Vicipaedia:Taberna

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

Magistratura[fontem recensere]

Ite, o amici, ad paginam Vicipaedia:Petitio magistratus. Tres usores ad magistraturam ibi proponuntur. Date s.v.p. voces vestras! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:57, 3 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Grapheocratae[fontem recensere]

Nonne et grapheocratarum numerus renovandus est? Nec paginam petitionis usquam nec quidquid de electione inveni. Si recte intelligo, a conditione huius Vicipaediae nemo de hoc cogitavit nec quidquid mutabatur.
Si tamen existit processus electionis grapheocratarum, nemo nisi Andreas Dalby proponendus est, qui Vicipaediam omnibus modis et omnibus diebus curat. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:04, 4 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Pro certo Andrew noster ad hoc munus perficiendum proponendus est. --UV (disputatio) 20:13, 4 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Gratias ago ambobus. Haesitavi quia rarius grapheocratae singuli necesse est, rarissime duorum! Grapheocrates noster, Adam Bishop, Latinista, omne quod quaerimus (de creatione magistratuum novorum, de destitutione magistratuum non activorum, de renominatione usorum) statim perficit. Si autem censetis melius esse grapheocratam secundum eligere, propositionem accipio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 5 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

In harenario paginam de grapheocratarum electione delineavi, ibi aliquod tempus manebit (num corrigenda aut emendanda est?). Si non, post aliquot dies (post hebdomadem?) talem paginam creabo. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:39, 5 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

(Creata est.)

De capsibus urbium communitatumque[fontem recensere]

Quite a large number of our pages about cities, towns and villages currently still use country-specific infobox templates, such as {{Capsa communis Germanici}}, {{Capsa communis Germanici 2}} or {{Commune Germaniae}} (these three are not identical), {{Capsa communis Polonici}}, {{Commune-Franciae}} or {{Municipium Italiae}}, just to name a few.

In nearly all cases, the infobox content in the individual articles (e.g. number of inhabitants, name of the city mayor) has not been updated since the article was created, and therefore these infoboxes today partly contain outdated information.

Furthermore, a number of the templates mentioned above (most notably: {{Commune Germaniae}} and {{Municipium Italiae}}) currently have technical problems and therefore cause large numbers of articles to be listed on Special:LintErrors, in particular in the "missing end tag" section.

I therefore propose to replace all these templates with {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}}, which is already in use in more than 1 000 articles and which takes all infobox content (e. g. coat-of-arms image, number of inhabitants, etc.) from Vicidata, where that content is held up-to-date much better than here on la.wikipedia. If there is no objection, Usor:UVbot could help with replacing all these templates with {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}}. What do you think? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 15:41, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

I should add the proposal to replace infoboxes about other territorial subdivisions (e. g. {{Civitas Americae}}, {{Terra Foederalis Germaniae}} and {{Provincia Terrae Foederalis Germaniae}}) with {{Capsa subdivisionis Vicidata}}. --UV (disputatio) 15:50, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:05, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Sic, bonum conslilium. — Hic, in disputatione Praenestis, et alium errorem in paginis Italianis disputavimus: ===Victi=== => ===Hic vixerunt===. Mille paginae cum victis sunt, nemo, nisi automaton, hoc corrigere possit! Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:23, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Recte mones. UVbot potest mutare et {{Municipium Italiae}} in {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}} et ===Victi=== in ===Hic vixerunt===. --UV (disputatio) 17:41, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
In principle nothing against. I would just issue two caveats: The first is that we should still check each and every time whether there isn't any information lost that should be there (and thus be inserted into the text at that occasion). I did a check on Crefeldia, and there are some details that would be lost, but nothing I would have put there if it hadn't been for the template. I would probably just move the image to the pinacotheca. Still, we should always check. My other point is that quite some Wikidata items will appear in English. That should be the occasion to put a Latin label to those items, even if we don't have the relevant page (yet). Sigur (disputatio) 17:48, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Well, neither does UVbot have the capabilities nor do I have the resources to check the contents of individual articles or individual wikidata entries. I can therefore only propose and offer to replace the infobox with the Wikidata one without checking the contents (which is why I am asklng for your opinions here on the Taberna beforehand) - in my view, the benefits of gaining up-to-dateness (or, the benefits of losing outdated information) outweigh the disadvantage of losing some information currently not (yet) present on the Wikidata infobox (information that is currently still accurate but may become inaccurate in the future). When all infobox content comes from Vicidata, we can focus on keeping up-to-date the text of articles, which is where the most relevant information belongs (car licence plate letter combinations or telephone number prefixes should probably not be added to the text of the article).
If you think we will be better off maintaining the status quo, then I will not change those infoboxes. What is your view, should we rather preserve the status quo (with the partly outdated contents of the different country-specific infoboxes) for now (until we find someone who performs the checks you describe) or should we now switch to Vicidata infoboxes (in spite of the risk of losing certain information that is present in the current infoboxes and that is for now still up-to-date)? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 18:21, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Could you have your bot make a list of the pages where it has replaced the infobox? Anybody checking a page could then delete it from that list. For me, that would be good enough, and we would have the advantages you referred to. Sigur (disputatio) 18:50, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
No problem, fine! --UV (disputatio) 19:23, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
I apologise for not commenting here before: as anyone might observe, I have been slightly fixated on tuna and oysters over this period, and I failed to see the above comments until now. I designed those Wikidata infoboxes and I am well aware of their limitations, but my aim, as UV hints, was to ensure that we can have infoboxes that are neat, regular, and as up-to-date as Wikidata -- and to give us all more time for writing Latin text etc. rather than filling in boxes -- and to encourage us to place notable information right there in the text. So I am in favour of the change that UV proposes. As discussed, a list of pages affected will allow anyone working on a particular page or region to verify whether something useful has been lost. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:26, 10 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
A list containing links to a diff for each page would be the most useful of all. Is it possible? That way anyone could see at once what was eliminated when "Capsa urbis Vicidata" was added. In some cases there would be a good image, whose name could be copied from the diff and inserted as a separate image into the revised page.
I should explain that I did not choose to include a photograph of the city from Wikidata into our "Capsa urbis Vicidata", for several reasons: Wikidata has no proper policy for the choice of image; it often has more than one, and our capsa cannot select among them; it often has a collage, which is not encyclopedic unless fully captioned; whatever the image there is rarely any caption at all, and never in Latin. So I included a coat of arms, a map, but not a photographic image. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:55, 11 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
I made a few test edits and started a list of the pages UVbot has edited at Vicipaedia:Automata/Formulae capsarum urbium. Is the list format appropriate? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:33, 12 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Sigur (disputatio) 12:58, 12 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Very useful. The arrangement by country is an excellent idea, because that's the way editors often work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 12 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Optime! Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:27, 12 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Before I make a mistake: I would not only replace {{Loci inhabitati Graeciae}}, but also {{Callicratis demus Graeciae}} both with {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}}, correct? Or should I rather replace {{Callicratis demus Graeciae}} with {{Capsa subdivisionis Vicidata}} instead? From en:Kallikratis Plan#Local administrative reform, I gather that the Callicratis demoi are comparable to municipalities in other countries, so I believe {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}} is appropriate, isn't it? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:28, 15 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness: {{Regio Graeciae hodiernae}} -> {{Capsa subdivisionis Vicidata}} and {{Unitates regionales Graeciae}} -> {{Capsa subdivisionis Vicidata}}. --UV (disputatio) 22:47, 15 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Sorry not to have replied. I fear Utilo, who worked on these pages, is too busy for Vicipaedia these days.
I assumed that the article on the smallest administrative subdivision, in nearly every country, would in reality be an article on the main village or town, and therefore, to the extent that the two capsae differ, "... urbis ..." would be more suitable. For Greece, this smallest subdivision is the demos, so we should treat demoi as "... urbis ..." Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I have now replaced the Greece-related templates accordingly. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:59, 25 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Looking at how this works for the "vici Italiae", I noted belatedly that the heading "Gubernium" needed to be relabelled: it's not a classical Latin word. I relabelled it "Gestio", intending, in general terms, the administration or management of the place. I then saw the utility of adding the detail "Procuratio superior" (placing it under "Gestio"): this now tells us the next highest administrative level to which the place belongs (and sometimes, given the often misplaced enthusiasm of Wikidata editors, it tells us a whole spectrum of administrative levels).
If anyone glances, as I did, at the Wikidata page for a chosen place, and sees another detail that we could consider including, it is necessary first to look hard at how this detail is used on a good sample of other Wikidata pages. If it seems generally useful, we could include it. These things are very easy to change in the "Capsa urbis Vicidata", although thinking of brief labels that will suit all instances is far from easy! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:53, 31 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Task completed: I have now replaced all these municipality and territorial subdivision templates with the respective Vicidata templates. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:21, 21 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
Magnum est labor, gratias maximas agimus, sed etiam victos melius est automatice corrigere, quos in hac disputatione iam memoravimus (et hic in disputatione Praenestis). Plus quam mille horum victorum... Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:38, 21 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
Done, thank you for reminding me! Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:29, 21 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

ZEIT de quaestione utilitatis linguae latinae[fontem recensere]

Diurnarium Germanicum ZEIT articulum habet quo de utilitate quaeritur nostra aetate linguam latinam discendi. [1] --Alex1011 (disputatio) 20:01, 10 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Stela Rök[fontem recensere]

This is claimed as the oldest item of Swedish literature. Since the recent English translation by Holmberg et al. is more coherent than any previous one, it seemed reasonable to try to turn it into Latin. Whether it was coherent enough for translation, eventually I'm not sure. If anyone cares to look at the English (or indeed Old Norse) p. 20 with a lot of commentary in surrounding text and correct me, or to have another attempt, feel free! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:19, 11 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

De grapheocratis iterum[fontem recensere]

Paginam electionum grapheocratarum creavi, ut supra disputavimus. Facilius erit, si non solum grapheocratam Vicipaedia habebit. Non negligere electionem hortor! Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:26, 12 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Octo Novem pro nec aliquis contra; Andreae grapheocratae de electione et nobis de grapheocrata novo gratulamur.
(Quid porro faciendum sit, nescio; magistratum aliquem scire spero) Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 23:22, 26 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Please ask our current grapheocrates on his enwiki talk page (en:User talk:Adam Bishop) to make Andrew his colleague ;-) --UV (disputatio) 00:19, 28 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Adam statim respondit. Grapheocratam secundum habetis! Gratias vobis ago. Semper pro bono publico, i.e. Vicipaedico, agam.
Rarius his ultimis diebus edidi quia aegrotabam, sed gradatim salutem recipero. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:31, 30 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Ut mox revalescas! Gratias pro labore incessabili tua ad Vicipaediam admeliorandam! --UV (disputatio) 22:51, 30 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

De anonymo Aragonensi[fontem recensere]

I have a general question, and hope anyone can come out with a solution. There is an anonymous contributor who repeatedly adds information about places in Aragonia. They never log-in and change their ip every time they contribute (making the {{invitatio}} useless), so there is no chance for us to communicate with him to make clarifications or to ask questions. Protecting the pages so that he has to create an account seems too harsh, and I doubt they will read this plea. Any thoughts?--Xaverius 14:39, 15 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Here is a list of these contributions. It would be possible to use Special:AbuseFilter to present this anonymous contributor with a warning message before each edit. (It would even – but this would, as you state, be a harsh measure – be possible to use Special:AbuseFilter to prevent these anonymous edits altogether, and to present this user with a warning message every time they attempt to edit). For the warning message, it would be a good idea to use a language (Aragonese? Other languages spoken in Spain?) that this contributor will probably understand. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:11, 15 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
It depends on whether the general effect of these edits is to make Vicipaedia better or worse. My impression is "better". I note the minor improvement to Cadmium, which appears in UV's list. If my impression is correct, we have no reason to discourage editing, just to write a message of advice. For example, the addition of a "Capsa urbis" (as recently to Granienum) will be a waste of time, because it will be soon be replaced.
I wasn't aware of this function of Special:AbuseFilter. We could probably use it in a perfectly friendly way to advise one or two other long term anonymous editors. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 16 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
The message could simply be "Hi there, and thanks for your edits. Please have a look at the talk pages of the articles you have worked on." Any further communication should then be on the talk pages. (A look of theirs into the Granienum talk page could already be fruitful.) Sigur (disputatio) 10:34, 16 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
I never got the impression that they would be reading the discussion pages, but I may give it a try. And how could we make the Abuse Filter seem like a friendly indicator of "please stop for a second, I just have a few questions"?--Xaverius 10:33, 17 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that they read them, either. That's why I suggested to invite them to do so. Of couse we should write our comments or questions on those pages first, then. Maybe the warning can even have links to them? To make it friendly, I think it's enough to start out with "Bene advenisti in Vicipaediam! Gratias tibi agimus pro conlationibus tuis." Sigur (disputatio) 19:32, 17 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Mutationes[fontem recensere]

Mutatione in pagina aliqua facta, non iam video, quo modo legentibus significare possim, quae mutavi. Quid faciendum est?--Bavarese (disputatio) 18:54, 19 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Si quaestionem recte intellexi, in historia paginae omnes mutationes videri possunt (HIstoriam inspicere). Aut editor ipse in pagina disputationis vel alicubi scribere debet, si vult, ut ceteri animum advertant. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 23:05, 19 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

German administrative units[fontem recensere]

There is some hesitation concerning the translation of some German administrative units, e.g. circulus and pagus for Kreis. I think they should be uniform. Below I list the different units, my suggested translation and any alternative translations I'm aware of.

German Suggested Latin Alternatives
Bundesland terra foederalis respublica foederalis
Bezirk circumdarium
Regierungsbezirk praefectura provincia (administrativa), circumdarium exsecutivum
Landschaftsverband confoederatio regionalis consociatio regionalis
(hist.) Provinz provincia
Kreis circulus pagus
Landkreis circulus rusticus pagus rusticus, circulus terrae, circulus provincialis
(hist.) Stadtkreis circulus urbanus pagus urbanus
Stadt urbs
kreisfreie Stadt urbs nullius circuli urbs nullius pagi, circulus urbanus, urbs circulo carens
Amt ballia
Gemeinde commune municipium
Verbandsgemeinde commune confoederale commune generale
Samtgemeinde commune confoederale commune generale

Some explanations:

  • "Bezirk" can be very different things, and in particular part of a city (as in Berlin) or on the other hand a large territory (as in the former GDR), but the "-zirk" in "Bezirk" is the same root as the "circ-" in "circumdarium" (+ the French or Belgian "arrondissements" are often translated as "Bezirke").
  • Regierungsbezirk: Its head (the "Regierungspräsident") has the same function as a French "préfet". Additionally, I don't like the "provincia" we have, because it collides with the historical Prussian provinces (which were subdivided in Regierungsbezirke).
  • "Amt" corresponds to French "baillage" which is said to be derived from Latin "ballia".

There is no hurry in this. It's not as if I'm going to streamline everything tomorrow, but whenever we work on pages concerned by this, we should be using translations consistently as will - hopefully - have been agreed here. Sigur (disputatio) 23:38, 22 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

How much of this is likely to appear in Habsburg Latin documents? Would that be helpful?--Xaverius 09:46, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
You mean from Austria-Hungary? Not so much, as Austrian administrative organisation is different (including terminology). That being said, there might of course be interesting Latin words nobody has thought of, yet, in this context. Sigur (disputatio) 11:04, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
I meant more the earlier Burgundian/Spanish Habsburgs (15th/16th c), which would be more likely to have latin administrative texts. But would not know.--Xaverius 11:07, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
But in fact Latin was still being used administratively in Hungary in the 18th and maybe even 19th century. Yes, the vocabulary could well be useful if we can trace the publications. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:08, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Is commune generale for Samtgemeinde attested somewhere? Cf. Categoria:Communia generalia Saxoniae Inferioris. --UV (disputatio) 20:57, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Verba commune confoederalis scribi debent commune confoederale. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:32, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Enim. Correxi. Sigur (disputatio) 22:59, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Ratko Janev[fontem recensere]

Dear respectful editors, May I kindly ask you to create a short article on academician Ratko Janev, famous member of Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Sincerely yours, 178.222.6.107 11:52, 10 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Non-Western forenames[fontem recensere]

We recently had a discussion about the Latinisation of the name of Husainus filius Alis; in that case, there finally appeared to be an attested Latin form for that very person, and the issue was easily resolved.

However, in the discussion, the fact came up that our practice of Latinising forenames is not consistently applied when the names are not from what I will cautiously call a "Western" tradition. As I have pointed out there, it is clear that there will be more often attested Latin forms for "Western" names than for others. So be it. But there are others that are perfectly attested in Latin. At the mentioned occasion, I stumbled over several people called "Husainus". "Mahometus" is an obvious example. For "Mahmudus" and "Suleimanus" we even already have pages.

Whenever there is an attested Latin form, I don't see a reason not to use it, because we do it for other forenames as well. But in fact, it's not always done. For "Husainus" see e.g. the pages Hossein Rajabian, Hussein Kamil and Hossein Shahabi. I think we should be consistent and translate these names. In particular, in my opinion there is no objective definition of a "Western" or - worse - "Judeo-Christian" name; we would very quickly get into POV waters with that. What we can objectively determine is whether we have a source for a Latin form of a name or not. I consider that that should be our only criterion.

Any other points of view? Sigur (disputatio) 20:10, 14 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

In discussing this elsewhere it was I who observed that we have been most consistent in our transferring of Judaeo-Christian forenames to their Latin forms because they nearly always have one; also, I might have added, because these forms have until now been much easier to verify. Why the term I used is "worse" than "Western", I don't know, but, anyway, "Western" was not what I meant :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking of the reactions one might get when trying to categorise names as either "Western" or "Judeo-Christian". My assumption is that one might be "worse" than the other. Sigur (disputatio) 19:36, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
I can't understand that at all. The origin of names, and whether they have or don't have equivalents in Latin, are linguistic and historical questions. How does a value judgement like "worse" come into it? But never mind, it really doesn't matter!
Ah, hold on, by "worse" maybe you meant "more difficult"? If so, I can see what you're saying.
... or maybe that the reactions to one term would be worse than the reactions to the other term? I guess we have certainly shown that to be true! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:47, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
The latter. Sigur (disputatio) 22:47, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
Omnino assentio. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:53, 14 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
Categoriam praenominum Arabicorum creavi. Praeter Husainum Saddamum Husseinum ex Ephemeride habemus. Nescio, an Saddamus Husaini filius sine fonte renominandus est (Husseinus eius patronymum est). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 11:42, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
Certe e categoria a te creata versiones Latinas bonas praenominorum Arabicorum, quae usque adhuc difficiles repertu erant, sine mora verificare possumus! Macte! Quo facto, possumus etiam exempla non iam verta Latine statim vertere paginasque movere.
De patronymis autem necesse erit statuere. Certe possumus, sicut de Russis eorumque vicinis iam facere solemus, "ibn Muhammad" in "Mahometi filius" convertere. Sed Arabophoni sunt in variis civitatibus qui "ibn" omittere his diebus solent. (De casu Saddami nescivi ego, sed alii tales iam vidi.) Bulgari hodierni, si recte intellegi, talem rem faciunt: apud eos praenomen alterum, etiam sine coniunctione grammatica, est patris praenomen. Mea mente, si fontem habemus aut de nomine ipsius hominis pleno vel rituali, aut de praenomine patris, possumus eodem modo tale nomen interpretare: "Saddamus Husaini filius". Sine fonte, necesse erit "Saddamus Husainus" scribere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
N.B. ibn/bin = "filius": hoc fere ubique videmus. Āl verbum separatum vocali longo = "gentis": hoc in nominibus principum interdum videmus. Ergo Ḫalīfa ibn Salmān Āl Ḫalīfa apud nos erit fortasse "Chalifa Salmani filius gentis Chalifae" (id enim est praenomen conditoris dynastiae) aut "Chalifa Salmani filius Āl Ḫalīfa". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
When we know that some Mahmood bin Mohammad is effectively called that way because his father's name was Mohammad, he should in my opinion indeed be "Mahmudus Mahometi filius", again simply as a matter of coherence, because we do that with Icelandic "surnames". But I suspect that some of these "ibn Salman" or "bin Ali" might have become fixed surnames handed down through the generations. And in that case, well we don't turn a German "Peter Hansen" into a "Petrus Ioannis filius" either, do we? Even less "Greta Hansen" into "Margarita Ioannis filius"; that would be outright silly, of course. So, to sum it up, I would say, as long as we don't know for sure what a given Arabic "surname" exactly is, we keep it simply transliterated; if we know it's a real patronym, we can translate it. As to "Āl Ḫalīfa" or "gentis Chalifae", I don't have a strong preference. I guess while we're at it, we can also translate it. Sigur (disputatio) 19:36, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
I believe your suspicion is unjustified. I've written quite a lot of biographies of writers and politicians with Arabic names, and looked at the names of quite a lot of their relatives and friends too, and I haven't come across one yet in which the "ibn/bin ..." is a fixed surname handed down through the generations. If there's evidence for that, please say. In my experience so far they are always real patronyms, just like those of Iceland, just like those of Greece and Russia and neighbouring countries. And we do correctly treat all those as patronyms. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:41, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
You might like to glance at en:Arabic name. I hadn't ever looked at it till now, but it seems to support what I've said. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:01, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
The Arab world is vast. I'm sure what you say applies in a lot (if not most) Arab countries. But I've just checked out Morocco (because I had a very specific suspicion): Morocco has fixed surnames, as said in Article 20 of their law on civil registration; it is chosen at the occasion of the first entry in the civil registration system and then "Le nom de famille choisi, une fois devenu définitif dans les conditions fixées par voie réglementaire, reste attaché à la personne qui le porte ainsi qu'à sa descendance..." No more patronyms. However, amongst Moroccan family names (the French "patronyme" means "surname", as you certainly know) you can find e.g. Benkhadra/بن خضراء, Benhenia/بن هَنية Ben M’Barek/بن مبارك, Bensaïd/بن سعيد and Benjelloun/بن جلون. Concerning the latter, we have a page on Tahar Ben Jelloun who is Moroccan. I don't know whether he has kids, but if he has, then Article 20 of the civil registration law tells us that they will also have the surname "Ben Jelloun" (not bin/bint Tahar). I've found "Taherus" attested, and we can thus move to Taherus Ben Jelloun, but "Ben Jelloun" is not a patronymic (anymore) in this case (and even worn by women, by the way; see Nadia Benjelloun). We thus should not treat it differently than other surnames (which we don't translate). I rest my case ☺. Sigur (disputatio) 22:47, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
P.S.: I have another suspicion, that with some more research, we can probably establish some very solid presumptions as to where (Maghreb?) and when (probably not earlier than the 20th century) such surnames may occur. And I'm not saying that we need watertight certainty in every case. Sigur (disputatio) 23:05, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. I strongly agree with your second suspicion! It will be really useful if we manage to get it clearer. I have done few Moroccan biographies except royal ones and I didn't know of that particular exception. There are of course some cases elsewhere where the patronymic is part of the full name, but various kinds of cognomen, following the patronymic, are more commonly used in the short everyday form of the name. Surnames, as you say, are surnames, and in those cases the status of the patronym becomes irrelevant to us. How it all works further south from Morocco I'm still not sure: in that region ould/wuld (still an Arabic word) seems to take the place of ibn/bin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:07, 16 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Etiam praenomina Arabica e Vetere Testamento orta Latine redigenda sunt: Yusuf => Iosephus, Iakub => Iacobus, Ibrahim => Abraham etc. Bibliander in Alcorano Latino eos omnes latinizavit (exempli gratia) et Vicipaedia paginas Abraham (Islam), Isaacus (Islam) (nec Ibrahim nec Isḥāq) habet. Et haec quaestio erit. Habemus et Ibraimum nec Abraham sultanum cum fonte. Invenientur casus, ubi regula nominum latinizandorum exigat unum, fontes alterum. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:47, 16 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Etiam de Suleimano et Salomone dubito. Sigur (disputatio) 08:39, 17 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
Mutationes iam a vobis factas laudo!
De praenominibus e.g. Germanicis, si de hominibus iam a se coaevisque Latine descriptis agit, formam a coaevis adhibitam accipere solemus, e.g. Willelmus Tyrensis (vide disputationem), redirectionibus saepe additis. Ergo, cum de praenominibus Arabicis et Hebraicis statuimus, (vide e.g. nomina et fontes iam sub "Suleimanus I (sultanus Ottomanicus)" citatos) certe non in Solomonem sine fontibus Latinis optimis mutare licet. (Certe iam bene scitis, o amici: ubique, si fons nominis Latini e.g. mediaevalis aut recentioris in pagina nostra iam citatur, molestum erit, nota servata, lemma incaute mutare.)
E primis quaesitionibus "Suleiman" mihi non e "Solomon" derivatum, sed e ra dicibus Arabicis productum esse videtur ... sed incertus sum! Licet distinctionem, iam multis fontibus Latinis confirmatam, retinere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:23, 17 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, I've seen Demetrius move Daniel Eliae filius and Dominicus Cabrini filius‎. I had some serious doubts about those pages as well, but no knowledge of Balkanic naming conventions. If anybody knows when these former patronyms have become fixed, it would be good to post that here. Sigur (disputatio) 20:32, 22 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know when, but in Austria-Hungary on the eve of the First World War it’s for sure the last name. - There are other ambiguities, Cvjetko = Flos? ("cvjet" is Serbian "flos", Cvjetko is more like Florianus, but I’m not sure, that it’s the same name, the same saint.Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:51, 22 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
We don't attempt to translate forenames. So far as I know there's no precedent for doing that, and it isn't in our policies. So without a convincing relevant source we don't say "Flos" for "Cvjetko": that would be original research. We transfer them to Latin if there are reliable sources for a Latin name of that person, or reliable precedents for the general practice. The usual precedents for our general practice on European names are publications with Latin title pages, university diplomas and public addresses in Latin, and Vatican documents; also scholarly works in Latin; also many tombstones. All of these adopt that practice. As Demetrius suggests, saints' names, easily verified, are good sources for a correct Latin form to choose. For Arabic names it has very recently become much easier than it used to be to find scholarly works on Oriental subjects in Latin on line, and surely these are among the precedents for the new practice with Arabic names. That's great.
Personal footnote: there was a move in 2007 or so to call the once famous Britney Spears "Britannia Spears" (a translation based on unreliable sources and a bit of guesswork). Had that move succeeded, I would have left Vicipaedia on the spot: I just wouldn't have thought it a serious undertaking any more. There's a fine line, I thought, between making a real modern Latin encyclopaedia and being a laughing stock. And I still think that, though I also think that we are not getting laughed at as much as we once were! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 25 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
Florem removi, ne Britannia Spears fieret. — Serbi re vera Cvjetko et Florianum adaequabant, ut hic dicitur (necnon Srećko et Felicem etc.), sed dubium mihi est... Exempli gratia, Svetlanam, nomen Slavicae originis (de svet, lux), Ecclesia diu non agnoscebat et Svetlanas puellas ut Photinas baptizabat (Фотинья, Φωτεινή, de Graeco φῶς, lux); sed Svetlanam Alexievich aliasque multas in Photinam adhuc non movi, quamvis cogitabam (et quamvis movendas esse possunt). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 13:32, 25 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
Hey Andrew Dalby, I agree with you entirely. I am new in Wiki editing and am for now just limiting myself to editing the English Wiktionary with Latin entries (I added sessorium, grundio and updated autocinetum). One thing that frustates me a lot when looking up for Latin things online is how people seem to focus entirely on it being "understandable by someone in the Classical period". That always bothered me because a person in Shakespeare's time would not understand half of the things we say nowadays in English. I very much more prefer a living language that adapts to its time. What I am loving so far in Wiktionary is that it gives a lot of space for New Latin entries, but is very respectable and strict. It seems that is also true here in Vicipaedia. I want to learn a living useful language, but it has to be done with care and thoughtfulness. Conservative in one's innovation and doing everything possible to grow from firm precedence. I think that's the proper balance and from what I've seen in Vicipaedia, you guys have achieved that here! I am not good enough in Latin yet to contribute to Vicipaedia, but one day I hope to be. Till then, thank you for keeping this wonderful site running! VABritto (disputatio) 00:18, 8 Maii 2020 (UTC)

Added reflection[fontem recensere]

They are keeping me a bit hungry here, but reflecting after lunch, I think the above conclusion of mine was not sufficiently positive. Vicipaedia is getting far more valuable, informative articles added to it, day by day, than at any time in the past that I remember, and a lot of improvement of existing articles is quietly happening as well. When do we actually become the biggest ever Latin encyclopaedia? Or have we passed that milestone already? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:07, 25 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

We'll certainly be the most up-to-date, but it depends against which ones we are contesting for the title...--Xaverius 12:47, 25 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
I think it's likely that we're the largest. Our census tells us that Vicipaedia has 17,668,653 words. Comparing that with, I estimate that our articles would fill out more than thirteen Britannica-size volumes. Some contenders could be Pliny's Natural History, Hofmann's Lexicon Universale, and Forcellini's Onomasticon, so we should try to find out their word counts. Lesgles (disputatio) 14:38, 25 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
To conclude the personal anecdote, lunch on that day was bouillon. Dinner was bouillon too. Breakfast was a cup of black coffee, so called. Luckily that episode in my adventures is over and I am at home, eating normally, editing normally, and as happy as a sandboy.
I think of Forcellini as a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. My estimate, based on rough sampling, is that Pliny's Naturalis Historia is about 750,000 words; the online copy of Hofmann is close to 8,000,000 words, a great achievement for a single author. We have doubled that already, although, to adopt Jimmy Wales's expression, Vicipaedia is a work in progress, and we still have lots to do! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 7 Martii 2020 (UTC)
True about Forcellini, though the Onomasticon part sometimes goes into detail, about mythological figures and the like. Glad to hear you've recovered! I note that we're still missing an article about bouillon (ius carnium? bulligo?). :) Lesgles (disputatio) 18:01, 7 Martii 2020 (UTC)
"Nempe inter vernas ollae vicinus obunctae, crustula spumantis patinae bulligine tingis, crassi adipis macrum perfundens unguine panem", iam scripsit Saxo Grammaticus. Sigur (disputatio) 20:17, 7 Martii 2020 (UTC)

عيسى/ʿIsa[fontem recensere]

Quod censetis? Melius "Isa, -ae" quam "Iesus" scribere pro "عيسى/ʿIsa" (vide hic)? Sigur (disputatio) 23:13, 10 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Etiam si de nomine unoquoque paginas componere difficile et inutile est, index formarum Latinarum nominum Arabicorum componendus est, qui hunc morem Vicipaediae, quod in descriptionibus mutationum memoras, describat; editori alio hunc cognoscere facilius erit. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:56, 11 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. "Index formarum Latinarum nominum Arabicorum Persicorumque"? Et ibi indicem simplicem cum nexibus internis si paginam hominis praeclari cum fontibus habemus, et alio casu cum nexibus simplicibus externis? Ita:
Sigur (disputatio) 17:58, 11 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Et talis utilis erit, et cum translitterationibus — Abdalla (ʿAbdallāh, fontes) — utilior. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:30, 11 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Index horum nominum certe utilis erit (cf. Index praenominum); etiam paginas de singulis nominibus creare possumus. Quod ad nomen Isa attinet, puto hanc formam idoneam esse ad varios Isas (en:Isa bin Salman Al Khalifa etc.) nominandos, sed cum de Iesu Nazareno in contextis Islamicis loquamur, fortasse melius sit formam usitatam servare (cf. en:Jesus in Islam). Lesgles (disputatio) 17:04, 11 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Quod censetis de ista tabula? Sigur (disputatio) 19:31, 11 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Bene, magnum erit auxilium. Ad Vicidatum d:Q2393248 adiungi potest, en:List of Arabic given names Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:22, 11 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Litteras Arabicas nescio; si non recte Abdelazizum inserui, corrigendum est. Timui, ne in oblivione maneret. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 23:12, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Optime fecisti. Sigur (disputatio) 07:39, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Malaysian and Greek names[fontem recensere]

In modern Malaysian names the second element is (nearly always, I think) a patronymic. The word "bin" may officially appear, indicating this, but it seems fashionable to omit it. Therefore it will be misleading to put the second element into a Latin nominative form; logically it should be in the genitive, followed (or not) by "filius". If there is a third element, it will often end in -i and can be treated as a surname. See for example Abdullah Ahmad Badawi: it all becomes clear from his full name as given in the English article, confirmed by the family history: his father, Ahmad Badawi, was a religious figure who had duly performed the pilgrimage, hence the son is "Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi". "Abdullah Ahmedus Badawi" was therefore surely wrong. I moved him to the simpler "Abdullah Badawi": the alternative would be "Abdullah Ahmedi filius Badawi" ... awaiting a Latin form of the "Haji"! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)

I remember seeing a Malaysian passport with a name of the format "Givenname s/o Fathersgivenname", where "s/o" meant "son of". The person's ID card had the same, only with the corresponding Malay abbreviation instead of the English "s/o". Now that was some time ago, another millenium, actually. But he already told me about feminist activists using their patronymic as a Western-style surname (like "Ms Ahmad"). And some Malaysians do have real surnames, pretty certainly ethnic Chinese. So, with this inconsistent practice, it probably will be a case-by-case assessment, but when we are sure about the patronymic, yes, let's go for the structure Abdulla Ahmedi filius Badawi (BTW, I've seen tons of first declension occurences of "Abdulla" (and "Abdalla"), so let's not spoil our pleasure and drop the h). Sigur (disputatio) 15:49, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)

I have never been sure how to deal with Greek women's names. A woman's surname (a form of either her father's or her husband's surname) is always in the genitive. So, for example, should the new Greek president be Catharina Sacellaropulu (literal Latinization of the Greek surname) as we have so far done it, or should it be "Sacellaropuli" (normal Latin genitive of a Greek 2nd declension word)? Let's decide today, and I'll write it tomorrow! (This isn't relevant to my question, but this off-Wikipedia biography shows that she has retained her father's surname in the genitive, not adopted her husband's: her father is or was Νικόλαος Σακελλαρόπουλος and is notable enough to be named in our article.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)

As these are surnames in the first place, I'm tempted to say not to touch them. But how do we treat Greek names? Would we inflect the surname when talking about the father in the genitive? Sigur (disputatio) 15:49, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Well, yes, we would. And likewise the accusative etc. It's an aspect of the special relationship (to borrow a political term) between Greek and Latin: all declinable nouns and proper names in either language are declinable in the other. But the reason we didn't do it with women's surnames till now is the reason you give. Which rule takes precedence? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:08, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
But then, hasn't the decision already been taken? We are talking about how we treat names, not people. We write Σακελλαρόπουλος Sacellaropulos in the nominative, and if it's genitive, we write Sacellaropuli. That's what you are saying? And I suppose it's not just etymological (like the German surname "Heinrichs" is the genitive of "Heinrich", but nobody remembers that); both the knowledgeable Latin reader and a modern Greek person perceive it as a genitive? Then let's stick to the genitive we use for the father. Sigur (disputatio) 18:29, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that opinion. I will give the article that title, wait for anyone else's reactions, and then change some others to match. There aren't very many as yet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:35, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)
On top, if it's the "special relationship", so be it. I was a bit worried about a slippery slope, e.g. any female Czech surname is an adjective, thus what Czechs say for "Ms Daisy Carpenter" is in fact "Ms Daisy, the Carpenterian one". You could argue that, given the Greek precedent, we should emulate that in Latin instead of using the Czech suffix and so forth. But I'm sure nothing can be equivalent to the special relationship between Rome and Greece. Sigur (disputatio) 18:29, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't evident, but my political allusion was to the long-lasting special relationship between the US and the UK, which means in practice "Do what you want, O great former colony, then tell us, and we'll hastily find a reason to approve". But the one between Greek and Latin languages does contain some real reciprocity, I would say.
I had forgotten about Czech names. In that case, though, the (masculine) surname as we normally employ it is undeclinable in Latin, so I feel it would be obtrusive to try to reflect this grammatical detail in a Latin pagename. Unless we can find a good precedent: are there recent Latin gravestones/monuments? How did the name appear on those? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)
I had identified the two countries you were referring to, although I didn't push reflection on the nature of that relationship any further. As to Czech names, I don't know about any precedents, and as you might have read between the lines, I'm not really motivated to find them... Sigur (disputatio) 10:10, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Isn't the Czech case just a special instance of general Slavic tradition? One sees -ova as a surname of Russian women whose husband or father is -ov, and in Polish I think I've seen that Mr. Nadoly's wife is Mrs. Nadolna. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:11, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about Polish, but in Russian, you would simply create a feminine form, just as if you would replace 2nd declension by 1st in Latin. In Czech, the daughter of Mr Dienstbier will be Ms Dienstbierová (not simply Dienstbiera, as she would be in Russian). It's only if the surname already is an adjective that it won't get the suffix -ová; Daisy Black stays "Black", you would simply inflect the adjective as feminine. Sigur (disputatio) 16:00, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Iterum de capsis urbium[fontem recensere]

Ecce indicem paginarum ubi UVbot capsas varias removet capsamque simplicem inserit. Bene erit, si tempus habemus, has paginas inspicere resque utiles restituere, atque praesertim imaginem urbis, si nullam habemus, praebere. Paginis aliquibus iam editis, ritum cui obsequor subter exscribo ... sed Vicipaediani liberi sumus, aliique sine dubio alio modo laborabunt!

  1. Nisi pagina imagines iam habeat, categoriam apud Communia quaero et in fenestram novam aperio. Imaginem unam (ad minimum) seligo.
  2. Imagines per paginam distribuo: necesse est enim usoribus "mobilibus" textum + imagines monstrare, non murum imaginum. Nisi textum valde longum iam habeamus, imagines ad dextram partem cogo.
  3. Formulas {{CommuniaCat}} et {{Fontes geographici}}, nisi iam sint, semper addo: quo facto, pagina fontibus carentibus iam fontes habebit; in paginam peioribus imaginibus munitam editor ulterior imagines meliores faciliter addere poterit.
  4. Ordinem rerum, consensu iam diu decretum, restituo: Notae, Bibliographia, {{NexInt}}, Nexus externi.
  5. Titulos exclusivos Viri praeclari, Filii urbis, Cives praeclari etc. in Incolae notabiles muto.
  6. Rubricam Urbes coniunctae vel sim., si eadem enumeratio in capsa iam reperitur, deleo; si autem textu Latino exprimitur, annosque coniunctionis, notas fontium, etc., praebet, retineo.
  7. Sub {{NexInt}} nomina paginarum, si casu accusativo exprimuntur, in nominativum reddo; nomina sive inutilia, sive in textu duplicata, sive rubra, deleo.

Rarius eodem tempore textum corrigo, rarius augeo ... sed si alii hanc rem eodem tempore facere possint, assiduitatem laudo! Certe necesse est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 16 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Editathon Barii[fontem recensere]

Ave fratres! Barii copiosa scripto (anglice “editathon”) de Vicipedia Vicifonteque apud Lyceum scientiae facenda est. Alumnii scholae, cum magistri auxilio, paginam/librum recensebunt Vestrum auxilium et vestram inspectionem peto.--FerdiMMV[Epistulae] 20:32, 17 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

De pagina nova creanda[fontem recensere]

Salvete,

Nuper nomen meum imposui in Vicipaedia et tironissimus sum.

Possumne creare novam paginam de hodierno Francogallico scriptore Francisco Gilbert (François Gilbert), qui operam dat historiae romanae ?

Hic infra est contributio, quae addere velim :

Franciscus Gilbert est francogallicus historicus, consors investigator in Instituto Generali de Scientificis Investigationibus (francogallice CNRS, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique). Multos libros edidit, pertinentes ad historiam romanam, de militaribus et gladiatoriis rebus. Creavit Lugdunensem consocationem Pax Augusta, quae se dedit restitutioni historiae romanae.

Nexus externi : http://paxaugusta.fr/, situs consocationis https://criminocorpus.hypotheses.org/57379, brevis effictio scriptoris in Interrete https://www.actes-sud.fr/recherche/catalogue/collection/1304/contributeur_paragraph_contributeur/35635?keys= , libri, in quibus Franciscus Gilbert partem cepit (sive contributor, sive scriptor)

Gratias multas omnibus ago.

Bene advenisti! Non video cur paginam creare tu ipse non potes. Et si menda sunt emendabimus. Sigur (disputatio) 17:15, 4 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Gratiosus apud nos Vicipaediam augere poteris. Quamquam te "tironissimum" esse dicis, tamen adeo bona Latinitate uti videris, ut ex emendationibus (si quae erunt) utilitatem capere possis. Neander (disputatio) 19:14, 4 Martii 2020 (UTC)

User with IP adresses can change Userpages ?[fontem recensere]

Hello, My question refers to [2]. Otourly (disputatio) 19:08, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this kind of abuse begs another question: Shouldn't we adopt the policy to simply delete such pages/changes? It's apparently being used as a template to ask other users to copy text from there. If it's that, we should make sure nobody actually can copy from the history. Sigur (disputatio) 19:21, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. This page was created by a long-term vandal, see e. g. en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline/Archive. I have now deleted this page. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:41, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Somnolentia?[fontem recensere]

O magistratus! Dormitis? Videte hic. Res diu delenda est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:21, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Cat yawning in park.jpg
Gratias, Iacobe (velut Sigure), ago.
Quam maxime ad veritatem scripsisti!
Andreas Raether (disputatio) 17:44, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Caretaker government /gouvernement en affaires courantes[fontem recensere]

Anyone an idea how to translate this (an executive in a parliamentary democracy who has limited powers due to not having the confidence of parliament (anymore))? Sigur (disputatio) 16:19, 17 Martii 2020 (UTC)

A caretaker is a custos, so maybe a phrase based on that would work. Rectio custodialis perhaps? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:55, 17 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Professions, functions etc.[fontem recensere]

We recently had a discussion at Capsa hominis Vicidata, because I had noticed that the infobox gives as "officium" and "munus" the labels from Wikidata, which are generally generic masculines, while the person in question may be a woman. Extracting the "female form of label" (where it exists) turns out to be too complicated for any of us. Andrew then suggested that we might use lemmas like "munus politicum" that are neutral instead and update Wikidata accordingly. As I put it there, the label could e.g. be "cantus", with the statement "female form of label" still "cantrix" and the statement "male form of label" still "cantor". But as this goes beyond infoboxes, I thought we should discuss it here. Sigur (disputatio) 16:34, 17 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Me id proposuisse, mi Sigur, confiteor. Sed, exemplis aliquibus capsae biographicae nostrae iterum perlectis, quaero an melius erit lineas "Officium/Munera" ex his capsis biographicis delere! Recte dicis: verba ibi praebita interdum masculina, loco femininorum, sunt. Sed multo saepius Anglice, loco Latine, exprimuntur. Saepius etiam multiplicantur usque ad infinitum.
  • Paula Abdul in textu brevissimo nostro quinque munera Latina habet, id quod iam ridiculum est, sed apud Vicidata tredecim munera! Tales enumerationes nudae lectoribus humanis omnino inutiles sunt.
  • Dianá Abbott textum perbrevem sed non inutilem damus. Secundum Vicidata tredecim officia verbosissima, Anglice expressa, duoque munera habuit.
An possumus omnia talia apud Vicidata in Latinitatem reddere? Quo facto, an utile erit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:01, 17 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Briefly, for readers who find English easier: Yes, I proposed that, but! Looking at typical infoboxes, their inclusion of extensive, boring, undigested English under "Officium/Munera" is much worse than the gender issue. We could cure both by deleting "Officium/Munera" from the infobox. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 18 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Mihi tamen videtur haec linea delenda non esse; in multis capsis haec unica (praeter annos vitae) expleta est, et bonis verbis Latinis. Perdemus laborem eorum, qui haec munera in Vicidata inseruerunt, etiam in duobus generibus; acquisitiones maiores, quam damna, non erunt. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:02, 18 Martii 2020 (UTC)
It's true that I had accidentally given Andrew some pretty extreme examples there, which are probably not really representative... Sigur (disputatio) 17:09, 18 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Cum vocabula Latine non reddita in capsa abundant nec facultas ad vertendum ea in Vicidatis est, ipsae capsae paginarum singularum deleri possunt, nec officia in omnibus capsis. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:51, 18 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Id autem facere non possumus. Haec capsa res sub quaque rubrica Vicidatorum repertas aut omnibus casibus haurit, si id mandamus, aut nullis. Ab initio (anno 2015) eas rubricas selegi, sub quibus res utiliores reperiebantur. Eas rubricas, cuius res saepissime Anglice exprimuntur, sub lineis celatis ordinavi: hac ratione "Officia" et "Munera" sub lineis celatis videntur. Ergo tres optiones habemus, sed ad omnes paginas biographicas eodem modo applicandae: (1) rem monstrare (e.g. imago, nativitas, obitus); (2) rem monstrare sub lineis celatis (e.g. munera, officia); (3) rem omittere.
Quibus rebus dictis, disputationibus nostris rursus perlectis, ad verba Demetrii supra dicta "haec linea delenda non esse; in multis capsis haec expleta est bonis verbis Latinis. Perdemus laborem eorum, qui haec munera in Vicidata inseruerunt; acquisitiones maiores, quam damna, non erunt" -- revenio et cum eo consentio! Capsa imperfecta est, sed, mea mente, labore mutationum difficilium tempus nostrum perdemus. Melius est possibilitates futuras exspectare. Quid dicitis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:17, 18 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Cur dicis nos capsas (non rubricas!) singularum paginarum delere non posse? Res mihi facilis appparet... Sigur (disputatio) 21:09, 18 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Id dicere non volui. Verba Demetri hora 19:51 scripta sine cura legi. Cavete autem: si capsam e.g. imaginem dataque vitalia comprehendentem delemus (a) res utiles perdimus (b) automaticum verificationis opus ab UVbot factum interdicimus.
His capsis ad labores nostros diminuendos introductis, ab hac disputatione nunc abstineo quia paginas plures creare volo. Salvete optime :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:18, 19 Martii 2020 (UTC)
...et creavi! Uno die, quattuor ministros rerum externarum! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:28, 21 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Macrons?[fontem recensere]

Could one use macrons in the articles? I think most people agree that macrons are useful for the correct pronunciation of Latin, and it also helps with the distinction between certain words. Why are they not used here?

Already have a look here, here and here. Sigur (disputatio) 16:36, 20 Martii 2020 (UTC)
So Apex (causá discretivá) are allowed to make distinctions as noted above, but not for general pronunciation? I guess that is ok: there are tools for bulk accent marking now, so it gets closer to a point (if the discrimination marks were fully applied) that users could apply accent markers throughout if desired. (For my money apex looks more elegant than macrons by far, but that's another thing!) JimKillock (disputatio) 06:49, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Help with translation[fontem recensere]

(I apologize for posting in English ): Dear colleagues, We are organizing a project called WPWP that focus on the use of images collected as part of various contest and photowalks on Wikipedia articles across all languages and our team needs your help with translations into the language of this community. Here is the translation link: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-Wikipedia+Pages+Wanting+Photos&language=en&action=page&filter= I am sorry if I post in the won't venue. Thanks in anticipation. T Cells (disputatio) 17:46, 13 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)

Propositio paginae cottidianae[fontem recensere]

Possumusne paginam cottidianam proponere ad certum diem? --Bavarese (disputatio) 17:19, 12 Maii 2020 (UTC)

Cur non? Hic propone! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:01, 12 Maii 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Dalby: Huius te ne paeniteat (censura non est!), sed puto "quid ni?" te maluisse quam "cur non?" dicere. ("cur non": "what is the reason that not...?" hoc est rogatio; "quid ni": "why not, why don't we...?" hoc est adprobatio. vide apud Smith & Hall. — Si iam scis, piget me!) Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 20:31, 3 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
Adprobo :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:04, 3 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

"usor" aut "usuarius"?[fontem recensere]

I invite you to join the discussion at Disputatio Usoris:UV#usuarius, usor whether "usor" should be changed in Vicipaedia's user interface to "usuarius". Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:51, 16 Maii 2020 (UTC)

Administration - one question[fontem recensere]

Hello! I would like to renounce my administrator-status at the Latin Wikipedia as soon as possible. Reason: lack of time. Unfortunately, I do not know how to make that. Please help me. Giorno2 (disputatio)

Hi, Giorno2. I have emailed you to check whether you really want to do this, because in my opinion there is no need. If you choose, you can simply stop using the admin tools. If later you have more time and change your mind, you can begin to use them again. And I hope you will!
But, anyway, although I am a grapheocrates, I can't do what you ask. I'm sorry. Someone more powerful is needed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:44, 27 Maii 2020 (UTC)

Parliamentum de tralatione: FVNGENDO CONSVMOR[fontem recensere]

Salvete Amici Amicaeque!

Peto tralationem aptam in linguam diurnam istius sententiae Georgii Hermani:

FVNGENDO CONSVMOR

(Georgius Hermanus fuit inter alia salvator nonullorum librorum Bibilothecae Corvinianae et benefactor Olympiae Fulviae Moratae.)

Quis postest assistere in ponderatione, interpretamento et tralatione?

Mei conatus preambuli sunt:

In lingua theodisca:

  • Ich werde vom Verwalten aufgezehrt.
  • Ich verzehre mich beim Verwalten.
  • Ich gehe voll und ganz im Verwalten auf.
  • Das Verwalten ist mein Leben/mein Ding/meins.

In lingua anglica:

  • While on duty I burn the candle at both ends.

Ludi incipiant! (Triste ludere sine collusores.) Omnia benificia vestra unanimiter complectiam!!!

Gratias vobis ago! W. B. Jaeger (disputatio) 18:19, 28 Maii 2020 (UTC)

Ipse Theodisce dixit: "Dienend verzer ich mich." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:29, 28 Maii 2020 (UTC)
Gratias tibi IacobusAmor! Significasne vere: Ipse = Georgius Hermanus in persona propria dixit vel scripsit? Habesne fontem afferrandum informationis tuae? Consentimusne tralationem in voce activa voci passivae praeferrandam esse? W. B. Jaeger (disputatio) 06:09, 29 Maii 2020 (UTC)
Certe fontes quaerere oportet! Nomen eius Latinum, sicut in nummis coaevis legitur, est "Georgius Herman" (non "Georgius Hermanus"), sed alios fontes huius nominis Latini non iam repperi.
Nummus ibidem verba "Fungendo consumor" praebet. Id mihi dicit verba Latina, ab W. B. Jaeger rubricata, re vera ab Herman(o) aut dicta, aut assumpta, aut laudata esse. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:23, 29 Maii 2020 (UTC)
Ave Andrew Dalby, gratias tibi ago. Fons materialis non nummus est sed nomisma quarum verba latina mandata sunt per Georgium Hermanum. Intellego in contexto ut „ipse“ refert ad tralationem theodescam, ergo fontis quaestio de verbis theodescis est. Si verba theodesca fontem habent, non iam tralationem dissertare necesse est.
Exemplum nominis “Hermanus” in epistula Olympiae Moratae refertur (in fine paginae IC/in initio paginae C). W. B. Jaeger (disputatio) 10:32, 29 Maii 2020 (UTC)
Vide paginas 834 et 835 (typis pinguibus additis) hic: "Es handelt sich um die Wahl eines ,Symbolum'. Hermann [ipse!] schreibt darüber: ,De Symbolo meo, de quo alias ad te scripsi, non possum omittere quin rursus tibi sim molestus. Et si enim pro uno multa a te accepi, que ut sunt pulcherrima ita mihi fuere gratissima, nondum tamen in illo animo meo omnino factum est satis, re autem et locutione vernacula satis exprimo quod uolo, sed latinis verbis aeque paucis ac significantibus idem cupio reddi. Germanico sic sonat: ,,Dienend verzer ich | mich" re id significo per candelam impositam Candelabro que ardeat ac dimidium consumpta sit. Quo hoc significare uolo, quod quemadmodum candela dum hominum usibus lucet ac inseruit ipsa se consumit, ita ego dum patronis bonisque amicis operam meam sedulo die noctuque impendo, valetudinem ac vires alteram ac ad instar candelae paulatim consumo. Quidam mihi ita reddiderunt: fungendo consumor sed aliis non videtur gratiam habere nec etiam mihimet placet. Proinde te etiam atque etiam rogo, ut affectui meo hoc tribuas ac quomodo latine apte et significanter id dici potest doceas. Gratius hoc tempore mihi facere potes nihil.'" ] IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:15, 29 Maii 2020 (UTC)
Salve Iacobe Amore, reprehensionem acerbam meris quia ludum perdidisti. – Quantum de ista sententia disputandum esset! Mihi dolet neminem nunc non iam nihil de ista ponderare.
Et gratias multissimas meris pro responso optimo!!! Ex fonte afferto etiam didici sententiam theodiscam primo existere et sententiam latinam tralationem esse. Aliquo modo deprehenso sum quia putavi linguam latinam quasi sermonem innatum doctorium philosophiae saeculi MDX. esse. Nunc confidenter “Dienend verzehr ich mich” (modo linguae theodiscae hodiernae) in capite de Georgio Hermano afferam. Bene vale! W. B. Jaeger (disputatio) 07:14, 30 Maii 2020 (UTC)

difficultas in pagina scribenda[fontem recensere]

Scripsi hanc paginam de musica iungula

https://la.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iungala_(musica) attamen ultima sententia praeciditur.

Quid faciam?

Terrymonkey

Salve, Terrymonkey, et libenter te accipimus. Si verba in lineam ponis, spatio relicto, verba formam aliam habebunt:

Ecce verba sine spatio.

  Ecce verba cum spatio in prima lineae parte.

Necesse est spatia removere ut verba formam usitatam habeant. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:56, 9 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Bene fecisti! Cum de pagina loquaris, nomen hoc modo scribere potes: Iungala (musica). Nunc, sis, de consuetudinibus nostris hic legere potes, ut paginam tuam perfacias! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:47, 10 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

eandem difficultatem habui in ultima pagina scribenda.[fontem recensere]

Ut a titula ostenditur, habui eundem incommodum cum ultimam quaestionem scripsi! Ultima verba in quadrato apparent.

Quaeso, vis, ut aliquis vicipaedianus nescio quo modo mihi subveniat! G.T.A.

terrymonkey

Salvete Vicipaediani eruditissimi![fontem recensere]

recentissimus sum in his rebus. Multos iam annos lego wikipediam Anglice, nuper Latine. magnopere volo iuvare in vicipedia augenda quam ad causam scripsi primas paginas meas de musica iungula et cantore illo gallica Tom Jones. Nunc tamen mihi est pagina facienda melior.

Itaque Magistro Mahoney scribere conatus sum, sed tamen   incommodum singulare habui, id quod est:  litteris addendis ad paginam disputationis magistri solum poteram eas addere ad primam arculam, non ad aream ubi scribendae sunt litterae principes.

Ergo hanc litteram scribo. Iterum conabor alteram epistulam ad alterum magistrum, alio computatorio adhibito. Valete Terrymonkey

Non recte te intellegis. Si vis in pagina disputationis mea scribere, tibi licet, nexu utens cuius titulus est "partem novam addere." Sed omnes interrogationes in Taberna videbunt; est fortasse melius hic scribere. (Et, ut in pagina usoris mea videtur, sum femina: "magistra," vel "Anne" inter collegas!) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:49, 12 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

arcus aeranaceus or 'sand box'[fontem recensere]

Vicipaediaene Latinae est 'sand box'? Si ita, qui nomen illo est? Gratias [Scribebat usor Terrymonkey.]

Harenarium. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:25, 17 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Vide hic: Vicipaedia:Harenarium. Harenarium tuum est hic: Usor:Terrymonkey/Harenarium. --UV (disputatio) 21:38, 17 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago, amice. Iam scio quam ob rem sit harenarium meum, sed tamen quam ob rem est harenarium illud alterum?

Broadcast standard CC-BY videos available from ZDF, could be Latinized[fontem recensere]

Hi there, you may have heard that there are a set of very high quality documentary clips that have been made available by German broadcaster ZDF. These include a number of Ancient World related clips, as well as others on climate change and so on. These seem like a really obvious thing to bring in here (and use more widely, as I have blogged here). They are being utilised on German Wikipedia already.

My Latin isn't up to translation, but if people here are wanting to collaborate, I don't mind helping with some basic steps like extracting the relevant German subtitles (again, someone else should check any translation – I have only basic German). JimKillock (disputatio) 06:56, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they look very useful. Latinists are by definition multilingual, so (in my opinion) German subtitles are not the most pressing problem. The first question for me is, are they already on Commons, or being imported to Commons? Is there a Commons category containing them? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Dalby Yes to the first question, some of them at least are imported and categorised at: commons:Category:Videos_by_Terra_X. JimKillock (disputatio) 09:13, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
On subtitles, I guess my point is that anything needing translating will need a text to start with. The clips come from longer films which contain German subtitles. Annoyingly the subtitles aren't included in the clips but I think can be assumed to be copyable given they are the text that is already released as cc-by. These can then be transliterated via Google to other target languages, or directly translated to Latin; but I am hopeful the content will be used by more than just Latin, so would be helpful to be ready for use in German and English. So steps could be:
  1. Get the German transcript (plus other languages as required)
  2. Translate to Latin
  3. Add Latin audio and / or subtitles.
if that makes sense? JimKillock (disputatio) 09:39, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it does now! I'm no use at manipulating videos, so I'll leave others to comment on those points. Thanks again meanwhile. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:09, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Here is a stab at the Roman Roads video:
Das Straßennetz im antiken Rom (CC BY 4.0)
I used Google translate to transcribe the audio, did manual correction as best I could, then, Google translate to English, with manual corrections. Adding captions is very easy, it works about how you would expect it would on a Wikipedia site. If someone can add Latin captions to this version (perhaps after double checking the German and English) then we can consider doing Latin audio. Then it is just rinse and repeat! JimKillock (disputatio) 12:29, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
I have cheekily added a Latin subtitle file, if someone wants to edit it. The English is here JimKillock (disputatio) 13:11, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Ha! You make it seem easy. I'll have a go at one of these. Could you produce a subtitle file for the "Angkor" clip? I wrote most of the Angkor Wat page, and I'd like to add a clip to it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:10, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Andrew Dalby, I will have a go later today, and set up a subtitle file. Would you prefer English or German to replace? JimKillock (disputatio) 14:31, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
I'll work from the German, that's fine.
Am I correct in thinking that the eventual subtitle language (if available) will be each user's preferred language? Or will it be the language of the wiki it's used on? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:51, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Yes, all subtitles are seen by the user. It probably defaults to the wiki language. If we make a Latin audio version, that will need the subtitle files copying across, as it will be a new file (I don't think Wikipedia supports adding multiple audio tracks to a video file, at least not yet). JimKillock (disputatio) 16:11, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
An alius quis commentatiunculam de viis Romanis vertere velit? [Does someone else want to translate the "Roman roads" subtitles?] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:51, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Here is the Latin subtitles file, currently with German in it @Andrew Dalby:commons:TimedText:Angkor_-_Zentrum_des_Königreichs_der_Khmer_(CC_BY-SA_4.0).webm.la.srt (file page)JimKillock (disputatio) 15:38, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
I added the Straßennetz clip to Viae Romanae, and Andreas Raether's translation seems to be showing up. Thanks! Lesgles (disputatio) 16:01, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, any other priorities or requests to create German / English files for translation? JimKillock (disputatio) 16:14, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Translatio finished, could you, please, look out for errores (res vectoria Romana fuit ...? res vectoriae Romanae fuerunt ...?), gratias. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 16:33, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
I have finished "Angkor" too, and I will add it to the Angkor Wat page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:17, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
That's great. In the absence of any priorities right now, I am going to pull the transcripts off Google for some of the videos, leave those on the pages, and see which seem interesting. I think the ancient and classical history is a good one for me to try to do more on so i will probably time code some of those in German and English. I will let you know how I get on. JimKillock (disputatio) 18:29, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Files available for subtitling[fontem recensere]

There are 23 files that have been subtitled. They are at

I am adding German subtitles to the files in the list below, starting with the ones about the ancient world. JimKillock (disputatio) 10:04, 21 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

So, using any of the files in the German category (or the English category), we could create Latin subtitle files: we would start by pasting in the German or English text, then editing it. Is that right?
Yes exactly. Now you have worked on a few it should be fairly easy to work out how to access the subs files from the video menu also. JimKillock (disputatio) 20:20, 23 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
I had a problem with the Nebra sky disk. Now I see why. Your transcription facility didn't work well (it hadn't heard of the Pleiades, for example -- you can't really blame it). Another editor corrected the German file immediately after I failed to understand it! But anyway the German commentary is rather weak on this one. So, when you're ready, we could try doing a Latin subtitle file and a Latin spoken text to accompany it. That way, we could improve it a bit. It's very short, so perhaps a good one to start with. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:12, 23 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
I see, yes, I've been asking people to check and correct these, and they have done for most of them now. I've also slowed up doing English and or recommending people work on new files while I get more of the German and and English checked.
In any case we don't have to slavishly copy the German narration when doing audio files. The subtitles I guess should match on the original but this doesn't have to be the same on a dubbed version. 20:20, 23 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I felt what the voice says should more or less match what the subtitles say (and should relate to what's on the screen, too!), otherwise the audience feels disorientated. Hence, if I want to "enrich" the subtitles, I need to enrich the voice commentary to match.
The clips are very good in general, and the commentary does generally say the most important things, but naturally for a German audience. When hearing/reading about the prehistory of the Germany region, an international audience might find other details of interest, e.g., that the materials of the Nebra sky disk came from great distances, the copper from the Austrian Alps and the tin and gold from Cornwall. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 24 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Dalby: @Neander: @Andreas Raether: and others; we are up to 42 subtitled files at commons:Category:Videos by Terra X with German subtitle file and a couple of people have corrected all the German files. I'm leaving the remaining 16 science related videos for now, hopefully someone else can do those. I will move onto English next and likewise will ask for native (DE) speaker checks.JimKillock (disputatio) 20:09, 28 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Subtitle files ready to edit[fontem recensere]

Please ask for any files to be added to this list, or else, simply copy the German or English to a new Latin file via "Add subtitles" from the video file. All subtitled files can be found at:

German text ready for Latin to be added[fontem recensere]

German and English together ready for Latin to be added[fontem recensere]

Nearly done?[fontem recensere]

Completed for checking[fontem recensere]

First check made[fontem recensere]

Files that may be particularly relevant[fontem recensere]

Prehistory[fontem recensere]

Ancient[fontem recensere]

Roman[fontem recensere]

Early Germans[fontem recensere]

Post Roman and medieval[fontem recensere]

Early modern[fontem recensere]

Other historical[fontem recensere]

My Workflow for subtitling[fontem recensere]

  1. Using Google translate phone App, play video audio from computer so Google translate app can transcribe the German from the audio
  2. Copy and paste the German to a file, send to computer for editing
  3. Listen back to the German to spot any obvious errors
  4. Create a German subtitle file through the "Add subtitles" link on the video player
  5. Listen through the video to timecode the German subtitles
  6. Copy and paste the German timecoded file
  7. Use Google translate to render the German subtitle file as English
  8. Edit the English to seem sensible
  9. Use "Add subtitles" link on the video file to create English subtitle file
  10. Paste in the English translation
  11. Request German speaker check the German and English
  12. Create Latin files from English or German as desired for manual translation

Disney cartoon articles[fontem recensere]

There are some pages about animated Disney movies that are currently protected, such as The Lion King, Bambi, Dumbo, and The Aristocats. I realize that they were protected because of vandalism, but could protection be lifted? The pages have been protected since at least 2010, 10 years ago (if not more than 10 years). Some of these pages still need improvement, but they can't be improved by anyone if protected. Also, does anyone have any interest in any of these movies? There are also TV shows like Liv and Maddie that need improvement. In the past, text in other languages had been reverted, but can there be a proper translation of the content that was added? 2600:1700:53F0:AD70:E0B9:F220:A78A:BAA4 22:15, 20 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was a long time ago. I've removed the protection. It only prevented anonymous editing from IP addresses: anyone with a named account was already able to edit these pages.
I don't quite understand your question "can there be a proper translation of the content that was added?" There can be anything, as long as it's encyclopaedic, sourced, and written in Latin! Please feel free to edit and improve. Anything that was deleted can still be found in the article history. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:15, 21 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
As far as a proper translation of the content added is concerned, I mean a proper Latin translation of content in English or other languages, such as Spanish. I know there's a problem with that, the lack of interests in articles that aren't high priority. But if there were useful facts that could be added in Latin that should, who could translate it? The edits are indeed still in the history, but they were reverted for being non-Latin or machine translated. There are also more articles that still need unprotection if possible: Send to Chihiro, Totoro, Teletubbies, The Fox and the Hound, Oliver & Company, The Walt Disney Company, Beauty and the Beast (pellicula 1991), Babe (pellicula), Brother Bear, Beverly Hills Chihuahua, The Lion King 3: Hakuna Matata, Charlotte's Web (pellicula 1973), Charlotte's Web (pellicula 2006), Charlotte's Web, Charlotte's Web 2: Wilbur's Great Adventure, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (pellicula 1937), Pinocchio (pellicula 1940), Beauty and the Beast: The Enchanted Christmas, Babe: Pig in the City, Madagascar (pellicula), Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa, and High School Musical. Meanwhile, I discovered a protection notice on Ice Age (pellicula), but it is not actually protected anymore. So, shouldn't the template be removed from it? 104.58.147.208 22:06, 22 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
You could translate it! I thought that was what you had in mind. And you could also remove the template you mention, if the page is not protected.
This specific protection was placed on those pages to deal with a specific problem. It probably isn't needed any more, but please make clear whether you plan to do any work here or not. If you do, we will gladly ensure that all is open to you and others to do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:27, 23 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
I can write a few things, but I would need help with translating the removed facts that I can't translate myself. I would like the pages open to everyone as long as the protection is not needed anymore. I can remove those protection templates from expired pages. 104.58.147.208 17:53, 26 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Well, then, write a little on the pages that you first asked about. And think about registering an account -- but that's your choice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:29, 26 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
I edited a few such as The Three Caballeros and Alice in Wonderland (pellicula 1951). Also, could the history of Bambi II be undeleted? Also I would like Brother Bear 2 undeleted so that I can add to it. Thank you. 2600:1700:53F0:AD70:C567:85BA:7BAF:7F9 18:34, 26 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
I recreated Brother Bear 2, but can the old history be undeleted? 2600:1700:53F0:AD70:C567:85BA:7BAF:7F9 18:41, 26 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Think about registering an account. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:57, 26 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
The work requested above, unprotection and undeletion, takes some time, and I'm not prepared to do it just because an IP address wants it. If any other magistratus thinks it's a good idea to do it at this point, I have no objection. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 27 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
The protections look right & proper as they stand. For potential contributors, they're hardly onerous—and removing them will almost certainly invite further unhelpful changes. Let's not do unnecessary work! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:30, 27 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
If you'll notice, there are useful edits I've made lately, and I could still register as a user, but there doesn't seem to be much risk anymore, as the vandalism has passed after over 10 years. The vandals are long gone. I will register to make more good edits, but the vandalism risk is smaller now than it was 10 years ago. Bambi II and Brother Bear 2 I would like undeleted for historical reasons. I don't know if that's so much to ask for since it's only two articles. I know there are many more pages I requested though, so it may take time to unprotect them all, but the vandalism should be over now. High School Musical hasn't received much disruption since the protection was instated. Some of the others like Pinocchio have been edited, but not in four or five years. Some of these pages still need updating, expanding, or general cleanup, and I'm going to have to register to do it if the pages can't be unprotected. But in the meantime, unprotection may be a good idea if it's OK with anyone else. Unless the articles are still disrupted with vandalism, they won't need the protection anymore. 2600:1700:53F1:5560:A19E:91CD:C678:996B 16:11, 28 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
I just registered. Do you still think that those protections are necessary though? TheCityStars (disputatio) 16:15, 28 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
That's great. You will find, after four days, that you will be able to edit any pages that are semi-protected. You will also be able to move pages if it's needed.
Meanwhile, I restored the history of those two pages as you asked. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:15, 28 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Celtic Knot Conference 2020[fontem recensere]

I've justed noticed this, meta:Celtic Knot Conference 2020, which is about Wikimedia and minority language content. That could in many ways apply to the Latin situation, we might find some common cause. I'm going to go along (I also speak Welsh, better than my Latin by a long way!) JimKillock (disputatio) 20:01, 21 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

De Translitteratione Nominum Serum Priscorum[fontem recensere]

Vicipaediani cum iamdudum nomina Serica (Sinica) in litteras Latinas danda secundum nostrae aetatis translitterationem, hoc est Pinyin, consentire videamur, tamen de hoc consulamus precor, utrum iis quae a Phillippo Couplet librorum Latine de rebus Sericis scriptorum auctore inventis nominibus priscos apud Seres sit utendum annon; ego autem fateor me iam multas paginas movisse, ex. gr. domus Qing → familia Cim secundum P. Couplet (de verbo “familia” haec quoque vide), cuius liber fons primaria hac de re mihi videtur (Tabula Chronologica Sinicae Monarchiae), sed permultas esse iam movendas ratus vobis quid sententiae sit discere velim, quam ob rem has ad utraque translitteratione utendum rationes nunc dabo:

Rationes ad Philippi Couplet Translitterationem Eligendam:

  1. Cum P. Couplet apud Seres diutius viveret Latinamque eorum doctos linguam praecepisset, multa quae a Seribus antiquis ipsis Latine scripta secundum eius translitterationem fecerunt, ut ex. gr. imperator Kam-Hi, qui ipse cum epistulam ad papam Clementem XI mitteret nomen suum hoc modo scripsit;
  2. Fons primaria quaecumque Latine scripta de rebus Sericis non nisi P. Couplet translitteratione uti solebant, nec si quis nescius linguae Sericae libros illos legere studeat nomina secundum nostrae aetatis translitterationem data invenire potuerit;
  3. Etsi quidem P. Couplet translitteratio haud maius opere linguae Latinae nativae enuntiationi conveniat quam altera, tamen fortasse enuntiationis linguae Sericae repraesentio non nostrae aetatis sed priscorum esse videtur; ut ex. gr. Pekinum pro Beijing dictum est, quod ante XIX saeclum non fuit [tɕ] vox sermonis Mandarinici, sed cum quadam probabilitate [k]. (Hoc tamen nescio an privata inventio [“original research”] sit?)

Rationes ad Translitterationem Nostrae Aetatis Eligendam:

  1. Opus non erit cum simul de eos qui apud fontem primariam non sunt nominati duobus translitterationis generibus uti, ut ex. gr. de imperatore Kam-Hi simul ac de nepote eius, cui iuniori nato quam P. Couplet nomen secundum illius translitterationem aut prorsus abest, aut si aliqua datur difficile est semper quaerere, quam ob rem nomen secundum nostrae aetatis translitterationem ut Qianlong dandum est. Quod autem difficilius esse lectu videtur quam si et Kam-Hi nomen ut Kangxi secundum hanc daretur;
  2. Si quis vulgari quodam sermone iam multa de rebus Sericis doctus nomina secundum P. Couplet translitterationem legat, nescio an prorsus vertere Sericam in linguam sciat. Attamen id quoque forsitan iuvet, quod debeat libros illos ante legere quam aliquae nova ad paginam adferat.

Dico autem mihi hoc iam est consilium, nomina rerum earum quas multum tractavit aut Philippus Couplet aut alius quidam Latine scriptor secundum illius translitterationem danda, ea autem de quibus fons deest Latine scripta secundum nostrae aetatis; quod ad res de quibus vix scripserunt aut nomen tantum nominarunt, eae quoque fortasse secundum nostrae aetatis translitterationem dandae sunt ut facilius apud libros recentiores inveniri possint. At huic utrum alii quoque consentiant, vobis rogo. Aristippus Ser (disputatio) 22:35, 21 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Quaestionem perutilem ponis! Rem hoc modo distinguo et eodem tempore responsa mea dabo, responsis aliorum exspectatis:
  1. Si nomen omnino Latinum in fontibus Latinis reperimus (e.g. Confucius), quid facere? Nomine Latino uti!
  2. Si nomen non Latinum, sed in contextu Latino, in fontibus Latinis reperimus (e.g. "Kam-Hi" sicut imperator Kam-Hi), quid facere? Incertus sum; regulam haud iam fecimus, nisi fallor; consilia editoris paginae respectivae postulabo.
  3. Si neque nomen Latinum neque fontem Latinum habemus, quid facere? Regulam habemus: translitteratione internationali utimur dum fontes Latinos quaerimus. Quibus fontibus repertis, paginam movere possumus, fontibus rite citatis.
Cur hanc regulam fecimus? Quia omnis Vicipaedianus, qui velit, haec regulae facilius obtemperare potest, omnisque lector, qui velit, regulam nostram intellegere potest.
Hac ratione, ubi fontem non habemus, translitterationem pinyin, plurimis notam et in pluribus Vicipaediis usitatum, praefero. Qua regula recepta omnis editor, qui paginam creare vel edere velit, nomen licitum sine difficultate praeponere potest, sed omne nomen, cui fontem Latinum citare possumus, nobis forma Latina rescribere paginamque movere licet.
Quo dicto, Philippo Couplet opere tam utili de hominibus familiisque Sericis praebente, eis nominibus, quae ille dedit, cur non uti possumus? Eandem fere rem Sigur et Demetrius Talpa nostri recenter e fontibus Latinis de rebus Islamicis faciebant. Semper aliquid novum e libris Google :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:54, 22 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

red links vel tituli rubri[fontem recensere]

quomodo indicem titulorum rubrorum reperio? exstat in Vicipaedia Anglica, sed in Vicipaedia Latina tamen id reperire nequeo.

hic, si recte intelligo Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:12, 22 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Pagina Thom Jones[fontem recensere]

Potest fieri ut aliquis legat paginam meam Thomas Jones si forte confirmat, si minus, Latinitatem? Habet signum quod nuntit eam Latinitate caret. res mutavi complures. Etiam, titulum mutandum est, sed nescio.
Post scriptum: quomodo est Latinitas discernitur? Estne machina automatica?

Seat-of-the-pants judgment. I once tried to quantify the method (see my adventures in translating), but the process would be so onerous that an editor's time would be better spent editing, rather than rating. Doing the back translations was fun though, the point being to make each error in the Latin correspond with an error in the English, so an English-speaker would feel the same degree of discomfort as Cicero might. For example, mortus (misspelling of mortuus) might be rendered 'dude' or 'deed' (instead of 'dead'), and consilium principalis (gender disagreement) might be rendered 'orooginal plan', and perhaps my favorite: moris is quite correctly translated as 'mulberry-trees' instead of what the author was trying for: moribus 'customs, ways, habits, conduct, morals'. Or for a whole sentence: Post multas carmina, 4 symphoniae, et cetera opera musicae composit = 'Aft he compeezes moony songs, 4 soomphonies, and other works of music'. That gives you, in order: wrong syntax (preposition post for conjunction postquam), wrong verb-form (composit), wrong gender (multas), and wrong case (symphoniae). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:15, 27 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Quomodo dicere eighties, nineties twenties etc Latine?[fontem recensere]

Sicut titulum. Quomodo dicere...

Preferably, anni 1980, etc; e.g. floruit annis 1980. Neander (disputatio) 06:51, 29 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
"Decennium 199" (etc.) est locutio quam multis locis correximus, sed multis locis manet! Mea mente eliminare oportet.
Paginas huius generis ante annos 1810 convenimus omnes delere, perpaucasque res quae in eis erant in paginas generis Saeculum 19 transferre. Id quod magna parte iam diu feci ego. Paginae huius generis supervivunt ab annis 1820 hodie usque. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:41, 29 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Gratias tibi rursus ago, amici. Legaturus vestrum responsa cum eis vaco. [ Usor:Terrymonkey -- fortasse ad disputationem priorem respondet?]
Decas a 1980 ad 1989 = annii 1980, sed decas a 1981 ad 1990 = decennium 199 (vel decennium nonum saeculi vicensimi).. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:25, 29 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Ita, et praeter problema mathematicum, haec locutio et Latinae et aliis linguis aliena esse videtur. Vide disputationes priores hic, hic, et alibi. "Anni 1980" est versio manifesta. Alia quaestio: Quomodo legitur? Anni millesimi nongentesimi octogesimi? :) Lesgles (disputatio) 14:56, 29 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Gratias ago propter nexus! Mihi videtur plura "decennia 201" (etc.) in paginas Vicipaedicas a geographo anonymo nostro inscripta sunt, cuius Latinitatem non pessimam aestimo. Ille autem Latina sicut lingua arte constructa interdum utitur. "Decennium 201" aedificatori linguarum locutio fortasse omnino idonea, sed lectori humano obscurissima videtur (si humanus sum).
Opus correctionis longum erit, sed, si formam (e.g.) "[[Decennium 199|annis 1980]]" habemus, iam satis bene, quia lector rem utilem legit et redirectio bene aget; si formam "[[anni 1980|decennio 199]]" habemus, iam satis bene, quia lector, mure summoto, interpretationem "anni 1980" videbitur et nexus bene aget. Ubi autem formas "decennio 199" (sine nexu) habemus, corrigere necesse est. Ubi "[[decennium 199|decennio 199]]" habemus, redirectio aget sed melius erit corrigere, mea mente. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:06, 29 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Non contradicam, nam decennium 187 etc. re vera difficile est intellectu. Alteram quaestionem addo: in litteris Russicis saepissime non solum de annis hoc modo dicitur, sed etiam de hominibus, e.g. шестидесятники, sixtiers, et nonnunquam mihi hac locutione opus erat — qui annis sexagesimis (saeculi undevicesimi) floruerunt? hexecostales? Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 18:03, 29 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Paraphrasim tuam — qui annis sexagesimis floruerunt — laudo, mi Demetri! Quando sic scribis, intellego. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:43, 2 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

Latin chatroom[fontem recensere]

Sciturne aliquibus locus colloquendi Latine in interretiali? Eiusmodi noveram,autem incommodum erat: nonnulli locutores homines dextrissimi videbantur. Locus colloquendi sine factione ni dextra ni laeva mihi placeat.

Primam paginam confectam![fontem recensere]

Primae meae paginae me finem fecisse puto. si tibi placeat, ea lecta, dic mihi num menda ulla graviora insint. Mihi titulum mutandum est? Quomodoque? Ei non est Bibliographia quod citi insunt. Fasne est? Una sectio solum est, Biographia. Emendatum est? Omnibus rectis, quando abibit ista admonitio de Latinitate?

Usor:Terrymonkey fortasse de pagina "Thomas Jones" loquitur? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:00, 30 Iunii 2020 (UTC)

Ita vero pagina "Thomas Jones" Dicere oblitus sum. Percepi non esse paginam de hoc viro temporum nostrum. :Usor:Terrymonkey

Stipulae farciendae versus commentarios novos minimos[fontem recensere]

Quaestio magni momenti (mea opinione) in Vicipaedia Latina, quae olim etiam sororem internationalem i.e. versionem Vicipaediae Esperanticam stimulaverat, est haec: praeferenda utrum sit creatio commentationum novarum an verborum in stipulis augmentatio? Vel "Myrias" lemmatum desideratorum in Vicipaedia nostra Latina saepe res maxime augendas praebet. Paginarum multitudo sola valorem encyclopaedicum - proh dolor! - non auget. Esperantistae autem gaudeant de interpretatore automatorio maxime efficaci e Vicipaediae Anglicae copia ( https://wikitrans.net ) itaque nonnulli dicunt computatri conversiones superare lucubrationes esperantistarum ... Giorno2 (disputatio)

Apud Vicipaediam a mense Ianuario 2016 paginas novas brevissimas deprecati sumus (vide e.g. hic). Indicem paginarum novarum perlegens, certe paginas nimis breves inter longiores video, sed paucas.
Me paenitet, Giorno2: paginas Latinas computatro versas intellegere haud possum! Fere omnes delere necesse est, nisi quis rescribere velit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:17, 30 Iunii 2020 (UTC)
Qui brevissimas Vicipaediae paginas deminuere vult, haud impotens est. Strategemata varia habes. Vide e.g. sub Categoria:Corrigenda illam seriem categoriarum ab Categoria:Augenda a mense Iulio 2016 incipientem. Omnis pagina, quae nimis brevis sit sive fonte externo careat (etc.), ibi addere potes, formula {{Augenda|2020|07}} ad caput paginae addita. Omnis pagina iam ibi enumerata augeri licet. Omnis pagina, quae iam tres menses formulam "Augenda" monstrat, deleri licet.
Ego tales paginas, si una res deest (e.g. fons externus, textus, bonus titulus Latinus), aut si rem gravissimam esse censeo, augere et emendare conor. Si duae res desunt, aut delere aut in aliam paginam utilem redirigere soleo. Si nulla res deest (id quod interdum accidit) formulam "Augenda" gaudens removeo! Si nondum temptavisti, tempta ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:10, 2 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
Gratias pro informationibus. In principio Vicipaediae cuiuslibet stipulae necessariae sunt. Qua re nostram Latinam cum Esperantica (utraque internationali) comparavi. Et ego stipulam creabo, si necessaria est tamquam ligamen ad multa alia lemmata referens. Attamen ab irrisoribus linguarum harum duarum, qui "naturales linguas" sive "vivas linguas" tantummodo ante oculos habent, stipulae libenter atque vehementer impugnantur. Itaque ad Vicipaediam Latinam corroborandam censeo quod paulo maioris momenti sit stipulas novis verbis augere quam novas stipulas minimas creare ... Tamen scilicet etiam res minus amplae salvae sunt! Giorno2 (disputatio)
Duas res praefandas censeo:
  1. Linguae Latinae, sicut et Esperanticae, "habitus" brevis est: commentatio enim (si bene composita sit) multo brevior, quam e.g. Anglica, lectori utilis esse potest. Opinionem lectorum (potius quam irrisorum) considero ...
  2. Sunt certe alii, sicut ego, qui commentationes breves creant et semper semperque augent. Hic componendi modus in Vicipaediis Anglica Francogallicaque difficilis factus est: qua ratione apud nos saepe, apud istas rarissime paginas creo.
Quibus rebus dictis, omni fere propositioni, qua augeatur commentationum nostrarum bonitas, assentior! Alii quid dicunt? An regulam, amice Giorno2, seu potius consensum proponis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:45, 3 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

Formulae[fontem recensere]

Multas Formulas Habeo in mea pagina, "Iungala (musica)" quae mihi scribenti impediunt. Fasne est eos atollere? Et si ita fecero, fieri poterit eas reponere? [ Usor:Terrymonkey ]

Si paginam etiam scribis, singulam formulam {{In progressu}} ad caput ponere potes. Id pro te in hac pagina nuper feci. Quo facto, nemo editiones faciet nisi tu. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:50, 2 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
Here's the text and an English translation of what it might seem to be saying:
Musica iungala est genus musicae quae orta est Londinii circiter anno 1990. Haec musica componitur ictu intervalli (Anglice: breakbeat), brasso grave, et sonis computatorio adhibito additis. Nata est de alia musica saltus, nomine rave, anglice dicto.
Iungala music is a genre of the music that arose at London around in the year 1990. This music is composed with regard to the beat of an interval (English: breakbeat), heavy cabbage, and sounds added to an applied computatorium. It was born from another music. [There's a] leap, rave by name, as spoken in English.
(Could the unknown brassu(m/s) be related to brassica? If not: 'heavy "brassu(m/s),"' whatever that might be.) This translation might help in revealing problematic junctures. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:28, 2 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

Update on Videos[fontem recensere]

Hi @Andrew Dalby:, @Neander:, @Andreas Raether:, @Lesgles: and others, here is an update:

  1. The video files are all organised into categories now, reflecting their status by language (no subs, subs added, checked or not checked)
    1. commons:Category:Videos by Terra X
  2. In total 43 files now have German subtitle files, all checked by German speakers.
    1. commons:Category:Videos by Terra X with German subtitle file checked
  3. The 43 German subtitled videos also have English subtitle files, some checked.
    1. commons:Category:Videos by Terra X with English subtitle file
    2. commons:Category:Videos by Terra X with English subtitle file checked
    3. commons:Category:Videos by Terra X with English subtitle file unchecked
  4. Eight files have Latin subs of some sort (two are ready for edit, or in progress)
    1. commons:Category:Videos by Terra X with Latin subtitle file added unstarted or in progress
    2. commons:Category:Videos by Terra X with Latin subtitle file checked
    3. commons:Category:Videos by Terra X with Latin subtitle file unchecked
  5. For the Latin subtitle pages, I have added a guide to help people duplicate subtitle files and edit in Latin so people do not have to rely on me. It is quite easy.
  6. Some videos files have disputable facts. I have created a category for these. Most of the time we can deal with that in audio replacement, but in one case (Mercator) cutting of the visuals was needed.

What would you like me to do next? Do we feel the Latin files are now good enough to record; and if so, shall we reach out to people known for good pronunciation, or do the audio among ourselves? JimKillock (disputatio) 10:23, 4 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jim, first of all: thank you very much for your work. In my opinion the translations adhuc done are OK. Audio: Would be good, but quomodo will be the synthesis of nearly "correct" pronounciation made? At school (Germany) - very long time ago - the pronounciation was german: the "c" became a "tz", the "ae" became an "ä", the "oe" an "ö" and so on - probably haud (poor?) understandible for a Roman listener. On the other hand I would appreciate to listen to and to compare different pronounciations of a text. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 11:11, 4 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
Well, yes exactly. I would say that we should
  1. solicit a good standard of pronunciation; perhaps prefer Classical
  2. we should accept contributions of audio in either Classical or Ecclesiastical
  3. we should not use contributed audio where the pronunciation is clearly poor (in the judgement of the editors and admins)
We can reach out to people whose Latin pronunciation is well known as well. There are plenty of these on Youtube, we may have some preferences. If a few did one video, that would provide a lot of variety with reasonable ease. JimKillock (disputatio) 12:10, 4 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't done any more subtitles in recent days. There are always so many other things to do!
Andreas's question is a good one. I have never heard the voice of any currently active Vicipaedia editor [ah, with one exception], so I will be fascinated to listen to whatever comes. If the Latin subtitles remain visible, we could all use this medium to learn to listen to unfamiliar pronunciations. Very good for us. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 4 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
We have a potential volunteer, and new source of contributions! Gaius Annaeus Iacobus also on Twitter wants to help. He has released (most of the) videos on his channel as cc-by; they contain readings of Catallus. I’m hoping folks here like them! I will be helping him get them onto WikiCommons. JimKillock (disputatio) 07:43, 5 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
Here is an example of his renditions, commons:File:Y2mate.com - Catullus 1 ECnDusoaa9U 1080p.webmJimKillock (disputatio) 10:12, 5 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
G.Annaeus Iacobus's Latin sounds great to my ears. His pronunciation is accurate, clear – and classical! If he's willing to contribute, I for one wish him welcome. Neander (disputatio) 18:34, 11 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
G.Annaeus Iacobus mox hic opus faciet. JimKillock (disputatio) 13:35, 1 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
Ego pronuntiatum ecclesiasticum modo diligo, cum sic dictus "classicus" mihi in odio sit! Ille Italicus etiam in emissionibus radiophonicis Latinis, quae Erfordia Latina nuncupantur, adhibetur. Giorno2 (disputatio)
Quaeso, si placeat tibi facere pelliculam pronuntiatum ecclesiasticum, fac! Possum te adjuvare addere sonum ad pellicula, si velis. JimKillock (disputatio) 17:20, 11 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

Bria (caseus)[fontem recensere]

Potestne "Bria (caseus)" converti in "Caseus Brigensis?" "Brigensis" conservat litteram "g" de vocabulo primitivo Celtico "Briga" (v. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brie_(région)). Gratias.

A, bene! "Brigensis" in paginam de caseo additum non intellegi.
Nomina e fontibus Latinis constituimus, non ex etymologiis. Brie, iam saeculo XIV vel antea celeber, "Bria" appellatur in fonte Latino quem in ipsa pagina citavimus. Certe, si locutionem "caseus Brigensis" in fonte Latino reperis, motum paginae proponere potes. Ego adiectivum "Brigensis" de oppido Helvetico, non de regione Francica, apud Google repperi, sed tu fortasse meliorem successum habebis.
Consolationem tibi nihilominus offero ... Camembert, caseus recens et aevi recentis, cui nullum nomen Latinum ponere potuimus, fortasse renominare licet in nomen Latinum illius parvi vici Normannici ubi primum factus est. (Ibi olim caseolum Camembert valde florentem emi.) Si id censes, ad Disputatio:Camembert propone. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:32, 7 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

Scribere paginas fas est, cum tamen nec citi nec nexi additi sunt?[fontem recensere]

Volo scribere Latine ipsius causa etiam volo scribere Latine ad Vicipaediam colendas. Addere nexos et citos totiens aegre fero. interdum. Si paginas scribam sed nec eos edam nec perficiam cum nexis etc, simne nequam et piger? Fortasse, si scribam paginas tali modo, post septimanis aut mensibus eis finem faciam. Nescio.

Paginae sine nexibus externis vel bibliographia, sine nexibus ex aliis [paginis] nexibusve ad alias, post tres menses delendae sunt. Ergo, si tales res postea addere vis, formulam {{In progressu}} ad caput paginae pone. Sed facile est! Saepe nexus externos a pagina in alia lingua scripta hic inserere potes per copy + paste. Si id facis, nexum temptare oportet. Nexus vetus "mortuus" inutile est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 8 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

Namespace aliases[fontem recensere]

Hi, I've seen that shortcut pages (Like VP:M) are in the main namespace, which isn't appropiate, so I recommend you to make VP a namespace alias for the namespace Vicipaedia, so linking to the page VP:M would be equal to linking to Vicipaedia:M. As you can see in other projects, spanish and english Wikipedia for example, when you put WP: in the search box the predictions are in the Wikipedia namespace. This should happen here, when putting VP: the predictions should be in the Vicipaedia namespace. The phabricator people would have to write $wgNamespaceAliases['VP'] = NS_PROJECT;. Kind regards.--SRuizR (disputatio) 06:18, 16 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! The admin who knows most about this, I think, is UV, so I'm waiting for his response, or that of others who are more skilled than I am. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:11, 17 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

Members of political parties[fontem recensere]

The current categorization is insufficiently grainy. For the political affiliation of Olivia de Havilland, for example, the pertinent category in the English wikipedia is "California Democrats." The closest that Vicipaedia comes to that seems to be "Factiones politicae Civitatum Foederatarum"—a sadly inadequate treatment of her and the hundreds of already biographed Americans who want to be categorized by political party right now, and for the tens of thousands who'll want to be categorized by political party and state in the future. Not even Franklinus Delano Roosevelt, historically the most prominent member of the Democratic Party, is categorized as a member. Perhaps someone interested in politics & categories would like to have a go at such a large & important topic. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:53, 27 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

Could it be you?
If others agree it would be useful, whoever began this would have to have the energy to make it look sensible from the start. The future waits on the present. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:07, 27 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
De categoriis factionum, religionum etc. in paginis biographicis haec addo: mea mente, non incaute tales categorias introducere oportet atque semper e textu nostro, fontibus (si necesse sit) corroborato, oriri debent. In Vicipaedia Anglica tales categoriae saepe introducuntur, saepe disputantur, nonnumquam delentur. Pauci sumus: ne disputationes plures importemus! Ergo quis apud nos introducere suscipit, bene antea cogitet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 28 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
Iam exstant categoriae "Anarchistae"; "Atheistae Canadae,"  "Atheistae Civitatum Foederatarum," &c, &c, &c; "Libertariani"; "Socialistae Britanniarum," "Socialistae Civitatum Foederatarum," "Socialistae Hispaniae," &c, &c, &c; "Socialistae Christianae"; "Socialistae democratici"—sed nondum "Sodales factionis Democraticae Civitatum Foederarum" &c. We're careful to record in categories the colleges or universities that many politicians attended, but not the (often far more important fact of the) political parties which they promoted and which promoted them. ¶ However, I'm busy with a myriad of mammals (and remnants of birds) at the moment, so others may wish to take up that mantle. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:07, 28 Iulii 2020 (UTC)
Certe id quo dico ad illas categorias, magna parte a te creatas, applicandum est ... sed, si nemo de illis usque adhuc disputaverit, aut timores meos inutiles erant, aut tu bene antea cogitaverat :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:15, 28 Iulii 2020 (UTC)

Non-standard letters in personal names that are page names[fontem recensere]

I'm wondering about the recently created page for Ulrich Krauße, which is Udalricus Krausse. Starting from our policy that we translate forenames where possible but leave surnames as they are, I would have opted for "Udalricus Krauße". I'm not saying that the current page name is wrong, but it is easy to see that our practice in this regard isn't uniform. And I think it would be preferable to have a line to take. I can see some merit in "normalising" non-standard letters. The question also arises when we create adjectives. From the point of view of the German language, everything should stay; the standard spelling dictionary "Duden" gives the example "Codex Weißenburgensis" as the correct spelling. But I have to admit that this mix looks pretty dreadful to me, and there is no reason to take those German rules as authoritative, when fully writing in Latin. I think we should have a single rule (both for page names and adjectives) and always stick to it, i.e. either only use standard Latin letters (including or excluding "j"?) or always use the original letters, as long as the basis of the alphabet is Latin. (For non-Latin scripts, I suppose that the rule is that you can have a full title in a different script but that you transliterate personal names in any case). Sigur (disputatio) 11:23, 7 Augusti 2020 (UTC)

Isn't the eszett merely a German typographical convention for "ss" (after a long vowel or diphthong)? If so, Latin doesn't have to respect it, any more than it should respect the Italianate ch to represent classical c before e and i, as in Pechinum for "Pecinum." ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:56, 7 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
Redirectionem creavi, quod quattuor nexus ad Krauße iam fuerant; fortasse corrigere melius esset. Si quis correxerit (in ipsa pagina), nihil contra dicam. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 13:19, 7 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
Adiectivos non creemus!
Quo ad nomen illius codicis spectat, adiectivo Latino iam ab aliis creato, Duden paucam auctoritatem in re orthographiae Latinae habet. Apud Google rarius "Codex Weißenburgensis", crebrius "... Weissenburgensis" repperi, sed rapidissime tantum quaesivi. "-ß-" in adiectivis Latinis neque botanicis neque Catholicis scribitur,, nisi fallor.
Quo ad cognomen interpretis, Theodiscum est; Latine non convertimus: ego igitur "Krauße" malo, sed pugnam Theodisce loquentibus concedo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:41, 7 Augusti 2020 (UTC)

Iacobe, the ß originated as a ligature of the long s (ſ) and either s or z (both apparently existed). It is now considered a separate letter, although you are right that it only occurs after long vowels or diphtongs. But ß and ss aren't simply interchangeable. It does make a difference, whether you drink something "in Maßen" (in a measured way) or indeed "in Massen" (massively). The Swiss disagree and always write "ss" instead of "ß", but okay, they have to live with the resulting ambiguities. As for names, some people will be called Strauss and others Strauß, that's unpredictable, but not considered the same. You're supposed to write it the way it's in the person's birth certificate and not change it, because you prefer the other way. Sigur (disputatio) 18:08, 7 Augusti 2020 (UTC)

And as I said: My first instinct was to keep surnames unchanged. I think I have even moved some pages in the past for this reason. I just want to be sure now that everybody agrees that we keep all those ß ä æ ø þ ð and the like systematically. In any event, there should be a redirect from the "normalised" version, if only to accommodate people's keyboards. Sigur (disputatio) 18:26, 7 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
Yes, our norm at least for the last few years has been to preserve special characters in names. An exception might be if the person has published something under a modified Latin name. But Udalricus Krauße's Latin writings also seem to have the Eszett. I went ahead and made the change. Lesgles (disputatio) 01:01, 8 Augusti 2020 (UTC)

Paginae mensium[fontem recensere]

Ite, o amici, ad Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis paginasque aut vestras aut aliorum proponite. Paginas iam propositas aut accipite aut reiicite. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 7 Augusti 2020 (UTC)

Confestim?[fontem recensere]

O magistratus dormientes! Quid sibi vult vocabulum confestim? For twenty-four hours, Vicipaedia's longest article has been in a language other than Latin. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:41, 20 Augusti 2020 (UTC)

Gratias tibi, Iacobe, ago; recens ab officiis domum veni, vidi, delevi. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 18:11, 20 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
Macte! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:25, 20 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
Bene fecisti, mi Andrea. Eo tempore operatione pharmaci anaesthetici dormiebam! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:01, 21 Augusti 2020 (UTC)

Rursum petitio tralationis: CVM QVATER IMPLESSET ec.[fontem recensere]

Hans Kels artifex istam numisman occasione Antonii Carchesii visitandi in Raetia anno MDXXXXI fecit. Quis vult assistere tralationem inscriptionis:

CVM.QVATER.IMPLESSET.SEPTEM.CARCHESIVS.ANNOS. / SIC.APVD.ALGAVIOS.LVMINA.ET.ORA.TVLIT

Conatus meus in lingua theodisca: Als Carchesius viermal sieben (= 28) Jahre vollendet hatte, so brachte er den Allgäuern Licht und [ora. = orationem?]

Cur Carchesii vetustas multiplicatione (quater septem) exprimitur? Estne affirmando proprietates specificas numerorum quatuor aut septem?

Gratias vobis ago. --W. B. Jaeger (disputatio) 17:56, 27 Augusti 2020 (UTC)

Hic fortasse responsum invenies. "Such was his look when he was 28" ? ̴̴Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus.
Numerologiam non cognovi, sed puto hos numeros metri causa scriptos esse (hoc est distichon elegiacum). Confer hunc versum vicesimae Horatii epistulae: "me quater undenos sciat inplevisse Decembris". Et ora hic est fortasse plurale vocis ōs, ōris, n., quae translate linguam, sermonem, eloquentiam significare potest. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:30, 27 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
Nescio an Marcus noster id observavit, sed verba, quae scripsit, versum heroicum Anglicum faciunt, cf. Don Juan domini Byronis I.23 "... she / was married, charming, chaste, and twenty-three." Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:41, 30 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
Facetissime loqueris, mi Andrea. Observare quidem non potui quia sermo Anglicus mihi non patrius est et litteras Anglicas parum novi. Anglice verti quia verbum look mihi aptissimum ad sensum (lumina et ora sic quidem interpretatus sum) videbatur nec in aliis linguis aliquid simile ex improviso inveni. Recte tamen Lesgles quod poetae Latini adverbio multiplicanti libenter utuntur metri causa et nimis prosaici sermonis vitandi.
Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus
Cari amici @Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus: @Lesgles: @Andrew Dalby: multas gratias deliberationibus vestris ago quas me perturbare admitto quia directiones disiunctas indicant. Itaque etiam plenam tralationem rogo. Sodes proponite istam tralationem, vel minimum conatum tralationis in modernam linguam theodiscam, anglicam, gallicam ec. --W. B. Jaeger (disputatio) 16:01, 6 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
"so (i.e. wie du es im Bild siehst) trug er (tulit) Blick (lumina) und Gesicht (ora) vor den Allgauern'. Sic equidem intellego ː stilus poeticus et contortus qui tum elegans videbatur... Gesicht etymologice = lumina quae poetice saepissime oculos designant Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 13:58, 7 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
Gratias tibi Marce Terenti ago. Conclusiones: Falso expectabam explicationen plus philosophicam. Autem accipere decet illum poetam stilum poeticum et contortum recipuisse. Fortasse/probabiliter etiam istam imaginem Caroli V. et epigrammam noscebat quas exempla imitanda putabat. Conatus repetitus: "Als Carchesius viermal sieben Jahre alt war, hatte er bei den Allgäuern dieses Aussehen und trug diesen Gesichtsausdruck." "Such were Carchesius' looks at the Allgäu people when he counted four times seven years." Bene an non? Nota: Isto tempore Carchesius erat feriatus in regione algovia. --W. B. Jaeger (disputatio) 17:28, 8 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
In English I would say "among the people of Allgäu". "At" is an error. "Allgäu people" is infelicitous because in such phrases the first word is normally an adjective ("Swiss people", not "Switzerland people") and English has no adjective corresponding to "Allgäu".
Etiam in linga anglica corrigor. DISCERE IVCVNDVM EST! Gratiam tibi refero, Andrea. --W. B. Jaeger (disputatio) 20:00, 10 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
But I suspect the German translation is really what you want, and the German looks perfect to me! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:07, 9 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
"Lumina et ora (tulit)" appears to be an idiom, perhaps even making a distinction without a difference, much as we might say "(his) look and mien." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:38, 9 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
Gratias vobis, Andrea et Iacobe. Tralationes in pagina Vicimediae Communiae (→ insprictiones) utor. Ibi tralationes in linguis variis utiles sunt! Videte! Si qualitas non sufficit vos corrigere vel annotare rogo. --W. B. Jaeger (disputatio) 20:00, 10 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
We might as well try a (non-literal translation to an) distichon elegiacum in German, e.g.:
So sah Carchesius aus mit achtundzwanzig Jahren
Als er zu dieser Zeit bei den Allgäuern weilte.
Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:29, 26 Septembris 2020 (UTC)

Formula: Phylomap[fontem recensere]

Would a kind programmer like to figure out how to make the following illustration (from the English wikipedia) print in Vicipaedia?

EuryarchaeotaNanoarchaeotaCrenarchaeotaProtozoaAlgaePlantSlime moldsAnimalFungusGram-positive bacteriaChlamydiaeChloroflexiActinobacteriaPlanctomycetesSpirochaetesFusobacteriaCyanobacteriaThermophilesAcidobacteriaProteobacteria
Phylogenetic tree showing the relationship between the Archaea and other domains of life. Eukaryotes are colored red, archaea green and bacteria blue. Adapted from Ciccarelli et al. (2006)


It could profitably be added to Archaea, Eukaryota, and Bacteria, and indeed to several other articles, including Algae, Animalia, Fungi, Plantae, Protozoa. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:04, 30 Augusti 2020 (UTC)

As you see, the template is now working. It took less than a minute. I removed the <nowiki></nowiki> from your message. I went to en:Template:PhylomapA, opened the edit window, copied the whole contents, came back here, typed Formula:PhylomapA in the search box, confirmed that I wanted to create it, pasted the whole contents into that new edit window, and saved. Whatever it is that programmers do, it can't be this!
To be honest, this would not work with every template, and you might not know in advance whether it will or not, but it is so simple that it always well worth a try. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 30 Augusti 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:45, 6 Septembris 2020 (UTC)

Guido tonelli[fontem recensere]

Hodie legi quod Guido Tonelli est amator linguae Latinae et volui creare paginam de eo. Casu, cum crearem paginam, eum appelavi "tonelli" et non "Tonelli." Potest aliquis ei dare honorem debitum ei et mutare titulum ad "Tonelli?" Gratias.

Feci. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:20, 1 Septembris 2020 (UTC)

Sorghum[fontem recensere]

It looks as if Vicipaedia and more than a handful of other wikis have lost a point at Meta because "Sorghum" has silently been deleted there in favor of "Sorghum bicolor." Would an acceptable instant (albeit temporary) fix be to create a redirect page from the latter to the former? Or maybe someone would like to create an article for the latter? It's a shame to have had all 1000 of the required items but then to have lost one of them to behind-the-scenes changes! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:45, 6 Septembris 2020 (UTC)

The real fix, if the change was made silently (without discussion) at Meta, is to revert it there. Maybe someone has already done that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:16, 9 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
Apparently, the change affected so many wikis, and so unexpectedly, that somebody was almost certain to revert it, and the scores will be more accurate next month. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:38, 9 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
Amahoney iam abrogavit, disputandum est. — Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:55, 9 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
Interim paginam de Sorgho bicolore conscripsi. Lesgles (disputatio) 13:20, 9 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
Macte! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:44, 9 Septembris 2020 (UTC)

translatio hebdomadalis 37[fontem recensere]

trick film: Iam est pagina pellicula animata mota ad artem animandi.--Utilo (disputatio) 11:50, 11 Septembris 2020 (UTC)

Census[fontem recensere]

Salve, quod est plurale huius verbi census ?--Bouzinac (disputatio) 11:12, 19 Septembris 2020 (UTC)

In lingua Latina singulare est censŭs, plurale est censūs. Diacritica addidi ut distinguamus, sed ambae formae sine diacritico census scribi solent. NB -- de lingua Anglica non quaesivisti, ergo non respondi!
In Latin the singular is censŭs, the plural is censūs. In normal writing they are both census: I added the accents to show that the sound is different. NB -- you didn't ask about English, so I haven't replied about English! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 19 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
In English, censi is utterly, indisputably, irremediably wrong, and censusses is likely to be so. Similarly (and for the same reason), afflati & afflatusses for afflatuses and hiati & hiatusses for hiatuses. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:45, 19 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
Studebat cum Latinam, non dedit diacriticam... Induci confusiones fieri inter Domus (domini) et census (census) potest ... Tibi gratias! --Bouzinac (disputatio) 19:34, 28 Septembris 2020 (UTC)

Sleeping sickness . . .[fontem recensere]

. . . appears to have struck the magistrates. When helpful advice is rejected over & over (under the stated response that it's been accepted), the time to wake up is at hand. See "Ali Sarhan Shamran," not only here, but in the Gikuyu-language wiki. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:54, 23 Septembris 2020 (UTC)

Paginam Latinitate omnino carentem delevi. Quod ad paginam nostrarum collegarum Gikuyensium attinet, me paenitet nihil facere posse. (You are certainly coming up with interesting variations on the "dormiebatis" theme!) Lesgles (disputatio) 20:50, 23 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
I'm pickling peppers this morning, but I thought I'd take a moment to protect the pagename so that only magistrati can re-create it: this was a very persistent attack. Nice to know that Latin is so important to them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:28, 24 Septembris 2020 (UTC)
And Gikuyu! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:11, 24 Septembris 2020 (UTC)

New design?[fontem recensere]

"Wikipedia due to get its first substantial website redesign in a decade. Let's hope they're not going to make it harder to get to the English wiki from here! (And to other wikis, for that matter!) In contrast, to get to Vicipaedia from lots of other languages requires extensive scrolling. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:45, 25 Septembris 2020 (UTC)

Glaring omission?[fontem recensere]

Vicipaedia seems not to have an article on Prince Albert (Albertus de Gota?). Wouldn't somebody like to write one? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:06, 1 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

Id feci. Commodum mihi maximum quod Gota a domicilio meo haud procul distat. Ecce: ut olim Albertus ipse nunc etiam commentatio Vicipaediana e Germania venit... Giorno2 (disputatio)
Macte, amice! :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:13, 20 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

Indices insularum[fontem recensere]

If anybody wants to make lists of islands, insularium has apparently been attested: J. R. Forster, "Insularium Maris Pacifici or a Catalogue of the Isles in the South-Sea with the Names of the Natives," in Forster, Vocabularies of the Language spoken in the Isles of the South-Sea & and of the various Dialects which have an Affinity to it; with some Observations for the better Understanding of them (1774), Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, MS Orient Oct. 62. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:50, 1 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

Brevitatem linguae nostrae semper laudo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:50, 1 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
Et ¨Insularium illustratum¨ Henrici Martelli memorari potest. Non index insularum vicipaedianus, ut mihi videtur, sic nominandus est, sed potius de insulariis ut de genere librorum pagina componi potest. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 10:10, 2 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

Histrio: Nexus ad paginam discretivam[fontem recensere]

Nonnullae paginae de histrionibus nexum ad paginam discretivam (actor) pro nexo ad paginam propriam (histrio) habent. Estne (ro)botum Vicipaediae, quod id corrigere potest? --Ben4Wiki (disputatio) 12:43, 8 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

Writing Guide[fontem recensere]

In english wikipedia there is a clear way to write. There are writing guides and whatnot, and everything is in Modern, Formal, and Standardized English. How is this to be replacated in Vicipeadia? Is it already a thing? What version of latin is to be spoken?

Emicho's Avenger (disputatio) 18:23, 10 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

See Vicipaedia:Praefatio, or the links I posted on your talk page. Basically, we tend to follow the rules of classical Latin, the language of Caesar, Cicero, Virgil, and others. But we also accept medieval and modern vocabulary, especially for concepts that were unfamiliar to the ancient Romans. Lesgles (disputatio) 02:20, 11 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

Barbara Eder[fontem recensere]

Barbara Eder (nata est Ferreo Castro, Theodisce: Eisenstadt, Hungarice Kismarton, anno 1976) moderatrix cinematographica et pellicularum fabularum scriptrix Austriaca.[1] Anno 2019 ut moderatrix cinematographica cum Stephano St.Leger moderata est confectionem seriei pellicularum, cuius titulus est Barbari et in lucem edita erit die 23 octobris 2020. [2]

Do we have a medal for substantial 10000-article-list contributions?[fontem recensere]

We now have over 40 points in the List of Wikipedias by expanded sample of articles and thus get the highest colour code they have (dark orange). And I think we largely owe it to Iacobus' relentless efforts! Sigur (disputatio) 18:19, 17 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

Non unam, iam multas medalias Iacobus labore myriadis implendae meruit. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:15, 17 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
According to the list, we are missing the articles "Torah" and "Catholicism" - but that's not true: Torah ist redirected to Pentateuchus, Catholicismus to Ecclesia Catholica Romana. Could someone with more technical knowledge than me solve the problem? - I'll add a similar problem: David Friedländer and Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia do not show the other languages ​​even though I entered the Latin page in Wikidata.--Utilo (disputatio) 09:47, 18 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
Bibliorum Stuttgartensium et Fridlaender nexus correxi (Vicidata interdum quodam modo dormiunt), de catholicismo ad usum myriadis nova pagina componenda est, nam ecclesia Romana et ipsa in indice eius est. Pentateuchus ad Torah moveri potest (ut initium sit: "Torah, vel Pentateuchus...") Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 10:13, 18 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago! Sunt et aliae paginae, quae in indice desunt: Arabian Sea - Mare Arabicum, Bay of Bengal - Sinus Bengaliensis, Carthage - Carthago, Heracles - Hercules.--Utilo (disputatio) 10:18, 18 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
Mare Arabicum et Sinus Bengaliensis Iacobus ipse recenter scripsit, sed ille se a Vicidatis abstinet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:33, 18 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
Hercules, si myriadem oboediamus, in duas paginas, de Heracle Graeco e de Hercule Romano, dividendus sit. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 11:43, 18 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

Catholicismus[fontem recensere]

Thanks to Utilo, we now have a page for Catholicismus linked to the correct Wikidata item (Q1841). Just to mention, though, that in the English Wikipedia that page still is a redirect to en:Catholic Church. They do have a page en:Catholicity (Wikidata item Q311547), however, which would probably be an adequate match... Sigur (disputatio) 19:14, 19 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes it turns out that two Wikidata items need to be merged: which will only work if there is no overlap (no language has an article in both lists). If that isn't the answer, then, so far as I can see, it doesn't matter to us, assuming our pages are correctly linked across Wikidata, that there isn't an English page among the others. In the slightly recondite but tasty area I'm working on (major foods and historic dishes worldwide) it fairly often happens. A surprising example is the red prawn currently being fought over in the Mediterranean. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 22 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

Who can hide an edit in the page history?[fontem recensere]

This change was an abusive edit evidently just made to have the address of the dentist in question on the internet. And in spite of the revert, it's of course still there (in the page history). But if we don't want to let people get away with this kind of thing, it shouldn't. Sigur (disputatio) 18:48, 19 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

You meant the edit summary? I have now hidden the edit summary. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:29, 19 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
Since you are a magistratus yourself, you can do this as well: Go to the page history, tick the checkbox next to the revision you need to hide, click on "Redactiones selectas vel ostendi vel celari iubere" and then select whether you need to hide the revision content and/or the edit summary and/or the username/IP of the selected revision. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:35, 19 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
Oh. OK. Thanks. I gave up, when the page told me that the edit would stay in the history... Sigur (disputatio) 19:44, 19 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

"Scin tu?" Cui adhuc bono?[fontem recensere]

Haec pars nostrae Paginae Primae me iamdiu taedio afficit. Morta enim est et nemo eam reanimabit. Ego ergo sepulturam eius "in aller Stille" propono. Partes nuper additae spatium liberum complebunt. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:19, 19 Octobris 2020 (UTC)

Mutationes recentes in pagina prima automatice non monstrantur, ut mihi videtur, ne recensiones vandalicae in ea appareant. Illud "scin' tu" mihi in omnibus Vicipaediis minime placet; habet Vicipaedia Latina "paginam diei" curis Andreae quotidianis, "scin' tu" et omnino omitti potest. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 08:38, 20 Octobris 2020 (UTC)
Assentior ambobus. Nisi alius quis aut disputet aut rubricam alere incipiat, removere possum.
Mutationes paginae primae ego statim video: tu non, mi Demetri? Si ulla pagina "haereat", mutationem novam inermem in eandem paginam fac (e.g. additionem spatii vacui) et divulga. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:21, 22 Octobris 2020 (UTC)