of us on board! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:58, 9 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

    Anita Lindblom[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Salve dominus. Nomen commentationis Anita Lindblom vitiose scribebam. Sit 'Anna Lindblom', tum eius nomen 'Anita' est 'Anna' Latine. Mutes? Donatello (disputatio) 10:36, 10 Decembris 2012 (UTC).

    nexus numerorum[recensere | fontem recensere]

    Salve Iacobe, praeter multas correctiones utiles, pro quibus gratus sum, numeris nexus addere soles (ut alibi et in commentatione Societas Educativa, Scientifica, et Culturalis Consocietatis Nationum: septendecim, octo, viginti), quod mea sententia "supernexismus" est. Re vera tibi utile esse videtur?--Utilo (disputatio) 17:32, 10 Decembris 2012 (UTC)

    Omnibus ad extremum verbis esse nexús credo.