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
Hic colloqui possumus.

Greges cultivarietatum (cultivar groups)[fontem recensere]

Brought back from the archive The concept of group (distinct from subspecies) is official in botany, and Vicipaedia has a few articles (and categories) that need regularizing to accommodate it. An example of the prescribed pattern is given and parenthetically explained in Wikipedia thus:

Brassica oleracea Capitata Group (the group of cultivars including all typical cabbages)

(Cabbages are "headed" plants of Brassica oleracea, while kales, the "headless" ones, are of the Acephala Group.) The officially required form involves italics for the genus & species, the word Group (translated into any language) roman & capitalized, the name of the group roman & capitalized, and word order flexible (Group + Name ~ Name + Group).

A curiosity for Vicipaedia here is that the gender of the name of the group must agree with the gender of the genus & species, while the Latin word grex ('group') is masculine, thus giving us

Brassica oleracea Grex Capitata


Brassica oleracea Grex Capitatus

Is the difference of genders a problem? Perhaps the neatest way to finesse it would be to put grex in the ablative, with the assumed meaning of 'by group' or 'with regard to group(ing)':

Brassica oleracea Grege Capitata

But maybe that's unnecessary. (The official standards, or at least their version in English, don't say.) What to do?

In any case (literally?), the formula for taxoboxes apparently needs to have a new taxonomic line for grex, just below the line for species or subspecies. Maybe some kind programmer would like to add it in? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:25, 27 Decembris 2020 (UTC)

The command line "trinomial" works, as you see in Brassica oleracea var. capitata, one of the articles in question. Maybe a new line for "grex" would then be superfluous?—except that "Brassica oleracea Grex Capitata" isn't exactly a trinomial. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:31, 27 Decembris 2020 (UTC)
Genus gregis non mutatur, cf. Alchemilla gr. alpina et Rubus gr. fruticosus. — De capsis nescio, var. et gr. paene idem est. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:09, 27 Decembris 2020 (UTC)
Eheu, Internationalis Nominum Plantarum Cultarum Codex notiones cultigenarum, cultivarietatum, gregum (botanicorum), et varietatum rite et subtiliter distinguit ac regulas scribendi nobis praescribit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:51, 27 Decembris 2020 (UTC)
I hope someone will explain the grex == group issue to the ISHS itself. It's a bit of a surprise that they'd break the ability to name things in Latin in this way, they should offer a solution surely. JimKillock (disputatio) 21:22, 1 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)
In general, if an official body uses Latin and fixes names, we accept their names and work with their usage. What better authority could we have? Thank the Gods that official bodies do use Latin, demonstrating to an admiring world that Latin is flourishing.
I don't think this is a problem. The Code aims for acceptable Latin and I don't doubt it also aims to make names as simple as possible for non-Latinists to understand. We do this already with species: an adjective in the name of the species agrees in gender with its genus name, not with the word "species", and we don't put "species" in the ablative to make that work. Ergo the species name is nominalized (just like the many species names that already are nouns) and stands in apposition to the word "species". Similarly with "grex" and "varietas": the adjectives (which are often species names in older and alternative classifications) agree with their grammatical context when the word "grex" has not been added. "Grex" is added, the adjective becomes nominalized and stands in apposition to "grex". That's magic. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 2 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)
I could be completely misunderstanding the situation here, but I think the confusion is about their use of English (with no Latin equivalent). The schema is here (PDF) and the relevant parts appear to be Article 22: Names of Groups page 35 Article 23: Names of grexes page 37. On my very cursory understanding, a "Group" is not a "Grex", that is something else, and a "Group" has no official Latin term given. Thus a "Group" cannot be called a "grex" (this would be very confusing) however no guidance is given to what a "Group" ought to be called in Latin. The assumption is that "Group" or another local language word be used.
We could of course make something up ourselves, but that is also not great. I think best would be to ask for official guidance, and make some suggestions if we wish? JimKillock (disputatio) 16:17, 2 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we could have Grupus. But why should it be capitalized, when subsp. and var. are not? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:32, 2 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps Group (or any Latin word for it) should be considered an insertion that syntactically stands apart from the name. We have the familiar example of Daucus carota subsp. sativus—not sativa to agree with subspecies (and carota there looks feminine, but would appear to be an indeclinable noun, so the accusative would be Daucum carota, not Daucum carotam). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:40, 2 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Maps and Latin names[fontem recensere]

Hi there, I noticed that the new maps are showing rather less Latin than they might, given that a lot of the Latin names we use are linked by Wikidata IDs to OpenStreetMap onbjects so could be easily applied to Wikimedia maps. I've raised a Phabricator ticket to see whether this is something that would need to be built, or a bug. I also note that does this already (applies wikidata names to OSM places via Wikidata IDs that have been added to them). JimKillock (disputatio) 23:15, 9 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)

Which are the "new maps"? Can you link to an example?
I'm not sure if this is relevant, but there is a timelag, potentially endless, between the move of a Vicipaedia geographical page to a verified placename (which normally happens as soon as the name is corrected and sourced) and the change of the Latin label at Wikidata (which is not done by bots, and depends purely on whether anyone decides to update it). The Wikidata label could go on showing an incorrect or ungrammatical or vandalized name for a long time. Anyone taking information from Wikidata should not rely on the Latin label, but on the Vicipaedia pagename. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 10 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)
By new, I mean post 2017 maps which are now based on Open Street Map ;) For instance, Villa Sancti Albani has a map linked from the Wikidata panel on the right. This shows "St Albans" while the Wikidata item has "Fanum Sancti Albani". Contrast Maptiler which shows "Fanum Sancti Albani", derived from Wikidata. Zoom out and you will see "Londinium", that name is recorded on OSM directly I presume. The Wikidata item for St Albans does need updating (and could be vandalised), I don't think the page name can be easily used tho, as that could include other information, such as the county or country for disambiguation purposes. Also, many if not all of the names on OSM have been tagged with the Wikidata ID, so linking the Wikidata language name across all languages to the OSM map object or place is trivial to automate, whereas extracting them from page names would not be easy to do at all (it would be a case of Latin exceptionalism at least - I don't think they would be keen). So I think we are stuck with Wikidata language names as a source. JimKillock (disputatio) 12:03, 10 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)