Usor:Robert.Baruch/Asteroids

E Vicipaedia

Asteroids[recensere | fontem recensere]

I'm currently taking formal classes in Latin, so I'm trying my hand at some very small articles. I was here in July working on the Intellegentia artificialis and Terra Mariae articles (as User:Autophile), and I realized that until I knew Latin well enough, such long articles would end up being disasters. So instead, I put up a simple two-sentence article: 50033 Perelman. After adding 50240 Cortina and 50412 Ewen, I realized that all the pages for small asteroids which have virtually no information other than orbital parameters and discovery would look the same.

Assuming that these pages look OK, would it be in poor taste to develop a script which grabs the relevant data from the JPL Small Body Database Browser and creates a page for each asteroid, as long as the page does not already exist? The reason I say "in poor taste" is that it would add several tens of thousands of small, unimportant pages to Vicipaedia. The script would put in a marker in each generated article so that if the template for the script changed, all the marked articles could be regenerated. --Robert.Baruch 20:03, 5 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness' sake, be sure the Latin is perfect before replicating it several times 9,999 times! ¶ Will the program be creating useful categories while it's at it? IacobusAmor 03:34, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need to check the Latin carefully in advance. We should also make an infobox template to replace the tables visible on your sample pages; and ideally we should find a way to include the infobox information (or most of it) in the text as well.
I imagine that if you, Iacobe, created the categories in advance, the script would apply them to each page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several tens of thousands...? --Ioscius (disp) 23:55, 5 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Josh, the universe is very big! and it has a lot of things in it! Why, even here on earth, we have an estimated 5,000,000 to 8,000,000 species of beetles, each begging for its own page! IacobusAmor 03:34, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beetles would be a separate task :)
It's an interesting idea. I would be particularly pleased to see pages for the first few thousand asteroids, because these are named after mythological figures and would impel us to go on and make the mythological pages as well. But the whole number is very large, evidently somewhere over 50,000. We ought to think seriously whether we want to more-than-double the current size of Vicipaedia with pages that would all be similar stubs. When the Volapük Wikipedia did this (admittedly with a badly-implemented system) it didn't do anything for their reputation among the Wikipedias. Should we start with a smaller number? I'd like to hear others' views on this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I can't cut firewood or prune my apple trees today (too much snow) I'll work on the page 50412 Ewen to see how the information can be worded in good Latin and so that each page could follow exactly the same pattern. When I've had a go, it would be a good idea if a more scientific brain revised it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:37, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tried my hand at 50033 Perelman; other Vicipaedianists may want to work on it some more. See the edit box for a question or two. Also: why isn't "(2000 AF48)" boldfaced? (And what does it mean? Perhaps an article or subarticle on the naming of asteroids will tell us.) What form should citations in the "Nexus externi" zone take? IacobusAmor 12:12, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I balk at the idea of more than doubling our size with asteroid stubs. I like Andrew's proposal of more like 1000. I know very little about asteroids, is there some way of ranking their importance? Proximity? Size? Some sort of rationale for picking a smaller number of asteroids? --Ioscius (disp) 10:44, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The numbering depends on discovery date, I believe, which means that the lower numbers were discovered first and tend to be bigger, more visible, better known, etc. So that makes it easy: start with 1 and decide how far or how fast to go. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:50, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd urge the script not to do more than a handful until several Vicipaedianists have checked its results and confirmed that it's working right. IacobusAmor 12:12, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done my work on 50412 Ewen. I've designed the infobox and shaped the text so that (I think) any asteroid listed by that Small Body database could be handled without any change (except that I'm not sure about the details of the discoverer: Robert Baruch had better think about that!) My aim was to get the text just beyond the "stub" stage to look like a respectable short article in Vicipaedia terms: I think that can be done. We don't want thousands of uninformative stubs. I have even marked it, speculatively, {{L1}}: please, other Vicipaedians, check the Latinitas to justify this claim, but whenever you change a word or sentence, remember that the identical form must be used on every page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:36, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried a few changes; these could of course be reversed, or more changes could be made. For these things, Neander seems to prefer reperio to invenio. One wonders about the decimal comma, &c. IacobusAmor 13:49, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We agreed, somewhere, a while back, to use "decimal commas". But thanks for several rapid improvements. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What categories, then, Iacobe? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:36, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia offers this menu:
  • Asteroid discoverers
  • Asteroid groups and families
  • Asteroid satellites
  • Asteroid spacecraft
  • Asteroid spectral classes
  • Asteroid surveys
  • Asteroids to be visited by spacecraft
  • Asteroids visited by spacecraft
  • Geological features on asteroids
  • Lists of asteroids
  • Main Belt asteroids
  • Asteroids named from mythology
  • Asteroids named for people
  • Asteroids named for places
Otherwise, it's not a field that one knows much about, so one doesn't have an opinion. ;) IacobusAmor 13:53, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those categories (except Asteroides Cinguli Asteroidum "Main Belt Asteroids") could not be applied by an automated script, unless I'm mistaken. But it could apply a category by date of discovery (e.g. Categoria:Asteroides anno 2000 reperti) so that would be something. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:08, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haec pars disputationis legi potest hic: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Fractiones decimales#consensus
Andrew, the 50412 Ewen looks so much nicer now! Just one thing: the orbital elements are referenced to an epoch (i.e. a starting time). The epoch is especially important for mean anomaly, but for asteroids whose orbital parameters may change due to gravitational perturbations, it is particularly important to know when the parameters were measured. See Orbital Elements and Proper orbital elements. So that's why I originally put the Epoch centered in the title of the orbital elements box.
I understand. I think my eye just skipped over it. I'll insert it now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
2000 AF48 is a provisional designation which is given to an asteroid when it is discovered but before the proposed name for it is approved by the IAU. I think it gets multiple designations when the asteroid is "discovered" multiple times, but not confirmed to be the same asteroid until later.
Then instead of being in parentheses, should it be "olim 2000 AF48" or something like that? IacobusAmor 15:24, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "olim" is neat. OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
Radix symbol: The IAU standards on units] uses a period, and spaces for groupings of significant figures (e.g. 1.660 540). But that is written in English. While many of the IAU documents are in English, the IAU Statutes specify that for legal purposes, the French Statutes are to be used. So I think the numerical format should be the one agreed upon for Latin.
OK, see now above. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
One other thing I should note: the script would not be able to determine what an asteroid was named for. This is kind of in the comments field of the database, meaning that it's free-form, and not amenable to automated parsing. So that's something that has to be done manually.
Yes, I suspected that. On the other hand, if we are doing the early asteroids we need to add another paragraph of text for the physical details (not yet known for Ewen, I guess). Maybe we can build a better model on the basis of 5 Astraea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
I agree that only a few should be done, perhaps the first thousand or so, and then after that, some other criterion such as whether it is stubbed in en: as well. That will show that we're not really going for a "number of articles" score.
Finally, the asteroid navigator really needs to be upgraded! --Robert.Baruch 15:10, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:07, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if (before any automated additions were made) someone would devise an asteroid-stipula, to be used just for asteroids. IacobusAmor 15:24, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, but my hope is that we can give these pages sufficient text that they don't count as stipulae at all. We have enough stipulae already! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:07, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just an interesting data point: there are 229 914 asteroids listed in the JPL database. --Robert.Baruch 16:35, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And there are 15 524 asteroids with names. So that could be one limiting factor. --Robert.Baruch 18:46, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a more attractive figure, perhaps. Plain numbers are boring. Could you manage to select the ones with names? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:53, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but that's still 15 524 new pages. Well, minus the few that already exist. It's still an order of magnitute higher than what we discussed (i.e. "a few thousand")... --Robert.Baruch 20:03, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. Not all at once, I guess. But we could imagine adding those, in steps. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:13, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a program that grabs the data from JPL and outputs a Vicipaedia page. Here's a sample: Test 8768 Barnowl. A few things, though:

  1. Can the units of orbital period be changed to years? This appears to be the astronomical standard. It is fine to leave the period in days in the text of the article. I will update the program to output the appropriate values.
Do you mean years.decimal, or years + days? I will change the template as you prefer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
Period in years.decimal, such as 4.596877 y. -- Robert.Baruch 20:53, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
  1. One of the degree symbols in the template isn't linked.
Others may think it not necessary to link the degree symbols at all ... Either way, we can change that at any time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
Yeah, I thought it had to be linked for the first one, but not the others. It's whatever you feel is best: I'm no Wiki expert! -- Robert.Baruch 20:53, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. When there is more than one discoverer (i.e. a team of people), the Capsa asteroidis template doesn't break out each person to a separate link. May I propose that the Capsa asteroidis template accept eight parameters: discoverer1fullname, discoverer2fullname, discoverer3fullname, discoverer4fullname, discoverer1shortname, etc. Also, if a fullname is available but the shortname is blank, use the fullname, and v.v.
I've never been very good at including optional elements in an infobox ... maybe UV would be willing to help with this bit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
Will there never be more than four co-discoverers? --UV 23:23, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There could be, I suppose. Anything's possible. That's what "et al." was invented for ;) However, in practice, there are at most three names mentioned. I suspect any more get treated with a team name. I saw your change to the infobox; can you add long name and short name? We would link to the long name (being the lemma) but display the short name. -- Robert.Baruch 02:25, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Long name and short name are already provided for. The template currently does not yet support adding "et al." but we could easily add that should the need arise. --UV 22:54, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genus[recensere | fontem recensere]

  1. Here is the list of asteroid types. Could I get some nice translations? Note that the English has them as types, not as the region in which the asteroid zooms around. So the Latin should be the region (or should we change it back to asteroid type?)
Not sure if I understand ... What does the database give us, region or type or both? The more real and readable information we can incorporate, the better (maybe anonymus, below, would agree?) I'm thinking about the translations: I expect others will too ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:48, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The DB gives only type. Our Vicipaedia, however, treats asteroids as in regions. -- Robert.Baruch 20:53, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. A Main-Belt Asteroid is "in regio cingulo asteroidum" (in the Asteroid Belt Region) -- Robert.Baruch 20:55, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get it now. I simply misunderstood the implication of "main-belt asteroid". I can change the template and text to make it clear that it's a type (though in this case the two concepts are not light-years apart!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:10, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The asteroid is named after the Egyptian sun-god, so it should take the declension (if any) of Aten. Where's Justin? IacobusAmor 22:34, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in my copy of the (abbreviated) dictionary, but it's plausible, as apo is 'circle, hoop, belt, ring' and hele is 'come, go; everywhere; tie, snare'. The rules for Polynesian declensions give us genitive Apohelis, but why not change certain of these names & categories so as to make the main name nominative? E.g., Categoria:Apohele (asteroides); and above, Categoria:Aten (asteroides)? They're all subcategories of Categoria:Asteroides, right? They're in the singular—unusual for categories, but standard for those that are genus-names (in biological taxonomy). IacobusAmor 22:47, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a potential ambiguity there, because these are also the names of single asteroids: so, theoretically, Categoria:Aten (asteroides) would mean the single asteroid, not the type (if we can imagine creating a category for a single asteroid!). That's why I didn't do it. But this may not seem significant: I don't mind. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
Oh. OK: So save "Aten (asteroides)" for the single asteroid named Aten. IacobusAmor 12:00, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But then there are aways exceptions ... "Apohele" is not an asteroid name: it seems to be treated as an adjective, so I have now changed it to nom. pl. in the category name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:07, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK again! IacobusAmor 13:41, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Neptunian Objects[recensere | fontem recensere]

Based on the changes by Andrew on 50000 Quaoar, and comparing to 4 Vesta, do we have a mass change coming up? Note that the Genus shown in the Capsa Asteroidis for 4 Vesta is nominative plural, while for 50000 Quaoar it was changed to nominative singular. The categories are both nominative plural. Thus, in the template, the Genus is the same as the category. However, the proposed change makes the Genus singular and the category plural. Should this change go ahead? -- Robert.Baruch 18:23, 26 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realised that this was a general problem. The Latin Vicipaedia, like many others, makes category names (nearly always) plural, article names (nearly always) singular. That's why I set them out separately above (and explained what I was doing, below).
Well, all our category names for asteroids are now plural -- I've already corrected where necessary. However, since we can make redirects to article names, the only absolute requirement for links in text and infobox is that they be grammatical. They can be singular or plural; but at the end of the day, the articles eventually created will have singular titles. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:46, 26 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Robert.Baruch 20:35, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested nom. sg. and nom. pl. forms (the former to be page titles eventually, the latter to use in categories). When a gen. pl. is wanted, it is asteroidum.
I have adopted "Cingulus Principalis" rather than Cingulus Asteroidum because it results in less repetition.
Better Latinists, please correct me above! These types are named after specific asteroids, Amor, Apollo, etc.: so is the genitive appropriate? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:46, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spectral Class[recensere | fontem recensere]

  1. One more thing I forgot earlier: Spectral class. There are two spectral types, the Tholen spectral type and the SMASS spectral type (see Asteroid spectral types. I propose we include both, since they are both used regularly (sometimes just one, sometimes the other, sometimes both). Can you include both in the infobox? -- Robert.Baruch 22:05, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:56, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Species[recensere | fontem recensere]

If we do it for asteroids, shouldn't it also be done for species? Automatic creation of species stipula?--Rafaelgarcia 09:46, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? It would encourage someone to expand on an entry because the stipula for the entry is already there. No need for Mr. Lazy Keyboard to create the new article, copy the text of an existing entry, change the text, and so on. --Robert.Baruch 18:27, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No... see my comments below. Script made pages makes me very uneasy. --Ioscius (disp) 21:15, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linguae[recensere | fontem recensere]

Oh, yes, I think we will all see further possibilities! I can imagine entries for languages being done in this way: the Piedmontese Wikipedia has used the Ethnologue database to create maybe 15,000 pages for "all" world languages, and, having seen what they've done, we could do it better. Form an orderly queue, please ... Andrew Dalby

Could a script really produce the Vicipaedian Latin name of all languages? I suppose it could add -a to all English forms; but while that would work for Samoan, Tahitian, and Tikopian, it would get some consonants wrong with Fijian & Hawaiian, and would be at sea (so to speak) with Cherokee, Kriol, Kru, Nahuatl, Seminole, Spanish, Tok Pisin, and the useful pidgin sometimes called Police Motu. So as not to make us change thousands of lemmata & titles after articles have automatically been created, maybe two steps would be in order: first, an article that's only a list of names, which people would have a month or two manually to correct; and then the automated creation of stipulas, adapting Ethnologue's names to the approved spellings. IacobusAmor 14:46, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We probably already have entries for nearly all languages that have a Latin name. I'm talking about the others, the obscure ones. VP:NF, so we wouldn't have justification or need to add a declension: in most cases we would just take the standard "international" name. But, yes, there are cases where Ethnologue's name has an English cast to it (the "Northern Sotho" kind of name). These would want careful forethought. We'll have to see how the Piedmontese dealt with it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:57, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be possible to do what you suggest. A pure list of names is available for download, so the list could be put on a page here and the names Latinised where appropriate. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:19, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what I did for the asteroids. I had the program dump the list of unique discoverer names and observatory names into a file. Then I manually go into the file and add the Latin versions (mainly nominative and ablative, with genitive if the template needs it). Then the generator program reads that file to access the appropriate names for the appropriate places. Of course, the hard work is the manual labor of translating! --Robert.Baruch 20:43, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cui bono?[recensere | fontem recensere]

To whose benefit will this exercise be? All it would do is the creation of thousands more articles in dubious Latin with zero information value. Who is going to consult a Latin lexicon about a random asteroid, when it contains only the most basic definition? Does anybody really believe that someone will care to expand all these senseless stubs in the future? We already have far too many stubs here. Would we not be falling into the trap of priding ourselves in numbers of pages rather than useful content? Would this not turn Vicipaedia into a laughing stock like its Volapük counterpart, a ridiculous hacking feat? Reminds me of contemporary academia: Everybody is so busy counting publications, no time to think about whether theirs is actually a sound and valuable contribution and whether people will want, and will be able, to read it.--79.192.9.51 20:05, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice of you to join us, O anonyme! These are important questions (and I raised the Volapük example above), but are you commenting before looking at the sample page 50412 Ewen? Please look at it. It's more than a stub, by our definition, and, if the Latin is dubious, now would be the ideal time to improve it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:19, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like to think of this effort as not assigning importance a priori to a particular page. If that object then becomes important later (Primitive RNA Found on 8768 Barnowl! Panspermia Confirmed!... NEO Object 434 Hungaria Solid Platinum-Iridium Alloy! Markets Plummet!) then the stipula is already there for easy expansion. But you have one thing right: if it is going to be done, it must be done well. --Robert.Baruch 20:48, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm starting to agree with our anonymous friend. I don't get what this would help. It is neat that the first several hundred are named after mythological figures. Wouldn't it do much more good then to write articles about mythological figures? It is hard enough to explain to people why any would want to consult an encyclopedia in Latin, harder still were that encyclopedia (or at least parts of it) created by a script? The awesome thing we have going here is that Latin wikipediists keep alive a thousands year old tradition of describing the world around them in Latin. Call it arrogance, but I think we also like to imagine that every now and then someone actually benefits from our site (we certainly have a few articles where the English page is shorter, worse, or nonexistent). I don't see how that "awesome thing" is benefited by this project... =/ --Ioscius (disp) 21:11, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue in several ways:
  • It's science! SCIENCE! Everything that has anything to do with Science! can and should be written in Latin. It's what they did throughout the Medieval period, and we would just be carrying that tradition on. Surely those wacky monks made huge lists and tables of things.
Yes I love science. My first article here (in desperate desperate need of a rewrite) was E=mc² and my first featured article infinitas. I'm all for writing about science. --Ioscius (disp) 23:09, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We write Latin to practice. Latin is a dead language. Nobody is a native speaker of it. So arguably, there would be large articles (for the expert Latinists among us) and short articles (for the neophytes like yours truly).
Again I agree here. My first page should have been short, too.--Ioscius (disp) 23:09, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should say, I agree except for the "dead language" part ;] --Ioscius (disp) 23:17, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the English Wikipedia have such articles? Because it is a compendium of human knowledge, and the Latin Vicipaedia should be no less a compendium than English, Spanish, German, or (I guess) Volapük. Some articles are long where there is a lot of information. Some are short, where there is less information. Some are nonexistent, where nobody has bothered to add the information. Nevertheless, it is information that we covet, and we worship that information by writing it down, whether that be in English, Latin, or (I guess) Volapük.
You keep saying it. writing. Not making a script which writes. --Ioscius (disp) 23:09, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's one of the ways we use our intelligence. Like designing a wiki that accepts, displays and interlinks our writing. None of this prevents us writing more and better stuff, on these pages and on linked pages, when we have the basic work done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
  • I have some vague hope that Latin will be a unifying language. So no article should be turned away because it's short. As long as it contains human knowledge, it should be included.
Again agreed. I have more than a vague hope of that.--Ioscius (disp) 23:09, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely others have struggled with this question? What do they conclude?
-- Robert.Baruch 21:32, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should not go too fast: I would rather see the first 1000 or so, and let us pause to take stock. But some of the opposing arguments above invite replies:
Anonymus, I think, assumed that these pages would be stubs and in bad Latin because this is how some Wikipedias have been unwisely and massively expanded. He/she is mistaken: they would be a lot better than that: they would be a readable way of presenting the best information in the database. Any reader with a smidgeon of Latin could make more sense of our page than of the database page. That's good, isn't it?
Many of these pages would be among those Ioscius mentions, the ones that are better than corresponding pages on other wikis. That's good, too, isn't it?
Ioscius, it's surely not a good argument to say "Wouldn't it do much more good then to write articles about mythological figures?" Of course it will be better when we have those articles too, but this proposal doesn't delay that by one moment. Instead, it gives us in each case a redlink impelling us to get to work :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:02, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Andrew, I wasn't clear. It was raised as a good point in the above discussion that these pages will open the door for redlinks for mythological figures, and I just meant that if that was the goal itself, the asteroids would be an unnecessary stepping stone. Surely having a page about everything is great.
En: has circa 3million articles. 15,000 asteroids doesn't make a splash in the bucket. You know as well as I do that's some 55% of our article count. I balk at the number, not the idea.
Perhaps we could come down from 1000 to start... What's a reasonable number that the interested parties could/would be willing to work on at a time?
We've had good press of late. We've worked very hard for instance on the "1000 pages project", and the countless dumps that Roland (how I miss him) produced for us. As much as I agree that we should have a page on everything here - I'm quoted as encouraging everything from blue cheese to Caesar - should we invite bad press by the electronic move? Are the first 1000 asteroids so important at this stage in our history?
Am I overreacting? It could be. I don't want to seem against the project, it just makes me a little uneasy. Perhaps I just need some more convincing that it's a good idea and not just a not bad idea. --Ioscius (disp) 23:09, 7 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a vote would be appropriate. I don't mind either way. Well, I'd like to see the project go ahead, but I can understand the arguments against. It's not like I have ego invested in this :) -- Robert.Baruch 02:27, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps a vote on which asteroids should be included. 99942 Apophis would be an important one, as would 50000 Quaoar. I would vote for 3834 Zappafrank, 9951 Tyrannosaurus, 17059 Elvis, 9007 James Bond, and, believe it or not, 110393 Rammstein. -- Robert.Baruch 02:36, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am on the enthusiastic side because I have previously looked at the lists of asteroids on other Wikipedias and thought to myself "I could easily start pages on those, and they would link with the mythological articles and tragedy/comedy articles that several of us are gradually improving" and then thought "it would be such a mechanical task at first and a script could get it all started so much quicker". I just wanted Robert to come along and suggest it. It's not the first time we have expanded in this way -- remember what Amphitrite did with the year pages. But, that said, I understand the reluctance to overbalance us and the care for our reputation. I vote for the first thousand that have names, minus the ones we already have, plus Robert's favourites above: a total of 1002. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:57, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a great idea, but I think we need to find a way to communicate all this. There should be a page that explains the project and our reasons for using a script, in case anyone wants to know. Also, we need to encourage the other Vicipaedians (who don't usually give partake in discussions like this) to find the red links that are on the asteroids pages and create the respective pages. Is there a way that the script could also make a list of all the red-linked articles that we need to make? And also (this might be pointless, but it might come in handy, please tell me if it is) maybe all the pages could be marked somehow as "created by an automatic script" just so we have evidence in the future? --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 15:44, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would be easy enough to do. The list of red-linked articles would probably include all the discoverer names and places. The problem, though, is that I can't automatically generate what the object is named for, which sort of throws the whole mythological figure red-links argument out the window, unless someone is willing to manually go in and add the named-after sentence. As for "created by an automatic script", I can do that. Would it be displayed in the article ("this article was created by an automatic script") or as an invisible comment? -- Robert.Baruch 16:04, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could replace the current text at "nexus externi", adding the acknowledgment that the original article was created from that source by an automatic script. I'll try making that change at 50412 Ewen.
Since I have made this into a formula, the wording can be changed even after the pages have been rolled out. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
I was especially keen on the names/mythology question, so I guess I have to volunteer to do that, at least some of it ... It would be easiest if you could include as an invisible comment the English text on this subject from the database: then, as soon as the pages exist, we could get to work on them without too much searching around. Can you do that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:16, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can definitely do that! I'll start extracting the data now. It usually takes a few hours to grab the data for all 15 000-odd bodies. The article itself is looking very good, not at all like a stub. We still have to do the full name/short name thing in the infobox, though. UV made a good start. -- Robert.Baruch 16:25, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me as if UV has already done that: there are parameters for Repertor, ...2, ...3, ...4 (for full name) and for Repertorbrevis, ...2, ...3, ...4 for abbreviated name. If you do not include an abbreviated name among the parameters on any page, it will treat the full name as default. I think that's how it works, anyway. He will confirm. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:46, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm ;-) --UV 22:54, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the data in a central place instead[recensere | fontem recensere]

Our colleagues at de.wikipedia are currently testing a new asteroid template where volatile numbers are not put in the individual asteroid pages but in a central place, so that when several asteroids change their properties, it is not necessary to update hundreds or thousands of asteroid pages but just the one page that holds all the data. See the new template at de:Vorlage:Infobox Asteroid 2 and the discussion page at de:Portal Diskussion:Astronomie/Asteroidenbox. --UV 22:54, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very interesting idea! I see the possibilities. I already have a CSV file containing all the information for all the named asteroids. I could change it to add the switch statement and upload the entire thing. I wonder if I can upload it to Wikimedia instead, so that other wikis can benefit. -- Robert.Baruch 23:20, 8 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I created a template {{Data Asteroidum/Nomen}} which takes a number and returns the asteroid name. For example, {{:Usor:Robert.Baruch/Formula:Data Asteroidum/Nomen|8768}} returns Usor:Robert.Baruch/Formula:Data Asteroidum/Nomen. I only included one name for testing. However, when I created the complete file of about 250kbytes, and attempted to upload it, I got a read timeout :( -- Robert.Baruch 01:40, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds exciting but I leave it to those who really understand it ... I notice, though, from de:Vorlage:Infobox Asteroid 2 that the Germans have discovered two more asteroid types, Asteroides Troianus Martianus and Asteroides Troianus Neptunianus, Categoria:Asteroides Troiani Martiani and Categoria:Asteroides Troiani Neptuniani. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:33, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going according to the JPL classification. I notice that one Martian Trojan, 5261 Eureka, is classified by JPL as a Mars-Crossing Asteroid, which is just a different description. But this does point out that asteroids can fall into multiple classes, depending on the classification scheme. I will probably want to start vacuuming up data from other database so we can get more information. Good catch! -- Robert.Baruch 17:55, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that a formula containing a switch statement for 15 500 cases is "too complex" and gets rejected by the software. I'm going to have to figure out a way to split up the data, perhaps in chunks of 1 000, and then the editor will have to use something like {{Data Asteroidum 8000/Nomen|8768}} (meaning, the data for the 8000-series asteroids) to get the data. I want to make it as easy as possible to (1) add data for a new asteroid, and (2) add a new field for all asteroids. I'm pondering a way of changing the template to include the parameter name as a parameter: {{Data Asteroidum 8000|8768|nomen}}. The advantage is that all the data on an asteroid is included on a single page, so if you want to add a new asteroid, it only requires editing a single page. -- Robert.Baruch 18:21, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have successfully created a formula containing data for the first 999 asteroids. Vide: Formula:Data Asteroidum 0000. I have also used it in a test asteroid page, vide: Robert.Baruch/Test 990 Yerkes. All of the data in that page is automatically retrieved from the asteroid data formula, except for the discoverer name and place. The page has a few problems related to the #time function, which I am not sure how to solve. Perhaps someone who knows how the la: #time function works can help? -- Robert.Baruch 20:35, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In "Die 23 November 1922," the genitive of November is misspelled. Does your program know the genitives of all the months? IacobusAmor 20:49, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not me, it's Wikimedia's #time function which formats dates. It needs to be able to convert a number (1 through 12) to a genitive rather than the default nominative. It may not be able to do this, and if not, I may have to look for or create a formula which does the conversion. -- Robert.Baruch 21:58, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Things are looking very promising ... But no, I don't know how that time function works. With luck, UV does. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use "xg" instead of "F" to get the genitive instead of the nominative of a month name. Fixed in page Usor:Robert.Baruch/Test 990 Yerkes. --UV 23:04, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you thank you thank you! Multas gratias ago! -- Robert.Baruch 23:13, 9 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Index asteroidum[recensere | fontem recensere]

Copied from above:

Finally, the asteroid navigator really needs to be upgraded! --Robert.Baruch 15:10, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:07, 6 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it feasible to do this semi-automatically from the data you have downloaded? × (fingers crossed) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. I like the one on en: (List of Asteroids). What do you think? -- Robert.Baruch 15:15, 10 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's a good model. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:42, 11 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have generated the Index Asteroidum (in my user space). Please take a look at it. If the list format is OK, I can move it over to the global space, and the verbiage in the en: version can start getting translated. Furthermore, please see the 1-1000 link on that page, to see if the subpages look OK. I decided against including discovery place and discoverer name because that requires translation, and I can't see us translating all the names. Alternatively, I could include the places and names in English, without a link, and when they get translated, they can be updated and optionally linked. Let me know what you think!

One other thing: I cannot generate the index pages automagically from the Data Asteroidum N000 databases because of the template expansion limit of Wikipedia. So, all the data is hardcoded. If the data in the database changes, the index has to be updated manually. -- Robert.Baruch 02:36, 17 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Index Asteroidum has been updated, and all subpages created. -- Robert.Baruch 18:19, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ready?[recensere | fontem recensere]

OK, so are we settled on the article format as seen here Usor:Robert.Baruch/Test 990 Yerkes? The footnote is actually a template, so whatever we decide about including the access date, one change to the template and it's on all the pages. -- Robert.Baruch 21:27, 11 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy. But I've worked on this a fair bit, so I'll leave it to others to comment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:44, 11 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it! Is there no way to automatically include intervicis besides English? --SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS 01:21, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is there a bot that comes along every once in a while and updates all the intervici links, as long as we include one intervici link? If not, then I'll have to write a program to scan the various languages to see if they have an article.
There is. It works much quicker if we can add a link to our new Latin entry on the English page. I don't know if your script already does that, or if there's some other script that can do it for us. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
If your script will make these links on the English page, fine; but if not, no harm done, it seems. Even before I had had time to do it, a bot has already linked in all the pages I have just added for the moons of Jupiter. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 15 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please see the attributus -> attributum change. If that's OK, I'll let the page sit around for a day to collect any other changes, and then I'll write something up to put in the first thousand articles.
That's fine. It reads better Neander's way. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
If there are any particular asteroids that anyone wants to include above 1000, let me know! -- Robert.Baruch 02:55, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to start entries for all (natural, named) satellites. Thus, if you can include all asteroids that have named satellites, that would link up nicely all round. Those above 1000 are: 90482 Orcus (satellite is informally named), 65489 Ceto, 66652 Borasisi, 88611 Teharonhiawako, 50000 Quaoar, 42355 Typhon, 58534 Logos. Is that OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:12, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; I will include those asteroids. -- Robert.Baruch 23:16, 13 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Niggling questions:
1. Are the numerals that designate these asteroids cardinals? If so, the true name of this one (as spoken) would be Nongenti Nonaginta Yerkes. Which sounds rather odd without some prefix telling us the whole lemma isn't, say, a street address; of course, if it's standard nomenclature, then an encyclopedia has to accept it. IacobusAmor
It is standard nomenclature and I feel we should accept it as it is. But it should be possible to incorporate a link to a page explaining the system of nomenclature: I'll try that later today. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
2. Since "corpus systematis solaris nostri" links to the one-and-only solar system pertinent to our Sol, "nostri" would seem not to be necessary. IacobusAmor
Actually I just put it in to make the sentence a bit fuller! I don't mind. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
3. Is generi asteroidum Cinguli Principalis attributum to be translated 'assigned to a kind of the asteroids of the Main Belt'? Maybe better as 'assigned to certain asteroids of the Main Belt" (with a form of quidam)? IacobusAmor
We do need to stay with your version 1 somehow: the point is that this is a recognised type, one of a limited set of types. It's not "certain asteroids of the Main Belt" but "the 'Main Belt Asteroids' type". Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
The syntax, with a plural genitive, is questionable. Phrases like *a trumpet is a kind of instruments, *a bottle is a kind of containers, and *Vicipaedia is a kind of encyclopedias seem odd, so 'to be assigned to a kind of asteroids' could be confusing. A similar-looking pattern in biological definitions (e.g., X est genus plantarum florentium 'X is a genus of flowering plants') is OK because the Latin genus is signifying the concept of 'genus', not the concept of 'kind'. Do asteroids, like living things, come in genera, families, orders, and such? If not, maybe some less taxonomically pregnant word, like grex or congeries, would be better. How about gregi asteroidum Cinguli Principalis attributum? But you say the important thing in this phrase is the set, which surely has a name, so an even stronger phrase might include the name of the set, with a link to its article: 'assigned to the X set of asteroids of the Main Belt'. IacobusAmor 13:40, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the set is "Main Belt Asteroids". The aim is to find a sentence that means "X is assigned to the class "Main Belt Asteroids". The link is already there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:12, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I see. So maybe just corpus . . . asteroidibus Cinguli Principali attributum, or corpus . . . inter asteroides Cinguli Principali habitum / positum / inventum / conlocatum. IacobusAmor 14:43, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. "a Georgio van Biesbroeck, astronomo Observatorii Yerkes repertus" lacks an obligatory comma (ending an appositive) after Yerkes. IacobusAmor
Agreed! Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
5. For colligit, the spelling according to Cassell's would be conligit.
6. The phrase quem elaboraverunt refers to the site (quem); or should it refer to the page (quam)? IacobusAmor
Yes, it is meant to refer to the site. Those two institutions developed the site. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:22, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Can the script generate disambiguation pages? They'll be wanted when the name has its own article. For example: Orca (whale), 90482 Orcus (asteroid), Orcus (netherworld), Orcus (ladybug [and the present redirect is wrong, wrong, wrongity-wrong]), Orc (fictional evil creature), etc. IacobusAmor 13:40, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let others who know better advise, but I think you can't make a sensible disambiguation page unless you understand things, and scripts don't understand things. As I add the sentences about names and origins, I will be adding some disambiguation pages. I understand (some) things :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
8. Perhaps it would be good to get the plain word asteroides into the definition before its particular kind is mentioned, something like: est asteroides, corpus systematis solaris asteroidibus Cinguli Principalis attributum. IacobusAmor 14:55, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Funny how one overlooks the obvious -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered it when I realized that "asteroidibus Cinguli Principalis" was a single nexus, rather than two, as in: "Asteroides Cinguli Principalis." IacobusAmor 15:11, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking. ;) IacobusAmor 03:48, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the format is going to be reproduced thousands of times, I suggest holding off on activation of the script until every last jot & tittle of the text has been checked. (For example, I still wonder about the tenses in the second paragraph.) Several frequent writers of articles have yet to comment here. IacobusAmor 15:11, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has been under discussion for some time now ... I think everyone interested has probably seen these pages. Because the texts will be identical, if there is any really pressing change to make afterwards, a bot could do it. There comes a time when if you're going to go for it, you should go for it.
I restored the word "nostri" because it makes a little more of an interlude between the newly-repeated instances of "asteroides". But I'm not wedded to it. Please, anyone, take it out again if it seems out of place. Please also glance at the footnote I have added. It would be nice to be able to add to it the date at which the permanent name was assigned: but that information doesn't seem to be in the database. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:28, 12 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translations needed[recensere | fontem recensere]

These are names from the first 100 asteroids. Once I have translations, I will hold a "last call vote" for the Usor:Robert.Baruch/Test 990 Yerkes article (that is your last opportunity to change the format of the article), and then pull the trigger and upload the articles. If you want to change the format of the article after that, I could, but I would rather not.

An English name old enough to have Latin attestations. IacobusAmor 18:36, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. The Observatory was named after a person, though, and according to Teh Rulez, surnames aren't translated unless the person already has a Latin name either by birth or by common use. If, however, you advise that Radcliffe be translated, I have found an attestation of Radecluie in the Domesday book (secondary source). What do you think? -- Robert.Baruch 14:21, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also as Radeclif in The Coucher Book, or Chartulary, of Whalley Abbey vol. 16, p. 782. -- Robert.Baruch 14:36, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dudley Observatory (U.S.) Observatorium Dudley
Since Dudley was an important name in the peerage during the Renaissance, it must have a multitude of Latin attestations. IacobusAmor 18:34, 21 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Dudley is a surname. Dudelei in Domesday. Again, translation of surnames when not in common use is against Teh Rulez. What is your advice? -- Robert.Baruch 14:21, 22 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't around when this arose, but my answer would be, just translate real traditional forenames that have accepted Latin equivalents. Don't even search for translations of non-traditional forenames (e.g. derived from surnames). About Domesday Book in particular, it is really a multilingual text: the sentences are mostly Latin but the names are mostly Old/Early Middle English. Little attempt was made to convert them into a Latin form. It isn't a good source for Latin names of English towns -- still less for the forenames of modern Britons and Americans! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:01, 27 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto (German name) (Otho, -nis?) Otho
  • Madras Observatory (Indian, before it became Chennai) Observatorium Madraspolitani (see Archdiocese of Madras and Mylapore)
  • Litchfield Observatory (U.S.) Observatorium Litchfield
Observatorium Lichfeldiense, ex "LICHFELDIA urbs Staffordiae, Episcopal. sub Archiep. Cantuariensi. 24. mill. Angl. a Licestria, in Occ. 10. a Staffordia in Afric. 25. a Vigornia in Bor. deficit indies; Lisfelde, vulgo Camd. Descr. Britan" (Hofmann). [Litchfield presumably the same word as Lichfield.] IacobusAmor 03:47, 19 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah -- Litchfield is someone's last name: "...a Mr. Litchfield, a railroad magnate from nearby Delphi Falls guaranteed all the funds needed to cover the astronomer's modest yearly salary. The observatory was renamed the 'Litchfield Observatory'..." (vide C. H. F. Peters), so maybe Litchfield(i)anus, -a, -um or Litchfield(i)ensis, -is, -e. Of course, back in June, I was severely reprimanded for trying to translate the names of agencies that did not have attested Latin names. I was never really given an answer as to what to do with the name then: leave it in English and just put an (Anglice) note on it, or what. The same thing goes with place names that have no attested Latin name. -- Robert.Baruch 03:10, 20 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the observatory's name had come from the name of a town; but wouldn't the family name have done so, somewhat like the family names of [Irving] Berlin, [Michael] Hamburger, [Jack] London, [Hyman] Minsky, [Robert] Pinsky, [Norbert] Wiener, and so on? You may be stuck with Observatorium Litchfield. IacobusAmor 14:23, 20 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we definitely don't do that. His parents didn't say "Let's call him Rock!" or "Let's call him Peter!" They said "We'll call him Craig". The name may have meant nothing to them except that there had been earlier people with the forename "Craig" and (originally) with the surname "Craig" ... and they liked it. We don't have the right to re-interpret people's names in that way. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 27 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and fixed. -- Robert.Baruch 02:04, 28 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bothkamp Observatory (Germany) Observatorium Bothkamp
  • DeLisle (American first name): Could have translations "from the island" or "from Lille". I think I'll leave it as DeLisle, indecl. since I cannot find the attested origin of this particular person's name (DeLisle Stewart, b. 1870).
  • Taunton (English placename) Tantona. Vide History of Taunton, 1822, p. 25: Anno 721... Hujus conjunx Fritheswitha Regina dedit Winstoniensi Ecclesiae Tantonam de suo patrimonio. - Monasticon Angl. vol. i. p. 32.

-- Robert.Baruch 20:26, 13 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good find! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 27 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomo Observatorii[recensere | fontem recensere]

Is this the right form for "an astronomer AT the observatory"? Some astronomers moved around, weren't tied to any one place, and so wouldn't be "an astronomer OF the observatory". -- Robert.Baruch 21:14, 13 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question. Let me take a passage from our test article: ... a Georgio van Biesbroeck, astronomo Observatorii Yerkes, repertus est. In this passage, Biesbroek and astronomus and Observatorium Yerkes are grammatically tied together by hierarchical attribute relations: a [Georgio van Biesbroeck, [astronomo [Observatorii Yerkes]]]. Therefore, as far as I can see, a pattern like this can be used only in case GvB really belonged to the permanent personnel of the ObsY. But if the discovery was made by GvB, when more or less temporarily working at the ObsY, the proper preposition methinks is apud, but because Latin rather shuns prepositional phrases as attributes of nouns, the "apud X" phrase must modify the predicate verb instead of the noun "astronomus" -- somehow like this: ... a Georgio van Biesbroeck astronomo repertus est apud Observatorium Yerkes ('was discovered by GvB [when working] at the ObsY'). --Neander 22:19, 13 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes complete sense to me: was discovered (by GvB, astronomer) (at ObsY). Since my Latinitas is not so good, can I get an amen and someone to make the change? -- Robert.Baruch 22:34, 13 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A word of caution: according to Cassell's, apud is used "chiefly in relation to persons," not things (like observatories). I don't see why someone working at an observatory on a one-year contract, or even a three-month contract, wouldn't be an employee "of" that employer. IacobusAmor 23:43, 13 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we moderns don't use ad for 'at' enough. For ad in the sense of 'at' (not its primary sense, 'toward, to'), Cassell's has these examples: sedere ad latus eius (Cicero), esse ad portas (Cicero), ad iudicem ('before a judge', Cicero), pugna ad Cannas (Livy). IacobusAmor 23:48, 13 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To throw another preposition into the fight, Bradley's Arnold says, 311. Place at which is generally expressed by the local ablative with the preposition in: in Italia, in urbe. But the ablatives of a few words express "place where" without a preposition; and the preposition is sometimes omitted when a noun is qualified by an adjective: media urbe, tota Italia. 312. But, whenever it exists, the locative case is used to express "place where". So perhaps in Observatorio Yerkes or in Pechio. -- Robert.Baruch 00:56, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that "of" gives the impression that the astronomer is associated with that institution. The problem came to light when I found one astronomer had gone to China to observe the transit of Venus, and discovered an asteroid while there. So he wasn't "Watson of Peking" (the name of the observatory, if there was one, isn't mentioned in any reference I could check). -- Robert.Baruch 00:23, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: An article in the New York Times, 31 Dec 1874 has details on the expedition to Peking, indicating that they had set up a temporary station on the grounds of the English Church Missionary Society in Peking. So it wasn't a permanent observatory, and I guess the best that could be said is that Watson was at Peking. -- Robert.Baruch 00:35, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case then, you'd probably just want Pechini or Pekini, the locative of Peking. Captain Cook sailed to Tahiti to observe the transit of Venus on 3 June 1769. Somebody should write an article! IacobusAmor 01:05, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's quite true that apud is used "chiefly in relation to persons," but notice that institutions relate to persons as well. That's why, say, Cicero uses apud when speaking about institutions and institutional collectives such as senatus &c: apud senatum, populum Romanum, exercitum, nationes, ordinem senatorium, &c.). Observatories are human institutions, and so I guess it's not awfully weird to say of someone having made a discovery apud observatorium Yerkes, if that person's relation to the named institution is being brought out in relief. If we say in observatorio, we're focussing on the place or building. If someone is said to have discovered some asteroid "in observatiorio", s/he has surely not been outside the building. For an Anglophone this should be obvious, given the difference between in and at. --Neander 02:11, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I had a feeling that mention of Cassell's would entice Neander out of his lair. ;) The telescopes are indeed inside (in) an observatory, and as Neander tells us, they may be at (apud) an institution that's perhaps called an observatory. IacobusAmor 04:12, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have another candidate: ex. Bradley's Arnold: 273. A preposition (in, ex, a, ab) is generally used with words denoting place... Also Lewis and Short: 2. To indicate the place from which any thing is done or takes place. I wouldn't mind seeing ex Observatorio or ex Pechino. I'm trying to make it so that I can use one preposition for both types of locations to make the script easier. -- Robert.Baruch 03:45, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way that Robert can make a single structure serve all the anticipated functions? Wouldn't ex Pechino = 'out of Peking' or 'from Peking'? The locative Pechini has no preposition, but in urbe Pechino does. IacobusAmor 04:12, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to me: "Watson observed out of Peking." "Watson discovered, from Peking, an asteroid." It's not usually used in English, but it is allowed. -- Robert.Baruch 14:20, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just getting rid of astronomo completely will help: a Watson ex Pechino repertus est makes sense, doesn't it? We don't have to state that Watson was an astronomer. Perhaps he was not an astronomer. Perhaps he was only an amateur astronomer. Perhaps he was an astrophysicist that happened to discover an asteroid. What do you think? I've made the change on Usor:Robert.Baruch/Test 990 Yerkes so you can see. -- Robert.Baruch 16:57, 14 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venturing out of my lair again...  :–)  ... and coming with a word of caution. Normally, in the pattern X reperit Y ex Z, ex Z tends to be construed as the source of information about Y (e.g. Cic.Verr. 2.2.183; Div. 1.16 [mentioned in Cassell's, sine loco dato]). I'm not sure at all if this tack of interpretation can be overrun by the fact that Z happens to refer to a place. Consider the phrase "rarest rock discovered from India", the Latin counterpart of which would be "rarissimum saxum repertum ex India". (Also "in India" would be ok in both languages.) According to Robert, the phrase "Watson discovered, from Peking, an asteroid", is ok, though not usually used in English. So, if somebody used it in the English wiki, it wouldn't be too long-lived, or ...? WRT Latin, given the verb frame X reperit Y ex Z, I'd rather dissuade from construing ex Z as referring to the whereabouts of X. I, for one, haven't found any attestation for such a use of the frame. Maybe I haven't tried hard enough, or maybe such a construal isn't allowed in Latin. It seems to me that the construction must be refashioned somehow, but right now I haven't the time to think about it. Let's hear whst others have to say. --Neander 10:28, 15 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most idiomatic place-related usage of out of that comes to mind is particular to boxing & wrestling (and perhaps similar sports). One can almost hear the ringside announcer saying "And in the blue trunks! fighting out of Philadellllllllllllphia! John 'The Miiiiighty Slammmmmmmer'! Doooooooe!!!" Someone "out of Peking" while he did something was most definitely not in Peking when he did it. To be out of a place means you're not in it! IacobusAmor 13:21, 15 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ex Z, "out of Z", modifies the verb, not the noun in my construction. From has many different meanings. Merriam-Webster, from, sense 1b: "—used as a function word to indicate the starting or focal point of an activity <called me from a pay phone> <ran a business from her home>" This, to me, indicates that "discovering an asteroid from Peking" means that the discovery occurred while in Peking... not that the asteroid or the discoverer originated from Peking. -- Robert.Baruch 16:56, 15 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but the sense I get out of "discovering an asteroid from Peking" is that the asteroid is from Peking. IacobusAmor 20:41, 15 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and the same goes for Latin, too. --Neander 21:50, 15 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm willing to use in Observatorio and Pechini. I will just have my translation database include the discovery place in locative form, and I'll just have to add in everywhere there is no locative form. Alternatively, I could do as IacobusAmor suggests, and use in urbe Pechino. In the database, observatories are far more numerous than cities, so it's a lot less work to use urbe Pechino for the place ablative. -- Robert.Baruch 17:45, 15 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you use "Pechini" or "in urbe Pechino", that's ok, if you add the participle versatus to modify the discoverer. In Latin, the basic structure is Watson asteroidem repperit Pechini versatus ('W discovered a/the asteroid, when being in (to?) Peking'); in passive, Asteroides a Watson Pechini versato repertus or Asteroides a Watson repertus Pechini versato. WRT Observatorium Yerkes, it's my feel that good Latinity would demand ... a Georgio van Biesbroeck in studiis apud Observatorium Yerkes versato repertus or ... a Georgio van Biesbroeck apud Observatorium Yerkes versato repertus. If in is necessary for the sake of generality or simplicity, I'd perhaps go with ... a Georgio van Biesbroeck in Observatorio Yerkes versato repertus. § Having said this, I feel it'd be meet to ask a second opinion from persons with dependable Latin skills. --Neander 21:44, 15 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phase I Completed![recensere | fontem recensere]

Asteroids 2-1000 and the others desired by Dalby have been written. 1 Ceres was left alone. Pilae animosae fall from the ceiling! -- Robert.Baruch 00:07, 24 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Great! Great! Can you easily add 1906 Naef, 3513 Quqinyue, and 17920 Zarnecki as well, so that they conform to the established style? Greetings, --UV 21:26, 23 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please check the Latinitas of the discoverer names and places! -- Robert.Baruch 00:07, 24 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And another old page lurking around: Can you easily add 90377 Sedna as well? Greetings, --UV 21:17, 7 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done! -- Robert.Baruch 01:17, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! --UV 23:35, 8 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few pages appear to be missing from the first 1000: 119 Althaea, 243 Ida, 270 Anahita, 296 Phaetusa, 376 Geometria, 396 Aeolia, 470 Kilia, 626 Notburga, 662 Newtonia, 744 Aguntina, 746 Marlu, 886 Washingtonia, 932 Hooveria, and 964 Subamara.
One more thing: You found and corrected a problem with 9007 James Bond and I found (and believe to have corrected) a similar problem with 858 El Djezaïr where the last letter of the asteroid name was missing. What the two pages have in common is that these asteroid names consist of two words instead of just one (there is a space between James and Bond, just as there is a space between El and Djezaïr). Could you please check whether this problem affects other asteroid names consisting of two or more words as well? Thank you! --UV 21:15, 24 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good catch. I have uploaded the missing articles, and fixed the asteroid data (there were about 100 names with the last character missing). -- Robert.Baruch 23:51, 24 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to come back to Vicipaedia and see them all there! I notice a couple of points to take account of.
  1. Category names should be plural. This is mostly done correctly but we have Categoria:Asteroides Troianus Iovianus and Categoria:Asteroides Transmartianus. The correct forms would be Categoria:Asteroides Troiani Ioviani and Categoria:Asteroides Transmartiani. The numbers involved are small so I will change them manually for this batch. The correct category names were given, higher up this page, but I admit there is an awful lot of detail on this page!
Thanks, I have updated my scripts. Does this also apply to Categoria:Corpora Ultraneptunianum? -- Robert.Baruch 21:34, 25 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I missed those. I have now corrected the category name, and I am making the additional two changes needed; just change your script for next time! In the infobox, under "genus", they should read Corpus Ultraneptunianum (singular all through). In the text they should read corporibus Ultraneptunianis (dative plural). The category is Categoria:Corpora Ultraneptuniana (nominative plural). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:36, 26 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I have created an intermediate category Categoria:Asteroides repertu digesti. Perhaps it should rather be Categoria:Asteroides anno repertús digesti or some other form which I haven't yet thought of ... Please, anyone else, comment on the best form of words! Once agreed, we need to create all the individual year categories to match Categoria:Asteroides anno 1898 reperti. I wonder if this is within UVbot's capabilities? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 25 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note in case more pages will be added in the future: It would be a good idea not to embed templates in our interwiki links, but to spell out the interwiki link in any pages we might add in the future (that is: not write "[[en:997 {{Data Asteroidum 0000|997|nomen}}]]" but instead write "[[en:997 Priska]]"). Reason: Several interwiki bots had problems with the template call inside the interwiki link (see de:Benutzer Diskussion:Xqt#Xqbot auf la.wikipedia). I believe that by now all our existing pages are OK but it is quite likely that the problem would recur in case we would add more pages with template calls inside the interwiki link. --UV 23:34, 27 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I will update the program. -- Robert.Baruch 01:05, 28 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

versato--->versatis[recensere | fontem recensere]

This versatus = 'staying, resorting' (ex the special middle sense of the passive of versare), right? Since it refers to the discoverers, it should be plural for any asteroid that has more than one named discoverer; and in articles where it refers to a sole discoverer who was a woman, it should be versata. No? Do many such articles exist? IacobusAmor 15:01, 26 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good catch! The vast majority of asteroids have male discoverers, and all of the early ones are exclusively male. So I can write an auto-edit program to change versato to versatis on multiple discovers. (Fixed. -- Robert.Baruch 19:59, 27 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC))[reply]
One other issue that is bothering me is that especially in more recent times, discovers have been computer programs rather than people. They are officially attributed to the program, and not any one discoverer. In this case, would the word be feminine (after programma or whatever other name it has), or neuter (because it's a genderless machine)? And would it be versatus at all? -- Robert.Baruch 18:38, 26 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give an example? In case the discoverer is a computer program, "versatus" is out of the question. This and the problems mentioned by Iacobus are met with in any language that is morphologically more complex than English. --Neander 19:35, 26 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an example at 88611 Teharonhiawako. -- Robert.Baruch 20:32, 26 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed 88611 Teharonhiawako accordingly. --Neander 03:21, 27 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now that I'm looking more closely at what the Deep Ecliptic Survey is, I see that it uses the facilities of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO), and 88611 Teharonhiawako was specifically found using the facilities of the Observatorium Cerro Tololo (which is grouped under the NOAO). Could you find a phrase for "using the facilities of..."? Or is just putting the observatory in the genitive sufficient? -- Robert.Baruch 01:27, 28 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not noticing this sooner. "using the facilities of the Observatory X" might be "instrumentis Observatorii X usus" or [in case there are more than one 'users'] "....usi". --Neander 01:17, 9 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needless renaming[recensere | fontem recensere]

For

Rerum orbitalium ratio epochae 4 Ianuarii 2010 constitit. Qua epocha 90482 Orcus per dies 89527 circa solem movebatur.

A version without the name

Rerum orbitalium ratio epochae 4 Ianuarii 2010 constitit; qua epocha per dies 89527 circa solem movebatur.

would read more smoothly. Thus also in the 999 other such articles already done? IacobusAmor 15:07, 26 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject in the first sentence is "ratio", so the change of subject in the second sentence needs to be signalled somehow. I agree, though, that "90482 Orcus" doesn't make a perfect signal, since "90482" is not obviously nominative! Can we find a better solution? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:59, 26 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the asteroid itself remains the topic & focus of the passage: Rerum orbitalium ratio epochae 4 Ianuarii 2010 constitit 'The reckoning of its orbital properties was set for the epoch of 4 January 2010'; qua epocha per dies 89527 circa solem movebatur 'on which epoch it was revolving around the sun [once] every 89527 days'. IacobusAmor 13:09, 27 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

designationibus[recensere | fontem recensere]

In "58534 Logos, olim designationibus 1997 CQ29 agnitus," is 1997 CQ29 really two names ('markings out, designations, mentions')? I read it as a single name, just as 58534 Logos is a single name. Likewise, presumably, in any other such article about an asteroid that had a previous name. IacobusAmor 15:24, 26 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a single name, so you are correct: I'll write an auto-edit program (I really need to learn Bot programming) to change this. Is designationibus dative or ablative? -- Robert.Baruch 18:28, 26 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ablative; so, in the present case: designatione. --Neander 19:14, 26 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. -- Robert.Baruch 19:59, 27 Ianuarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of names[recensere | fontem recensere]

I'm working away on it and have done nos. 1-80. OK, so it's a bit slow! But I don't like just to copy from en:wiki, so I am always verifying details, and also, wherever it seems desirable (as it very often does), adding a discretiva page; a few mythological lists are being added at the same time.

I notice that above no. 50 or so, our pages usually look better and fuller than those of en:wiki and other competitors. Imagines are sometimes available on Commons. I haven't added them, and if anyone else cares to hunt them down, fine! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:54, 15 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! If you need anymore offloading to find references as before, just ask me. I can also start looking for images. -- Robert.Baruch 18:37, 15 Februarii 2010 (UTC)[reply]

274301 Wikipedia[recensere | fontem recensere]

wikinews:Main belt asteroid No. 274301 named 'Wikipedia' --UV (disputatio) 23:01, 7 Februarii 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Receptum de "https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usor:Robert.Baruch/Asteroids&oldid=3267375"