Vicipaedia:Taberna

E Vicipaedia
(Redirectum de VP:T)
Salire ad: navigationem, quaerere
Haec est taberna Vicipaediae ubi potes si dubia habes, explanationes quaerere, nuntia ad nos mittere et cetera.
Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide tabernae acta priora.
Quaestio nova
Compendium:
VP:T
Hic colloqui possumus.


De formulis etiam in Vicipaedia Latina adoptandis[fontem recensere]

Cunctis salutem. De otio Latinos articulos redigendi reversus nonnullas suadeo mutationes exsequendas esse atque evolvendas, quae incrementum Vicipaedia serviat. Adoptentur enim oportet infocapsae non solum ad nationem oppidumve verum etiam ad personas (v.g. functionarios politicos) spectantes, ut aliae iamdudum Vicipaediae id solverant. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 16:47, 9 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Salve, Martine! Habemus formulam {{Capsa hominis Vicidata}}. Melius erit vitam hominum non perbreviter in infocapsis, sed in textu commentationis describere (vide etiam Disputatio Usoris:Katxis#Infoboxes). Fortasse mox omnes Vicipaediae infocapsas communes habebunt, vide meta:2015 Community Wishlist Survey > "Central global repository for templates, gadgets and Lua modules", et > "Make it easy to build infoboxes that display information from wikidata". --UV (disputatio) 13:17, 10 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

New British PM[fontem recensere]

Crystal 128 up.png Commentatio principalis: Theresa May

I've started to put some infrastructure into place, tried to update some templates, and so forth. But my Latin writing skills are nowhere near good enough to update body text on any of the ministers, outgoing, incoming, or otherwise. Assistance welcome. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 18:33, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Update at 17:14, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[fontem recensere]

It looks like the cabinet-level appointments have now all been made. The template {{Consilium Britannicum May}} is up to date, and has been included on all of the cabinet secretaries' pages that currently exist. Let me point out again that:

  • My Latin skills are rudimentary at best. All of the existing pages need to be updated to reflect current jobs, and many pages of members of David Cameron's cabinet need to be updated to reflect those changes, too. But that's not something I can do.
  • Similarly, a number of new pages are needed. I don't imagine that they will all be written, but a few of the posts (like Amber Rudd's at the Home Office) are senior enough to merit a page. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:14, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for all you have done! I have done some of the updating you suggest, but I haven't written any new pages (yet). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:59, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
I do appreciate your pruning the rest of the names at the end there. I left them at first, figuring it would be easier than trying to figure out all of the Latin forms from scratch. But by the end ... (grin) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 20:03, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
PS: You got them all ... except for the Cancellarius Scaccarii. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 20:12, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Amber Rudd is now blue (the appropriate colour for Conservatives). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:21, 17 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Odd how the Conservatives are blue there, but Democrats are blue here. You may still like to give the Rt. Hon. Philippus Hammond, MP, his new job. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 01:55, 18 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Corrigendum correctum![fontem recensere]

Categoria [[Categoria:Imago sine descriptione]] nunc vacua est! Gaudeamus igitur. Ut omnes scimus (vel, spero nos omnes scire), imago apud nos descriptionem habeto, ut machinae computrales usorum caecorum clara voce descriptionem legere possint -- etiamsi descriptio in pagina non apparet. (Descriptio in [[Fasciculus:...]] fit "alt=" cum pagina in forma HTML fit.) Ex hoc die in perpetuum, esto nulla pagina hac in categoria! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:55, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Permultae imagines in commentariis de perparvis vicis Italicis formam habent "Imago vici X," cum accuratior forma sit "Ecclesia Sancti Iosephi vici X," aut "Forum medium vici X," aut alia—res haud melior quam "Imago sine descriptione." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:16, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Tecum consentio, et omnes, qui in talibus paginis laborabunt, adhortor ad descriptiones admeliorandas. Sunt etiam imagines sine descriptionibus quae formula carent, quae invenitae corrigendae. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:23, 14 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Admin activity review[fontem recensere]

Hello. A new policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc) was adopted by global community consensus in 2013. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on smaller wikis. To the best of our knowledge, your wiki does not have a formal process for removing "advanced rights" from inactive accounts. This means that the stewards will take care of this according to the admin activity review.

We have determined that the following users meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for more than 2 years):

  1. Mycēs (administrator)

These users will receive a notification soon, asking them to start a community discussion if they want to retain some or all of their rights. If the users do not respond, then their advanced rights will be removed by the stewards.

However, if you as a community would like to create your own activity review process superseding the global one, want to make another decision about these inactive rights holders, or already have a policy that we missed, then please notify the stewards on Meta-Wiki so that we know not to proceed with the rights review on your wiki. Thanks, Rschen7754 20:52, 16 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Well, we do have a policy (Vicipaedia:Magistratus#De magistratibus quiescentibus), but we seem to have not put it into practice at least for the past one-and-a-half years ... --UV (disputatio) 22:01, 24 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
That's true, and thanks for providing the link! Myces has been a very useful adviser, and I was hoping he would still show up sometimes, but I noticed recently that he has been absent from en:wiki and from la:wikt for about the same length of time.
So our policy could be applied. It provides that he'd be welcome to return whenever he wants. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:27, 25 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that Andrew (probably better than the rest of us) contact the stewards to point out to them that we do, in fact, have a policy. (Its English-language translation is here: Vicipaedia:Magistratus/en#Inactive administrators.) My only question—and it's a question only—is whether this (or 12 months or 18 months) should be a mandatory deflagging for security purposes. I don't think that's terribly burdensome if the inactive admin is allowed to request his reflagging without a new vote. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:51, 25 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
No better, but maybe nearly as good as anyone else :) OK, I'll tell them. In this case, they have already posted a notice on Myces' page. Since we hadn't reacted to Myces' absence, I can't see any reason why they shouldn't now continue their process. It won't prevent him getting his flag back if he reappears here and asks for it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:52, 25 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Agree. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:33, 25 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

De Sonubus in pagina prima[fontem recensere]

Ex anno 2004 Pagina Mensis in pagina prima apparet; ex anno 2013, imaginem et sonum mensuales habemus. Difficile est autem sonus bonos invenire. Velim igitur rogare utrum sonum mensis persistere oporteat: quid censetis? (De imaginibus et, certissime, de paginis mensualibus non disputo.) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:17, 18 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Aucune réponse? Ça vous est égal à vous tous? D'accord: je vais supprimer le "Son du mois" sur notre première page -- dès aujourd'hui.
No answers? Nobody cares? Fair enough: I'm taking "Sound of the Month" off the front page this afternoon. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:37, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Anne! The sounds of the month have been a really good thing, but I'm conscious that I hardly have time to help find more of them. In fact I (we) ought to start worrying about future "paginae mensium". Any suggestions under that heading? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:18, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
I've proposed a few pages; we haven't done anything classical/Roman in a while, and there's also some good science/tech stuff we could use. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:41, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

WikiCon IT[fontem recensere]

Salve a tutti! Scusate se scrivo in italiano. Con Jaqen e CristianNX ci è ci è venuta la pazza idea di organizzare una WikiConference italiana, su modello delle esperienze di altri paesi (ad es. quella tedesca). AlessioMela e altri si sono prontamente detti disponibili a dare una mano. Si tratterebbe, in breve, di una tre giorni (da venerdì alla domenica) di incontri fra utenti di Wikipedia e degli altri progetti Wikimedia. L'idea è di farla a Trento in primavera 2017. Abbiamo creato la pagina su Meta per chiedere finanziamenti a Wikimedia Foundation (l'idea è anche quella di coprire ai partecipanti vitto e alloggio, e a quanti possibile anche le spese di viaggio).
Al momento chiaramente è solo una bozza, ma è già possibile dare il proprio endorsement. Inoltre, per aiutarci a organizzare sarebbe importante avere un'idea di quanta gente potrebbe partecipare: se vi va potete farcelo sapere qui, nella talk su meta, via mail a me, ecc. So che senza nemmeno sapere quando sarà è difficile rispondere, ma ci basta anche un "forse parteciperò".
La sezione Partecipants su meta invece non è per chi semplicemente parteciperà, ma per chi dà una mano, e in effetti se avete voglia di dare una mano siete più che i benvenuti. Troveremo sicuramente qualcosa da farvi fare :)
Dite anche se avete idee sul programma (es. qualcosa di cui secondo voi bisognerebbe assolutamente parlare). Potete scriverlo qua, o direttamente a me. Chiaramente più avanti abbiamo intenzione di mettere in piedi un sistema meglio strutturato, ma intanto ci pare utile raccogliere idee.
In caso di qualunque dubbio, suggerimento, ecc. siamo a disposizione! --Yiyi (disputatio) 08:57, 20 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Vide etiam[fontem recensere]

Could one of our kind programmers devise & run a program that would change all the Vide etiam titles to Nexus interni titles. At least one of our authors is beginning to put items listed under Vide etiam into the accusative. If that's not nipped in the bud (so to speak), Vicipaedia will end up with competing sets of styles for linking to other articles within the project. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:30, 22 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Si id faciat, Vicipaedia:Structura paginae etiam commutator, quaeso. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 22:53, 22 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
I can do this tomorrow, if no one else gets there first, and I'll adjust the "Structura paginae" text as well. The easiest, perhaps, would be to create a Formula that produces the "Nexus interni" section heading -- if we use that everywhere, then we can change the wording globally any time we want simply by editing that formula. An additional benefit would be that we can add a hidden category ("pages with Nexus Interni sections") from which we can determine which pages have a crude list of links -- since in principle that should be a place-holder for writing actual text that connects this article to those other ones. And that would be another pointer to Paginae Ameliorandae. What do folks think of this? -- let me know and I'll take it up when I'm at school tomorrow afternoon. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:00, 25 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
A useful idea, I should think, as a list of pages lacking nexus interni could be helpful to have; however, if all the Vide etiams are changed, can the process be effected silently, the way programs remove superfluous interwiki links, without cluttering up the Nuper mutata with tens of thousands (!) of records? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:10, 25 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
We should learn how to create those bots.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:44, 25 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
I also think the formula idea is good -- principally for the "additional benefit" that Anne mentions.
Not necessarily to be done at the same time, but let's bear in mind that we've been anything but consistent in the order of items at the foot of a page. The order now given in "Structura paginae" was agreed five years ago, but many pages are arranged in other ways. Consistency, if eventually attainable, would be no bad thing. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:06, 25 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
If we either create a bot (better) or create the "flooder" (pseudobot) user group here (second best), we can get around the problem of cluttering up the Nuper mutata. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:14, 25 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
I do use a bot (AMahoney bot = me with my bot hat on). I don't know how other people do it -- and I can imagine better ways but I'm a bit lazy :-) -- but I'll just write a one-off program to do this, and have it log in under the bot's ID. If you can write code, you, too, can become a Vicipaedia bot! I use Perl and its Mediawiki packages, but one may use any programming language. Point is, changes made by a user with the bot flag are marked specially in Nuper Mutata, and are by default hidden. Now, as for order of items, that's a harder problem and I'm not proposing to work on that today. I'm just planning to create a new formula -- call it {{NexInt}} for example -- that puts the heading "Nexus interni" and adds the page to a new hidden category "pages with Nexus interni section." For the record, I'm assuming that the presence of a Nexus Interni section (or Vide Etiam or whatever it's called) is a bad thing: we're not looking for pages that lack these, to put them in, but for pages that have them, to turn those crude links into text. Am I right? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:31, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Just to confirm, yes, I think it's a very good idea. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
At this stage of the game, listing links to tangentially related articles is a useful (and hence good) thing. After a few million more articles have appeared and opportunities for linking have correspondingly increased, then it might be more of a neutral thing. Plenty of articles in the English wiki (still) have such links. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:02, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
They have, but it's a sign that they have some improving to do ... and we're at a far-less-developed stage. So, yes, we surely expect this exercise to present to us large numbers of "Nexus interni", and it's surely a long term aim to incorporate the deserving ones into article text. A good aim, though. A plain list of links doesn't tell a reader why each linked page is relevant. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Summarizing, then: we want to write "Nexus Interni" (or "Nexus interni" with minuscule?) rather than "Vide etiam," and we want to collect such pages into a hidden category for future reference. If that's correct, then I'll get on it. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:47, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
That's my understanding (with minuscule: Nexus interni). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:52, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. It will require some manual cleanup with the pages that do have the accusative, unless the bot can parse Latin grammar! :) Lesgles (disputatio) 16:32, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Metagrammatical comment, plus suggestion. No dispute about how we're accomplishing this. In fact, it makes great sense to do it this way.
  • Who says that a list of pages after Vide etiam: can't be in nominative? Yes, in theory, any/all of the elements of the list are objects of the verb vide. Still, it's a list, not a sentence. So ... who says we'd need to decline the elements of the list as if they're really part of a sentence? It's not as if we need a declension to determine what the role of these is in the sentence.
  • Couldn't one just as easily have made a case for genitive? After all, we're not really "See[ing] also" the object itself, we're "see[ing] also" the page of the object. So arguably paginam is the true direct object in every case, taking a genitive specification afterwards.
All that said, then:
  • It makes sense to avoid the problem entirely by using Nexus interni.
  • We should probably make a policy that says "lists should be in nominative".
StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:15, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
There is indeed a lot of precedent for treating dictionary and encyclopedia lemmata as indeclinable. It is the rule in Hofmann: "Vide Dorcestria"; Forcellini: "Cacabulus, deminut. a cacabus, κακκάβιον, parvus cacabus"; and the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae: "vide etiam Annicia". As you say, with "vide etiam equus", we aren't asked to look at a horse, but an article about horses. For that reason I wasn't sure about this change; but in the end, I like the parallelism with "nexus externi". Lesgles (disputatio) 16:19, 27 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
I am now in process of replacing "vide etiam" with a new formula, and will then go on to "nexus interni." The formula is called "NexInt" and the corresponding category is "Paginae cum sectione nexuum internorum" (hidden, naturally, and under Corrigenda). I'm only doing the main namespace; we're on our own for Usor: pages and the like. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:28, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
There are a zillion of these. Many are fixed; I'll fire the bot up again when I'm here on Thursday. Meanwhile, feel free to put the new formula in by hand! See Duo for an example. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:43, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Awesome work!--Jondel (disputatio) 22:39, 26 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, awesome work. Anne, at risk of seeming ungrateful (by suggesting one other piece of work): I agree that for most other page spaces (like Usor) we are (and should be) on our own. Maybe you (your bot) can have a look at Formula: and Vicipaedia: spaces, though. I doubt there are many examples there, but I consider them official enough that they deserve careful scrutiny. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:51, 27 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
I'm not ungrateful either -- quite the contrary. Now that it'll be so easy to locate them all, does it make sense for a bot to remove from among the nexus interni the items that are of no use, I mean: redlinks; links already duplicated in the text; hidden matter? And could a bot in fact do that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:20, 27 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
It isn't hard to do the same thing in other name spaces; I'll do so. I agree that some of them are official parts of Vicipaedia. As for checking the content of the NexInt section, I don't know. Maybe redlinks are do-able, and I suppose I can see how to check if a link in this section appears elsewhere. But we're talking about over 60,000 pages, and I expect it would take days. I'd defer this in favor of working on Latinity and other housekeeping that seems more useful. Still, worth keeping in mind. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:28, 27 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes good sense to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 28 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Progress report: the new formula now appears on over 45,000 pages, but there are some 28,000 to go in the main name space, which will get done over the course of the next week. I'm working on the Vicipaedia and Formula name spaces manually since they're small -- about 150 "Vide etiam"s in VP, about 280 in Formula -- and possibly tricky: others who wish are welcome to help (or to adjust or correct what I change there). See below for an unexpected side effect, and if it's fixable, please do! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:46, 28 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Search problem?[fontem recensere]

So I'm managing this with a program that does a search for "Vide etiam" in pages, verifies that the phrase is actually a section heading ("== Vide etiam =="), and replaces it with the new formula. But starting yesterday, a search on that phrase turns up all sorts of pages where the phrase does not appear -- but used to! If you do the search, you'll find "Mercatus (Pars Vide etiam)," for example. But there is no such heading in that page: it's already been replaced by the new formula. The words "vide etiam" don't appear in the page at all, either in the source or in the display with all templates expanded. This was not a problem last week. I've got workarounds ("-insource:NexInt" for starters) but I'm curious whether anybody knows what's going on here. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:46, 3 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me, a while ago, when I was tagging almost-empty pages about extinct animals. There were, however, fewer than 1,000 of them. My workaround was to save my search results and work from the saved list ... but luckily I had realised very early on that it was happening ... and I was doing the job manually. No help to you, I guess. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:24, 3 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
And there's something else: have a look at Grallator and its talk page. Obviously something's screwed up; what's the best way to report it? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:24, 3 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Do any of these machinations have to do with the fact that the following kind of entry has begun to appear in the Nuper mutata? "Categoria:Stipulae Informaticae‎ . . IacobusAmor (Disputatio | conlationes) (Tabula calculatoria removed from category)" IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:36, 3 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Well, turns out the problem with Grallator was the Ichnobox template, not relevant to the "Vide etiam" business at all. As for the Nuper mutata list, I'm not seeing what you're seeing! I see your edit to Tabula calculatoria but from where I sit, it's a perfectly normal entry. You did, of course, remove it from the Stipulae Informaticae category, but that usually doesn't generate a Nuper Mutata entry. So this seems like a new and different anomaly! Are you watching the category, perhaps? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:51, 3 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
OK, I figured it out: it was something I (un)did in the Praeferentiae. I've fixed it, and the list of Nuper mutata looks much less cluttered now. Re: "You did, of course, remove it from the Stipulae Informaticae category, but that usually doesn't generate a Nuper Mutata entry." It apparently does if you uncheck the box that suppresses such entries! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:44, 3 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
I thought of that answer in bed last night. I must get out more. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:18, 4 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Cool: another Preference option I haven't played with! Search is still wonky (wonder if it's looking at a cache someplace?) but I think I know how to find and fix the few remaining "Vide etiam" page sections. I may need to fix the Ichnobox template first, though. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:15, 4 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Ubi crus incipit?[fontem recensere]

A genu? A coxa? Auxilium vestrum peto. Legite, quaero, Disputationem paginae! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:47, 23 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Respondi. Neander (disputatio) 07:42, 24 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

de nexibus internis[fontem recensere]

Mi dicatis, quaeso, o sodales his rebus initiati, quo mendo (meo proprio, ut puto), cum in pagina qualibet, pressato nexus interni (vel nexus externi), non iam inveniam hos nexus, quibus alium adiungam, sed eorum formulam. Nunc ergo necesse est totam paginam declarare recensendam, si tantum in his nexibus unam solam rem addere volo? --Bavarese (disputatio) 13:32, 27 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

De "nexibus externis" nihil novum scio. De "nexibus internis", verum est: necesse erit aut totam paginam (sicut dicis) aut rubricam superiorem recensere. E.g. in pagina Franciscus Rabelaesus oportet aut totam paginam, aut rubricam "Bibliographia" recensere, si novum "nexum internum" addere vis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:08, 27 Iulii 2016 (UTC)
Quomodo dicimus "unintended consequence"? Quod volumus formulam habere ad nexuum internorum sectionem nominandam, nunc nexus "recensere" prope titulum "Nexus interni" non videtur. Consentio: est res incommoda; me paenitet! Ecquis scit corregere? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:42, 28 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

A curious printing error[fontem recensere]

At 11:00 (universal time) today, I made changes in Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnibus Wikipediis contineri oportet/Expansio/Homines, but curiously, that title isn't printing in boldface on my screen. All the other titles on which I've worked today are printing in boldface, as usual. This is probably a trivial error (if it is an error), but it may want to be on the record. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:38, 1 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Depends which "screen," doesn't it? In your watchlist (Paginae observandae), a page shows up in boldface if someone other than you was the last person to edit it. In the recent changes list (Nuper mutata), everything on your watchlist should be bold no matter who edited it. If this particular sub-page happens not to be on your watchlist, it won't be boldface. Note, too, that there's no need to edit those lists at all; whenever I intend to run the program to make the statistics table, I always refresh the lists based on what's found in Meta (master copy of list) and Wikidata. As long as you create the Wikidata entry, new pages in the Myriad will be found and accounted for -- that's all you need to do. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:23, 2 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
The page being referred to is the Nuper mutata page, and this is the edit in question. Its entry in Nuper mutata is still not in bold here this morning, though my six immediately subsequent edits made in "Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnibus Wikipediis contineri oportet/Expansio/" are. Likewise all the other edits I made yesterday. The typography of that one edit is an unexplained anomaly! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:39, 2 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure this one's on your watch list? Maybe you missed adding it when you did all the others. Otherwise I can't explain the anomaly. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:17, 2 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Adjectives vs. nouns in the genitive[fontem recensere]

Given English phrases having the structure of Agricultural education, Agricultural economics, Agricultural engineering, and so forth (all eventually to be the lemmata of articles), does Vicipaedia have a preference between adjectives (Educatio agriculturalis, Oeconomica agriculturalis, Ingeniaria agriculturalis) and nouns (Educatio agriculturae, Oeconomica agriculturae, Ingeniaria agriculturae)? Certainly we're told that the Romans would often prefer adjectives for this syntax, with civis Romanus famously cited as a model to be emulated and civis Romae as a horror not to be repeated. However, vicipaedian Latin often, especially in categories, seems to prefer nouns (e.g., poetae Franciae, not poetae Francici). Further the adjective may look odd in some combinations (e.g., Scientia animalis vs. Scientia animalium and perhaps Nutritio animalis vs. Nutritio animalium). Of course not all two-word phrases that in English are adjective+noun must necessarily be rendered by the same pattern in Latin, but if consistency were to be sought, which pattern should be followed? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:25, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

When the first word in a two-word English phrase is an objective noun, is the genitive better? E.g.: Waste management = Administratio scrutorum/ramentorum. (Whether there's a better word for waste here may be a different question.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:25, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. The example of Animal nutrition (cited above) might also be said to begin with an objective noun; animal there may not be an adjective, as it would be in animal spirits (= 'high spirits'). So a tentative guess, on the basis of this sample, is that the pattern seen in Agricultural education should be rendered with an adjective (Educatio agriculturalis) and the pattern seen in Waste management (using objective nouns) should be rendered with a genitive (Administratio/Cura scrutorum/ramentorum). Does that distinction seem reasonable? Or should they all be made consistent, one way or the other? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:35, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Hmm is right. I don't think we'll find consistency in translating such a pattern between any two languages. If we could, learning languages would be easy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:50, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Fortasse ea, quae (vide sequentia!) de adiectivis aut genetivis in relatione ad populos dicta sunt, etiam in aliis relationibus sunt observanda :
Insofern nicht eine Eigenschaft oder Beschaffenheit des Substantivs, sondern die Beziehung, das Verhältnis desselben zu dem Volke bezeichnet wird, sagt man im Lateinischen: Imperator Carthaginiensium, Macedonum rex, civitas Atheniensium. Somit wird 'die römischen Gesandten' durch 'legati Romani' übersetzt, wenn sie in ihrer nationalen Eigenschaft aufgefasst, durch 'legati Romanorum' oder 'populi Romani', wenn sie als im Auftrage des römischen Volkes handelnd bezeichnet werden. Similiter: Man unterscheide 'hominum mores' 'menschliche Sitten' von 'mores humani' 'menschenfreundliche Sitten'. (Hermann Menge, Repetitorium der lateinischen Syntx und Stilistik. München 1960 (13. Auflage), S. 139 (= § 191)
Ut mihi videtur ea - sc. nicht eine Eigenschaft oder Beschaffenheit des Substantivs - de nutritione animali/animalium etc. valere possint. --Bavarese (disputatio) 10:05, 8 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Bene factum! (For the record, here's what I'm understanding: "Thus, 'the Roman ambassadors' [is] translated by 'legati Romani' when they're perceived in their national character, by 'legati Romanorum' . . . when they're designated as acting on behalf of the Roman people.") Ergo, exempli gratia: 'animal spirits' = spiritus animales (Eigenschaft, proprietas), sed 'animal husbandry' = cultura animalium (das Verhältnis desselben zu dem [X] bezeichnet wird, affinitas ad X spectat). OK? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:47, 8 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
I guess in English, the difference would be whether the word is ultimately descriptive ("animal spirits") or attributive ("animal husbandry"). Hebrew has an interesting construction called semichut (status constructus) for attributives, but that's a different discussion. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:51, 8 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Ergo faciamus probationem nostri consensus! Rectene factum vobis videtur nomen paginis Bellum alterum de libertate Italiana (sive Italica)? aut ... Italiae? aut ...? --Bavarese (disputatio) 09:21, 16 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Ne inter "Italicam" et "Italianam" haesites, "Italianus -a -um" (verbum alibi valde rarum) hic de lingua Italiana hodierna tantum seligere possumus, distinctionem utilem a linguis Italicis antiquis ita artificiose facientes :) Quando de rebus historicis, geographicis, politicis loquimur, verbum "Italicus -a -um" ubique praeferendum est (dico ego). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:47, 16 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Et Italius et Italus. Nobis praeterea est nomen Italis, -idis, f., cum "plur. as subst. Italides, Italian women, Verg." (Cassell's). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:54, 16 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Eheu! Tam obscure rogavi quaestionem, ut nunc quasi questionem me de mea neglegentia addere oporteat. Non disputaveramus, qua significatione aliud adiectivum ab alio distingueretur - italianus aut(!) italicus -, sed utrum adiectivum - quodvis, sive(!) italianus (ut in pagina Mazentia (Italia), et repudiandum quidem, legitur) sive (!) italicus sive (!) quoddam aliud - praeferendum esset nomini terrae/civitatis (Italia). Clarius: num scribatur 'bellum de libertate italiana/italica' aut 'bellum de libertate Italiae', aut alio quo modo ('Italorum'? 'Italiorum'? 'Italianorum'? et quae alia cogitari possint). Si ego quidem verba vestra non recte intellexi, errorem meum quaeso tollatis.
Si rem tibi inutilem scripsi, da veniam, Bavarese. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:35, 16 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Equidem faveam locutioni "bellum libertatis Italicae". Lesgles (disputatio) 15:50, 16 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Iam habemus "Res Novae Americanae" et "Francicae" et "Philippinicae" et "Tunesienses"; vide autem "Res Novae Russiae (1917)." Aenigma est! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:27, 16 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
@Andrea: Opus non est, Andrea, ulla excusatione. Nuntium tuum semper cum lucro legi.
@IacobusAmor: Res ipsa, ut scripsisti, aenigma est, et esse permanebit. Adeo maior, quod inter fides Punica et fides Poenorum differentiam non nego. Sed res est, ut theodisce dicere solemus, 'ein weites Feld'. --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:06, 17 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Apparitio[fontem recensere]

Inter paginas fortuito a me repertas Apparitio fuit . Miror, quod eo vocabulo omnes negotiationes et mercium confectiones contineantur; et eo magis, quod eodem loco eodemque sensu etiam apparAtio legitur. Plane assentio Iacobo nostro iam anno 2009 huic rei - videatis disputationem svp.- subdiffidenti. Si ex his vocabulis omnino unum probandum est, id apparatio mihi videtur esse. --Bavarese (disputatio) 10:49, 7 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Save/Publish[fontem recensere]

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:03, 9 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

"Publish" = "Edere"?[fontem recensere]

"Hanc paginam edere" and "Hanc redactionem edere" seem like the natural Latin versions -- any better ideas? I've tentatively put those versions in at TranslateWiki. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:04, 9 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Would "divulgare" be clearer? --UV (disputatio) 19:15, 9 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Traupman restricts edere to books and otherwise suggests publicare and patefacere. Cassell's suggests (di)vulgare, praedicare, patefacere, proferre, efferre, edere, in that order, and says proferre and edere are good for books. Bear in mind that someday, Vicipaedia should have separate articles on Editor and Publisher; for the former, Editor would seem obvious—perhaps implying that in vicipaedianese, edere might be better for the concept of editing, not publishing. Vicipaedia already has Editor principalis 'editor-in-chief'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:41, 9 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
I keep Traupman's dictionary around but I haven't always been convinced by his Latinity (particularly in the Conversational Latin book); I'm more inclined to trust Cassell's. Smith's Copius & Critical suggests efferre as the basic word and edere as the usual word for publishing a book, oration, or the like. Smith says publicare in this sense is late and also suggests divulgare. Under publisher, by the way, we find "expr. by sumptibus, impensis alicuius librum edere or simply apud." Under edit, "edere, i.e. to publish, q.v. More precisely edendum or vulgandum curo. And although editor = editor, Smith notes "M(odern).L."
Of course, another issue with edere is the possible confusion between ēdere (~ emittere, divulgare, proferre) and ĕdere (~ gustare, manducare) -- I wouldn't want some confused Anglophone thinking "eat the changes" means "make them go away"! So on reflection I vote for divulgare. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:35, 10 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
So do I. Cicero, if he happens to open a Vicipaedia account, is quite likely to agree. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 11 Augusti 2016 (UTC)
Modificatio divulgata est! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:25, 11 Augusti 2016 (UTC)

Res, quam - me nesciente, quo modo - vitandam esse puto[fontem recensere]

Iterum atque iterum paginae reperiuntur, in quibus de rebus quibusdam agitur, quae eo tempore, in quo scriptae sunt, nondum gestae, sed aliquando futurae erant. Sed post nonnullos annos legentibus ridiculum videatur, de rebus iam gestis tempore futuro scriptum esse. Si legentes non operae pretium esse censent mutationes necessarias facere (non solum vocabulorum singulorum, sed, consecutionem temporum observantes, totarum fere sententiarum), hae paginae de rebus futuris narrantes in aeternum permanebunt conservatae. Hoccine est, quod volumus? Res futurae habentne omnino satis ponderis, ut in encyclopaediam accipiantur? --Bavarese (disputatio) 16:27, 2 Septembris 2016 (UTC)

Res futurae interdum non accidunt! Nisi accidunt, haud notabiles sunt! An potes, mi Bavarese, exempla citare paginarum de quibus consilia postulas? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:08, 2 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
Exempli gratia, hodie pagina 2020 Olympia Aestiva "Tocio," inquit "in Iaponia erunt" -- id quod hodie recte dicitur. Anno 2020 autem verbum temporale in "sunt," tunc "erant" mutare necesse erit. Haud miror si plures tales paginae sunt. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:44, 2 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
An en:Template:Update after/de:Vorlage:Zukunft tempore futuro utilis erit? ;-) --UV (disputatio) 21:04, 2 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
Certe, et translatio formulae mihi non difficilis videtur. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:34, 2 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
Tales sententiae nonne praedictiones fere et auguria sonant? Cur non malumus scribere: "NN certo die certi anni constituit 2020 Olympia Aestiva Tocio in Iaponia habenda fore"? Hoc modo de facti nuntio scribitur, quod non, nisi augmentatione, mutari debebit solum propter tempus praeteriens. --Bavarese (disputatio) 12:07, 6 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
Per me recte mones. A futuro indicativo abstinere oportet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 6 Septembris 2016 (UTC)

Cur "Save changes"?[fontem recensere]

Cur nunc in fonte recensendo pressorium anglice "Save changes" inscriptum est? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:44, 5 Septembris 2016 (UTC)

Est modificatio apud MediaWiki, ut videtur; modificavi nuntium "Savechanges" apud TranslateWiki ut similis sit nuntio "Publishchanges," ut supra consensimus. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:33, 6 Septembris 2016 (UTC)

Contributo dei lettori[fontem recensere]

EN: Hello everyone, in case you have not yet seen it, there is a page dedicated to discussing ideas for products, where readers can make contributions that are valuable to the mission and helpful to our editors. Please check and share your comments. Thanks!

IT: Ciao a tutti, probabilmente non l'avete ancora vista: c'è una pagina su mediawiki.org dedicata alla discussione di idee di progetti, nell'ambito dei quali i lettori possano fare dei contributi preziosi per la missione di Wikimedia e utili anche per gli editor. Dateci un'occhiata e aggiungete lì i vostri commenti. Grazie! --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 11:53, 9 Septembris 2016 (UTC)

(PS: Se può esservi utile per rispondere, provate a porvi questa semplice domanda: che tipo di compiti potrebbero essere intrapresi da lettori o contributori saltuari, e quali allo stesso tempo sono necessari (e ben accetti!) per gli editor? ----Elitre (WMF) (disputatio) 11:53, 9 Septembris 2016 (UTC) )

Quasi spam[fontem recensere]

This page consists mostly of technical notices from outside Vicipaedia. Would someone create a program to divert these notices to some other space, reserving Taberna for questions relating to Latin? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:13, 26 Septembris 2016 (UTC)

This is easy; we'd only have to change the delivery address at Meta. But what do others think? Is it convenient to have the Meta/Wikimedia/etc. technical news delivered here, or would others also prefer that those messages go elsewhere? It takes a matter of minutes to change, but let's get some degree of consensus first, shall we? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:57, 26 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
What's offputting is the mixing of technical notices with questions more traditionally discussed here. (If we respond to these notices, will the senders respond to us?) The texts don't read as if they're inviting discussion—which used to be the purpose of Taberna. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:13, 27 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
Equidem hac in re Iacobo assentior. Neander (disputatio) 07:29, 27 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
Ego quoque. Lesgles (disputatio) 09:18, 27 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
Suntne qui non consentiunt, qui malunt talia hac in pagina legere? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:28, 27 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
Novam paginam institui, Vicipaedia:Nuntii Technici nomine, et tabulas apud Metam mutavi. Ex hodie (ut spero), tales nuntios hanc in paginam ibunt. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:26, 27 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
Subscriptores gratias tibi agimus! Neander (disputatio) 18:00, 27 Septembris 2016 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 21:05, 3 Octobris 2016 (UTC)
And it's working -- the first Tech News has just been delivered to Vicipaedia:Nuntii Technici! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:55, 3 Octobris 2016 (UTC)

Making it a quasi-formal notice, then ...[fontem recensere]

(someone should write this in Latin, too, obviously:)

Members of the lawiki community are encouraged also to put Vicipaedia:Nuntii Technici on their watchlists. Routine interwiki community messages are now being posted there instead of here.

StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:45, 5 Octobris 2016 (UTC)

(Latine, ergo!)

Lectoribus, editoribus, magistratubus Vicipaediae paginam novam Vicipaedia:Nuntii Technici observare suadentur, ubi nuntii de MediaWiki necnon de Wikipediis omnibus nunc apparent.

A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:37, 5 Octobris 2016 (UTC)

vicus? oppidulum? oppidum? urbs?[fontem recensere]

Salvete! Quomodo discrimen facimus inter eiusmodi sedes hominum? Suntne praecepta tradita vel ab omnibus consensa, quid sit oppidum nominandum aut urbs etc.? Nam modo legens de urbe 7'133 habitantium (Bad Kötzting), haud mediocriter miratus urbem in oppidulum mutare ausus sum. Sed fortasse falso? --Bavarese (disputatio) 12:28, 3 Octobris 2016 (UTC)

Salve, equidem "oppidulum" non suaserim, nam aliquid vilificans in se habere videtur; fortasse potius oppidum parvum. ¶ Quod ad discrimen inter urbem et oppidum attinet, opinio solita est, urbem significare locum ampliorem qui maioris ponderis et gravitatis sit; oppidum autem locum minorem amplitudine et gravitate. Quam doctrinam subdubito, nam interdum auctores mixtim eundem locum urbem et oppidum dicunt, ut Caesar Alesiam (Gall. 7.68): "Vercingetorix copias suas [...] reduxit protinusque Alesiam, quod est oppidum Mandubiorum, iter facere coepit celeriterque impedimenta ex castris educi et se subsequi iussit. Caesar [...] altero die ad Alesiam castra fecit. perspecto urbis situ perterritisque hostibus, quod equitatu, qua maxime parte exercitus confidebant, erant pulsi, adhortatus ad laborem milites circumvallare instituit." Alia exempla apud Caesarem (Gergovia) et Ciceronem (Pherae). Apud Livium (42.36.1) etiam Roma oppidum appellatur, fortasse quod penetralia urbis significat, nescio. ¶ Mihi quidem videtur in praxi quemlicet locum vico minorem et urbem et oppidum dici posse, quamquam capita civitatum potius urbes dicuntur. At ipsa res digna est, quae ratione linguisticae textualis investigetur. Neander (disputatio) 19:33, 3 Octobris 2016 (UTC)
De hac re frequenter disputavimus. Vide, inter alia, Disputatio:Commune, Disputatio:Urbs, Disputatio:Vasilla et Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 19#Categoria:Urbes Saxoniae Inferioris. --UV (disputatio) 21:17, 3 Octobris 2016 (UTC)

Developmental[fontem recensere]

What's the best Latin for this English adjective, as seen especially in the phrase developmental biology (i.e., biology having to do with the physical growth of plants and animals)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:48, 20 Novembris 2016 (UTC)

Good question. To begin with, I suggest incrementum for 'development' which comes quite close, esp. as far as biology goes; cf. Cicero, de senectute 52: "Quid ego vitium ortus satus incrementa commemorem?" ("Why should I mention the origin, cultivation, and growth/development of the vine?") So, tentatively, biologia incrementi or biologia incrementalis. Neander (disputatio) 06:21, 22 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
Bingo! Let's go with that then. I'll soon be adding brief articles on fundamental concepts in that field, but even with terms created out of classical roots by well-intentioned scientists over the past 150 years, properly attested Latin versions haven't always come into view, so medically trained wikipedians may wish to make appropriate adjustments. Btw, in case anybody had been tempted by evolutionaria, developmental biology is not at all the same as evolutionary biology, for which biologia evolutionaria looks obvious. (In general, Vicipaedia's coverage of the "hard sciences" seems woefully weak; but that's a topic for another day.) Thanks, Neander! :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:52, 22 Novembris 2016 (UTC)
Biologia nascendi, crescendi?Andreas Raether (disputatio) 16:34, 22 Novembris 2016 (UTC)

De paginis deletis[fontem recensere]

Non saepe ad disputationes tabernae huius contribui, sed hodie tamen rogo, cur tam multas paginas breves deleri oporteat; quibus paginis res reales descriptae sunt, quae etiam multis in aliis linguis describuntur, ut e.g. regiones. Cum sine fonte sint, censeo fontes addendas, non paginas delendas esse.--Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 17:08, 3 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Ego paginas fere 160 heri delevi, permultis paginis post quattuor menses "Augenda" rubricatis neque interdum auctis. Iam diu consentimus paginis nostris ad minimum textum utilem qui notabilitatem exprimat, nexum externum fidei dignum, nexus internos e pagina et in paginam, necesse. Si una res carebat, non delevi, sed si duae seu tres res carebant, multis casibus delevi nisi augere possem ego.
Tibi consentio, Schulz-Hameln, multo melius esset paginas augere, sed nemo auxit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
Ahem. Aliquis quem cognoscis res interdum addit, "ut stipula sit." Vide indices conlationum, e.g. hic.. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:36, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
Ita, mi Iacobe. Et tu paginas saepissime auxisti. Tales labores laudeo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:47, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
Scio te, sicut me, paginas multas ab aliis inceptas interdum auxisse, sed pauci sumus! Paginae inconsulte creatae valdeque imperfectae relictae, mense Iulio rubricatae, fere 300 erant.
Potes autem tu (magistratus enim es) aut paginas omnes quas delevi, aut paginas selectas quas augere vis, statim restituere. Vicipaediani singuli, quorum paginas imperfectas delevi, nonnunquam restitutionem postulant apud paginam disputationis meam: statim semper restituo. Omnis Vicipaedianus insuper potest paginas usque adhuc imperfectas, recentius rubricatas, reperire: videte Categoria:Augenda a mense Iulii 2016 et categorias tales mensium insequentium quas sub Categoria:Corrigenda invenitis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
Ego quidem sic censeo: Ut sciamus, an quaedam pagina delenda an servanda sit, non magnitudinem eius vel fontes spectemus, sed deliberemus, an res hac pagina descripta aliqui momenti sit, an e.g. in multis aliis linguis descripta sit. Paginae brevissimae aliquando tempore futuro exornari licet. Quod brevissimae sint (ut e.g. de vicis urbis Novi Eburaci), damnum mea sententia non habet. Pauci sumus, qui in Vicipaedia scribimus. Quadecausa labor eorum - sit etiam parvus - non irritus sit. Numerus autem paginarum vicipaediae Latinae recentibus mensibus non auctus est, sed minuitur. Aliter censeo de paginis, quae res obscuras vel nulli momenti describunt.--Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 09:04, 11 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago, Schulz-Hameln, propter responsum tuum. De re generali et graviori, politiam nostram duodecim menses consecuti, fine huius anni imminente, commenta aliorum fortasse exspectemus. (Eis mensibus numerum paginarum nostrarum non pauciorem sed fere aequalem reporto.)
De vicis burgi Manhatae: Censeo Helveticum nostrum opera sua de his vicis anno 2011 incepisse et subito abrupisse. Vicis enim fere 85 enumeratis, plurimas paginas de hac re nunquam creavit, nisi fallor. Paginas fere 25 repperi omnes brevissimas, nonnullas imperfectas et sine fontibus. Harum ultimarum fere 10 (?) delevi. Fere 15, paginae perfectae sed perbreves, manent. De vicis urbium fortasse tu et ego aliter censemus -- haud scio! Mea enim mente, non omnes vici notabiles sunt semperque auctori oportet notabilitatem verbatim exprimere. Sed certe omni magistratu licet paginas quas delevi restituere, omnique Vicipaediano licet augere; quo facto, gaudebo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:43, 11 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Fines regionum novarum Franciae[fontem recensere]

In corrigendo paginam urbis Compendii vidi, ut in tabula Franciae, quam capsa monstrat, fines regionum priorum adhuc indicantur et non illae novarum. Aditum ad hanc capsam nescio. Num quis adiuvare potest? Gratissimus ei essem! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 15:21, 11 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Difficile! Nobis necesse est tabula, eisdem mensuris quibus File:Carte France geo.png, sed limites regionum novarum monstrans, ut in Formula:Frageoloc inseramus. Id quod nondum apud Communia repperi ...
Mihi videtur alias quasdam Vicipaedias eandem imaginem veterem etiam hodie monstrare, eadem ratione ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:13, 11 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Heidelberga: hospes vias[fontem recensere]

Ante tres annos in disputatione paginae Heidelberga rogavi, quid istis vocabulis aenigmaticis exprimatur. Nullo responso adhuc accepto mi liceat illam quaestionem hoc loco repetere. --Bavarese (disputatio) 20:09, 16 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Ad hanc rem respondere non possum! Nihilominus in paginam disputationis respectivam verba vagantia scripsi :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 17 Decembris 2016 (UTC)
Haec verba dubia (sc. hospes vias) in aliis quoque paginis , e. g. Manhemium reperiuntur. Verendum est, ne pluries scripta sint. Estne nobis aliquod instrumentum, quo, si alicubi adhibita sint, indagari possint? --Bavarese (disputatio) 12:19, 21 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Pugiles ~ pyctae[fontem recensere]

What's the difference between these terms? and why are there categories for each of them? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:48, 20 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

When occurring with pugil, pyctes denotes a boxer who fights in the Greek manner, and pugil one who fights in the Roman manner. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 18:26, 20 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

We will be deleting the pyctae Category as it is redundant with the pugil category. I would like to assume everyone is ok with this.--Jondel (disputatio) 15:02, 31 Decembris 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Iacobus for pointing this out and Martelli for elucidating! :)--Jondel (disputatio) 02:13, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

de communibus Franciae[fontem recensere]

Many of our articles about French communes had a weblink to insee.fr (the French national statistics agency). I have now created Formula:INSEE commune, and (with the help of User:UVbot) I have converted all those weblinks to use Formula:INSEE commune, in total more than 34 400. This now allows us to better check the consistency of our data against Wikidata:

  • I have found ~300 articles about communes that were connected to the wrong wikidata item, and I have corrected all of them;
  • I have found 764 articles (listed at Categoria:Error formulae INSEE commune, which makes roughly 2% of the total number of 34 400 articles) where the commune ID in our article is different from the commune ID available at Wikidata. I have the strong suspicion that in all those 764 cases we are wrong and Wikidata is correct (example: our article Amfreville-la-Campagne wrongly links to 27017 [Angerville] where it should instead link to 27011 [Amfreville]), but I do not have the means to check all those 764 cases individually. I therefore propose that I use UVbot to change whatever (probably wrong) commune ID we currently use in those 764 articles to the (probably correct) commune ID available at Wikidata. Comments? Objections? --UV (disputatio) 23:58, 8 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Keep up the good work UV!  :) --Jondel (disputatio) 02:12, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Macte! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:41, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure you should go ahead. I know there have been many small errors in our French commune pages, which were created at astonishing speed. In this case the bots that added data to Wikidata are likely to have done it right in nearly every case, so, although after your work we might end up with one error or two, that will be far fewer than we have now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 9 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Gratias ob responsa vobis ago, paginas mutavi. --UV (disputatio) 18:00, 22 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Wildlife[fontem recensere]

What's the best Latin word or phrase for English wildlife? Cassell's says plain fera, -ae (sc. bestia) is OK for wild animal ; for wildlife, that might in turn give us ferae, -arum. Is anything better? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:25, 10 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

I have used "silvaticus", and, now that you've made me look it up, I still think it's OK. Used by good authors when speaking of boars, mice and plants; translated "wild" in Lewis & Short. I think the neuter plural "silvatica -orum" would work for "things in the wild, wildlife" in general. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 10 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Ferae, plurale collectivum, etiam ab aliis (sicut Pitkäranta, Vilborg) suadetur, sed sine dubio etiam consilium Andreae utile est. Apud Varronem (Rust. 2.9.2) etiam dictionem q.e. bestiae silvestres repperi. Neander (disputatio) 15:59, 10 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Calendarium non iam valens[fontem recensere]

In paginis singulorum dierum anni per formulam "Calendarium" calendarium mensile anni 2005 apparet. Nonne possibile est, ut formula uteremur, quae quotannis automatice calendarium anni praesentis monstrat? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 08:59, 14 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Difficile est sed fortasse formulas corrigendas alicui placet. Duodecim sunt: Calendarium-Ianuarii usque ad Calendarium-Decembris, ubi dies mensis anni 2005 scribuntur; formulae quam minime callidae sunt. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:44, 18 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
There are some templates on Simple English Wikipedia I could bring over. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 23:50, 18 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Formulas mutavi. Nunc, ut suasisti, Bis-Taurine, automatice calendarium anni praesentis monstrant. --UV (disputatio) 23:29, 23 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Maximas tibi gratias ago, UV, quia hunc laborem peregisti! Facile enim est desiderium praesentare, difficilius rem facere. Salve! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 05:54, 25 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Optime! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:27, 25 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Speaks Your Language[fontem recensere]

Wiki Speaks Your Language logo.svg

Hello all and sorry for writing this message in English. It is my pleasure to inform you about the launch of the Wiki Speaks Your Language initiative with the goal of enriching the Wikimedia projects with freely licenced audio (and video) files documenting spoken examples of every language, language variety and dialect in the world.

The idea originates from the curiosity of many readers viewing language articles not only to read about the language but also to hear how does it sound. In most of the cases, our language articles lack such files and readers usually end up searching videos on YouTube, notwithstanding that we have the capacity as a movement and the resources to meet their wish.

The initiative lists three possible ways of acquiring the freely licenced audio (and video) files: 1) by adapting existing audio and video files on Wikimedia Commons (mostly from the Spoken Wikipedia projects), 2) by liberating existing audio and video files from the repositories of GLAM and educational institutions, and 3) by engaging Wikimedia communities, GLAM and educational institutions in the recording of new audio and video files.

In the first phase of the initiative, the easiest way to start is by working with the resources we already have and therefore my proposal and kind request to the Latin Wikipedia community is to get involved in adapting existing videos from the Spoken Wikipedia project. There are some useful tips on what the existing files should be adapted to. The adapted files should be categorised under "Category:Wiki Speaks Latin", tagged with WSYL template and added to the list of languages.

Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (disputatio) 15:14, 15 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)

For starters: which pronunciation is to be used? Two divergent sets are predominant: the reconstructed classical pronunciation (as the language was spoken by the most prestigious speakers in the first centuries BC and AD) and "church Latin" (more or less the modern Italian tradition, as used in the Roman Catholic Church). Traces of lesser traditions, like the English national pronunciation (which was standard in academia in English-speaking countries until well into the nineteenth century), remain. For example, the word videlicet 'to-wit' in those three traditions, transcribed in Associated Press phonetics, not the IPA, might be:
wee-deh-lee-ket
vee-deh-lee-chet
vye-da-lye-set
And acetum 'vinegar':
uh-keh-tooh
uh-cheh-too-muh
uh-see-d'm
And then so-called vulgar (unprestigious and quite common) pronunciations in "classical times" are known to have had their own quirks. ¶ Most academicians would probably recommend the reconstructed classical pronunciation, but many students (of all sorts) who try to recreate it on the internet consistently fail, most notably perhaps in not accommodating a distinction between short & long vowels and a distinction between single & double consonants, as in the first example your link leads to. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:00, 15 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Your first example sounds like an attempt coming from South Asia (which would be fine in itself, if only the substrate weren't intruding so blatantly), and it's far too halting & wrong to be useful; aside from ignoring the length of vowels & double consonants, in the first few seconds alone it stresses the wrong syllable of libera and Christianorum and numerum. Your third example isn't wholly in Latin: it's in alternating Latin & French, and the accent is so thick that the Latin sounds like French. And it stresses the wrong syllable of Aesopus. If it can't pronounce Aesop's name right, what good is it? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:15, 15 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
The most consistently competent of your (six) examples is the last, which is both on and in the modern ecclesiastical pronunciation. Of course it would have the living Cicero rolling in the aisles with laughter (or pain), but that's a different point. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:35, 15 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the present examples are not very promising, and I think the file should be removed from Ecclesia Catholica Romana (apart from sounding amateurish, it's also more than ten years old). But I don't think we should dismiss the possibility of including spoken versions, if they are fluent enough and the pronunciation corresponds to one of the commonly used norms. Perhaps there are people out there who would like to listen to a Vicipaedia article on their daily jog. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 11:25, 16 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but it could be useful to disabuse the OP of his assumption that the problem has a simple solution. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:12, 16 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
I guess it's not so very likely that Kiril Simeonovski will be back to read all this, because he will simply have been circulating a message to all Wikis at the same time.
The files you're talking about were criticised here ten years ago, and would no doubt be better deleted, but, since they are on Commons, that's not likely to happen unless they are directly replaced. So, yes, we want a volunteer to voice new versions superseding those very files ... please! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:33, 16 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
As a singer, most of whose direct experience with Latin is through music (and used Church pronunciation), I would add that it may well be that some articles (those on ancient Rome, for example), are better pronounced classically, while other articles (those on the Church, for example) are better pronounced ecclesiastically. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:35, 16 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
A valid argument! I went ahead and removed the link on Ecclesia Catholica Romana for the reasons above, since no one seemed attached to it. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:01, 16 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)
Regarding replacing those faulty pronunciation files, if one of you is thinking of attempting this, you may be interested in a tool I made for this purpose, automating away some of the repetitive labor involved (recording, saving, converting, naming). It is called Pronuncify, and is available in a command-line version (which also supports automatic uploading to Commons), or a Windows GUI version. If you do end up using it, I'd love to hear about it (and might be tempted to help). Ijon (disputatio) 00:22, 3 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
I would try it, but both our PCs run Windows 10, which is not yet supported. Maybe someone else could? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:11, 3 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

decumulator[fontem recensere]

Salvete. Cupidus addiscendi aliquid, vocabulo decumulator nonnullis in paginis (tantum Nuadaneis?) reperto, quaero a vobis, quae sit vis et testificatio huius vocis. (Agitur de aquis superfluentibus vel per canales deducendis, non de rebus pecuniariis.) --Bavarese (disputatio) 18:50, 3 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Preferentiae[fontem recensere]

In preferentiis scriptum video
"Change or remove your e-mail address"
Potest-ne id traducere? Gratias ago. --Vogand (disputatio) 10:44, 12 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Nonne pagina usoris publica tamquam est?[fontem recensere]

Pagina usoris HunteWinchester123 ad deletionem proposui, quia mihi et probabiliter maiori parti lectorum fastidio est neque aliquid personale (nisi fortasse notionem) usoris continet. Usor ille in pagina usoris mea nunc planxit.[3] Linguam Latinam conoscere non videtur. Qualis est opinio vestra? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 11:24, 12 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Nonne paginae usoris in Vicipaedia (re vera in omnibus Wikipediis) ad usum conlatorum constitutae sunt? Qui apud nos res encyclopaedicas confert, conlator est et iure suam paginam usoris administrat. Qui non, inter conlatores non est numerandus nec dignus est, cui spatium apud nos concedatur. Neander (disputatio) 14:20, 12 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Garry Marshall[fontem recensere]

O magistratus, ne bellum editoriale ad infinitum pergat, si vobis placet, protegite commentarium Garry Marshall. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:20, 13 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Paginam semi-protegit, spero fore ut bellum finiatur! Lesgles (disputatio) 16:23, 13 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Genitivus absolutus?[fontem recensere]

In pagina prima infra diem currentem haec "sententia" scripta est: "126 212 paginarum Latine scriptarum." Id mihi bonum Latinum non videtur. A quo hic genitivus dependet? Genitivum absolutum non nisi in lingua Graeca cononsco. Nonne melius esset scribere "Adhuc N.N. paginae Latinae conscriptae sunt." Quid est opinio vestra? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 09:57, 18 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Bis-Taurine, non de genetivo absoluto sed de genetivo partitivo hic agi videtur, sed cum suspiciosus es in hanc dictionem, rem acu tangis. Si numerus paginarum 126 000 esset, recte "centum viginti sex milia paginarum" diceretur, sed ut primum numerus miliarius numeris 1-999 superatur, genetivo non utimur. Itaque numerus paginarum q.e. 126 212 dicitur: "centum viginti sex milia ducentae duodecim paginae". Neander (disputatio) 13:26, 18 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
Gildersleeve #293: "If a smaller number comes between, the substantive usually follows the smaller number." Exemplum de numero 3500 =
tria milia quingenti equites
tria milia equitum et quingenti
equites tria milia quingenti
equitum tria milia quingenti
"But duo milia quingenti hostium in acie periere, L. XXII. 7, 3." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:47, 18 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
Utique ratio et consuetudo ex Liv. 29.25.2 apparet: "alibi decem milia peditum, duo milia et ducentos equites ... in naves imposita invenio." At non est difficile in varietates incidere, sicut "sagittarios ... tria milia" (Caes. B.C. 3.4.3); et contra: "equitum mille" (Caes. B.C. 3.84.4), "hominum mille" (Cic. Mil. 53), "mille equorum" (Liv. 23.49.11), etc. Neander (disputatio) 07:14, 19 Februarii 2017 (UTC)
Vide etiam disputationem priorem. Equidem hic nominativo faveo. Lesgles (disputatio) 09:16, 19 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

De formulis mutandis[fontem recensere]

Ubi vel quo in loco aptissime de formulis mutandis disputari potest si quid de quo dubitatur in oculos incurrit? Nigidiolus (disputatio) 16:30, 18 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Salve, Nigidiole. Quas formulas mutare vis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:38, 18 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Salve tu quoque. Dico formulam In progressu, in qua verbum usque ponitur in sensum adhuc usque vel etiam nunc. Aut fallor? Quod ad mores Vicipaedianos attinet, certe tiro sum, verbum autem usque solitarium in hunc sensum positum in operibus Romanis Ciceronis temporum nondum vidi. Cum usque ita ponitur, tum in sensum sine intermissione, incessanter vel per totum tempus in actibus qui aliquamdiu tenent. At hoc notavi, cum materiam quae ad Vicipaediam Latinam administrandam pertinet casu et fortuito legerem, neque quemquam stulte rogando obtundere volo. Nigidiolus (disputatio) 10:27, 20 Februarii 2017 (UTC)

Optime. Si verba talis formulae rescribere vis, tibi licet sine metu paginam Formula:In progressu mutare. Omnis usor recensere potest. Si autem incertus es opinionesque aliorum postulare vis, utile erit disputationem incipere apud Disputatio Formulae:In progressu. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:41, 20 Februarii 2017 (UTC)