Vicipaedia:Taberna

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


Index

Tech News: 2015-28[fontem recensere]

15:13, 6 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

De brevibus praenominibus vulgaribus[fontem recensere]

Neander noster nuper Bette Davis et Charlie Chaplin movit, praenomina Latina in vulgaria, sed notiora, mutans. Ut mihi videtur, mos noster adhuc fuit Latinis praenominibus utere, sed regula nostra ("praenomina vertantur (siquidem verti possunt)") casum praecipuum praenominum brevium (nicknames, pet forms) non tractat. Multa sunt alia exempla mutanda aut non mutanda: Gulielmus Clinton, Robertus Dylan... Ego non certus sum; Neander aliique quid dicunt? Lesgles (disputatio) 17:10, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Conversio praenominum convertibilium est mos maiorum Latinistarum (oratorum apud universitates; scribarum Vaticanorum; editorum textuum Latinorum). Praenomina declinantia nobis sunt utilia quando textum scribimus. His rationibus ego "Carolum Chaplin", "Milonem Davis", "Gulielmum Clinton" in textu nostro praefero. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:08, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
In eodem choro canimus tres! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:49, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
Sed recte Miles (-itis) Davis? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:51, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
Haud certe scio, sed credidi hoc praenomen e Latino "Milo, Milonem" per Francogallicum mediaevale "Míles, Milón" mutuatum.
Ita: cf. e.g. nobilem mediaevalem en:Miles of Plancy, qui Francogallice Milon, Latine Milo appellatus est. Ne credas paginam en:Miles (given name), ubi fontes fideles absunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:43, 12 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
Aiunt Hanks, Hardcastle, Hodges in A Dictionary of First Names: "Of Norman origin but uncertain derivation.... It may be a greatly altered pet form of Michael, which came to be associated with the Latin word miles ‘soldier’ because of the military attributes of the archangel Michael. However, the usual Latin form of the name in the Middle Ages was Milo. There is a common Slavic name element mil ‘grace, favour’, with which it may possibly have some connection." Quaque nominis origine, paenultima sententia confirmat usum desideratum. Lesgles (disputatio) 01:27, 13 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago! Cognomen igitur classicum Milo -nem non relevat, ut videtur, sed forma Latina mediaevalis Milo -nem manet. "Sanctus Milo" Francicus (seu sancti Milones duo) saec. fere XII reperiuntur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:38, 13 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
Quod ad "Milonem" Davis attinet, an veritati serviat haec forma, dubito. Declinari certe potest Milo sed ita etiam Miles. Quali associatione formali aut ideali Milo et Miles inter se iuncta sint, mihi quidem non satis demonstratum esse videtur. Multi praeterea sunt homines, qui in omnibus linguis Milo appellantur. Vix igitur veritati aut accurationi serviat, si puta Miles Iosephus Berkeley et Milo Ventimiglia in Vicipaedia eodem praenomine, Milone, appellentur. Adde quod Milo per se multiplices habet etymologias et multas similes formas ut dotes secum afferat. Sed de finibus recte mones, Andrea, nam brevis est passus de idea solida ad orthodoxiae severitatem. De causis quas supra dixi non puto Milonem Davis praeferendum esse Militi Davis, quamquam nunc formas declinatas ingerere nolo. Itaque aliquot leves mutationes in commentatione Miles Davis feci. Neander (disputatio) 15:01, 17 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
Quod praenomen, forma alia, etiam habuit en:Milo Minderbinder :) Confiteor nos certitudinem in conversione praenominum experimentis periculosis, iudiciis difficilibus non semper attingere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:39, 17 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Constat Bette Davis, Charlie Chaplin, Charlie Parker, Herbie Hancock, etc., nomina hypocoristica esse, sed ante omnia constat de nominibus professionalibus agi. Ne unus quidem titulus in aliis Wikipediis "verum" nomen Ruth Elizabeth Davis, Charles Chaplin, Charles Parker, Herbert Hancock praebet. Cur? Scilicet quia nomen professionale, quo actor se actorem, musicus se musicum, profiteri vult, non est instar nominis baptismalis vel "veri". Plus enim valet et significat, qua de causa sui generis est. Mea quidem sententia nomina professionalia eadem ratione tractanda sunt ac notae mercatoriae. Ambiguum erat inter propatores Vicipaedianos, utrum Apple Computer latine Malum Computatrum an Computatrum Mali reddendum sit. Videantur etiam quae de nomine Sibelii scripsi. Neander (disputatio) 06:19, 16 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Possumus sine dubio de nominibus professionalibus regulam specialem scribere. Non solus es qui talium nominum veritatem potius quam Latinizationem suadeas. Sed de finibus huius regulae quid dicis? John Wayne et Miles Davis, aut Io(h)annes Wayne et Milo Davis? Hae enim sunt nomina professionalia atque eodem tempore praenomina traditionalia. Bill Clinton aut Gulielmus Clinton? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 16 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
Tchaikovksy's signature.jpg
Et P. Tschaïkovsky? Vide unam ex eis subscriptionibus (dextra). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:02, 16 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it should be an option either to use the original or latinized version for the first name, not a strict rule.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:00, 16 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Adnuo, mi Jondel. De "nomine professionali" velut "mercatorio" rationem accipio; insuper praenomina diminutiva "Latina" sicut "Robertinus Williams" cordialiter odi. Sint per me rubricae "Charlie Chaplin", "Robin Williams" etc. Sed mihimet ipso aliisque permittere volo in textu, nomine immutato praefixo, nomine declinato uti si volumus. Commentationum Vicipaedianarum veritas et accuratio res gravissimas esse censeo, sed libertas nostri sermonis, varietas, fluiditas carae mihi sunt! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:50, 16 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Salve Andreas, aliis, utinam sciatis, malim egomet versionem latinam(Carolus Chaplin, etc ) enim quis vicipedeam legat latinam amet et hanc versionem malit. Quod lector videre vult et quod faciamus ut cito comprehedat in more latinae(mos maiorum Latinistarum)? Autem veritas et accuratio sunt gravissimae. Autem immo, rigores esse non possimus--Jondel (disputatio) 23:24, 16 Iulii 2015 (UTC)


O cultores Latinitatis, remember always that names are conventions to express something, and this is true also for personal given names. Always in history names have been translated, because of usefulness, to keep them untranslated is only a recent practice. Surnames, if one studies their history, are even more clearly a conventions, since they are an addition to the name to distinguish a person and a family from others. So they often are patronymics or names of a profession. Actually the distinction between names and surname in history has always been quite blurred. America is the best example, where surnames are used as given names or second names, often for someone who belongs to the family ex genere matris. So it makes sense for me to call Charlie Chaplin Carolum Cappellanum.

De hypocoristicis: Dantes in De Vulgari Eloquentia vocabat Cino da Pistoia Cinum Pistoriensem and Lapo Gianni Lapum. Haec non erant nomina completa, nomina originalia. Et Dantes non est nomen proprium, sed hypocoristicon Durantis, sed eum vocamus Dantem, non Durantem. Si fontes habemus quae Latine vertunt hypocoristicon, uteamur, vel imitemur mos romanicarum nationum, quae utebantur versiones Latinas hypocoristicorum. Ita Robin Williams vocemus Robinum, quia sicut suffixus -ino Italice saepe versus est in -inus, et -in quod est mediaevalis deminutivus suffixus in Anglia, potest ita reddi. Valere optime.

Sorry for having written both in latin and English, I don't master them equally Tristanus Priscus --78.12.47.30 18:28, 4 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-29[fontem recensere]

15:06, 13 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-30[fontem recensere]

03:05, 21 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

New user-space templates[fontem recensere]

{{Rubrica paginae disputationis usoris}} and {{Harenarium personale}} are now available. Thanks to Andrew Dalby and Lesgles for their assistance! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:45, 22 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create PNG thumbnails of static GIF images[fontem recensere]

The thumbnail of this gif is of really bad quality.
How a PNG thumb of this GIF would look like

There is a proposal at the Commons Village Pump requesting feedback about the thumbnails of static GIF images: It states that static GIF files should have their thumbnails created in PNG. The advantages of PNG over GIF would be visible especially with GIF images using an alpha channel. (compare the thumbnails on the side)

This change would affect all wikis, so if you support/oppose or want to give general feedback/concerns, please post them to the proposal page. Thank you. --McZusatz (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 05:07, 24 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Ricardus Stallman[fontem recensere]

Quaeso, me adiuvet si tibi placeat emendare. Gratias.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:31, 24 Iulii 2015 (UTC) ADLESGLES.QVAMQVAMOCCUPATISSISTAMEN,EMENDATIONIBVSTVISGRATIASTIBIAGO.--Jondel (disputatio) 22:20, 24 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

LIBENTER FECI. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 23:21, 24 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Cynthia Crawford[fontem recensere]

I would like to request that this article be examined for its encyclopedity. Thank you.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:11, 24 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

I've added my opinion, Jondel (see Disputatio:Cynthia Crawford). What is your opinion? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:33, 25 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Consono. I enjoy UFO articles and we indeed did our best but I feel it does not serve the purpose of an encyclopedia nor will it be missed. Iam de quo dubito, demonstavi et cum iuris nobis decendis delenda est re. --Jondel (disputatio) 03:26, 26 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Veritas[fontem recensere]

Paginam Veritas, mea opinione inutilem, tollendam esse censeo. --Bavarese (disputatio) 16:28, 26 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Res autem gravis est! Fortasse philosophus quis textum meliorem scribere velit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:37, 27 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
Ego et Iacobus coepimus; nunc pessimum, ut mihi videtur, emendatum est, sed pagina certe manet augenda. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:22, 27 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-31[fontem recensere]

15:05, 27 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Otto? Otho?[fontem recensere]

Quomodo agendum est de nomine Otto vel Otho? Habemusne consensum? Miror enim, cum in pagina Otto (rex Bavariae)‎ nomen theodiscum Otto illius regis Latine mox Otto mox Otho video versum esse. --Bavarese (disputatio) 18:17, 27 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Quamquam ambae formae in fontibus reperiuntur, Otto aliquanto usitatior videtur, saltem in libris Google. Otho (Ὄθων) autem est scriptura recta cognominis Romani: L. Roscius Otho, M. Salvius Otho. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:30, 27 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
Certe recte - et haud plane ignota - dicis. Sed nescio, quae versio nominis theodisci Otto in nostra vicipaedia praeferenda sit. Estne consensus? --Bavarese (disputatio) 19:36, 28 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
Absurdum est, si mores nostri Ottonem in Othonem mutari poscant, cum nomen verum Otto sit. Neander (disputatio) 04:46, 29 Iulii 2015 (UTC)
De praenominibus huic regulae obtempero ego:
  1. Si homo ipse nomen suum interdum Latine scripserit, ipsius scripturam adhibeo et fontem cito
  2. Si alii boni nomen ipsius hominis Latine scripserint, eorum scripturam adhibeo et fontem cito
  3. Si fontes variantur aut si nemo nomen ipsius hominis Latine iam scripserit, usualem praenominis vernacularis conversionem in praenomen Latinum peto
  4. Si usuales conversiones plures sint, eam conversionem praefero quae proxima ad praenomen vernaculare stet
  5. Nisi conversionem usualem apud bonos reperio, non converto
Talem regulam valde facilem amicis omnibus commendo! Hoc casu orthographiam "Otto" nobis producit, id quod haud absurdum esse videtur :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:15, 29 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

What does a Healthy Community look like to you?[fontem recensere]

Community Health Cover art News portal.png

Hi,
The Community Engagement department at the Wikimedia Foundation has launched a new learning campaign. The WMF wants to record community impressions about what makes a healthy online community. Share your views and/or create a drawing and take a chance to win a Wikimania 2016 scholarship! Join the WMF as we begin a conversation about Community Health. Contribute a drawing or answer the questions on the campaign's page.

Why get involved?[fontem recensere]

The world is changing. The way we relate to knowledge is transforming. As the next billion people come online, the Wikimedia movement is working to bring more users on the wiki projects. The way we interact and collaborate online are key to building sustainable projects. How accessible are Wikimedia projects to newcomers today? Are we helping each other learn?
Share your views on this matter that affects us all!
We invite everyone to take part in this learning campaign. Wikimedia Foundation will distribute one Wikimania Scholarship 2016 among those participants who are eligible.

More information[fontem recensere]


Happy editing!
MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 23:43, 31 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

De Lucipoli vel "Hollisteria"[fontem recensere]

Quomodo optime hoc oppidum (vel in Missuria vel in California) Latine nominatur? Nomen anglicum antiquissimum ad aliquem prope arborem sacram habitantem spectat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollister_(surname)), non autem exstat, ni fallor, nomen latinum. An melius sit "Lucipolis" an "Hollisteria"? Gratias ob responsum tuum.

Praecipua regula nostra est: "non fingimus", "we don't make things up". Si alius quis iam nomen huius urbis Latine verterit, bene! Ea versione Latina utimur. Si conversionem Latinam iam exstantem non possumus citare, nomen apud Vicipaediam erit "Hollister". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:15, 2 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
Non fingimus, ut dicis. Tamen, nonne asseri potest firmum esse usum Latine vertendi nomina propria? Quem usum nequaquam nos finximus. — Anedia (disputatio) 18:18, 3 Augusti 2015 (UTC).
De hoc usu interdum controvertitur! Hanc autem regulam certe acceperunt etiamque hodie accipere solent Latinistae. In libris Latine rubricatis (tam botanicis quam philologicis) praenomina editorum Latina fere semper vides; in scriptis Vaticanis praenomina episcoporum Latine conversa; in praelectionibus universitatum praenomina doctorandorum; etc. Qui nuntium de novo papa audierunt, verba "cardinalem Georgium Marium" intellegerunt, non "cardinalem Jorge Mario". Est igitur non fictio sed normalis linguae nostrae usus.
Idem rem faciunt, sed rarius, secundum usus et regulas suas, ei qui aliis linguis loquuntur. Vide e.g. en:George Papandreou, en:Pope Francis, en:Philip IV of Spain, en:Aristotle Onassis et multis linguis taliter. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:58, 4 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-32[fontem recensere]

15:51, 3 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata: Access to data from arbitrary items is coming[fontem recensere]

(Sorry for writing in English)

When using data from Wikidata on Wikipedia and other sister projects, there is currently a limitation in place that hinders some use cases: data can only be accessed from the corresponding item. So, for example, the Wikipedia article about Berlin can only get data from the Wikidata item about Berlin but not from the item about Germany. This had technical reasons. We are now removing this limitation. It is already done for many projects. Your project is one of the next ones. We will roll out this feature here on August 12.

We invite you to play around with this new feature if you are one of the people who have been waiting for this for a long time. If you have technical issues/questions with this you can come to d:Wikidata:Contact the development team.

A note of caution: Please be careful with how many items you use for a single page. If it is too many pages, loading might get slow. We will have to see how the feature behaves in production to see where we need to tweak and how.

How to use it, once it is enabled:

Cheers Lydia Pintscher MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 17:46, 3 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Jeroen?[fontem recensere]

Habemus praenomen Latinum pro Jeroen, praenomine Batavo? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:37, 6 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Hieronymus praenomen Latinum est. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 17:57, 6 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
Gratias, amica! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:18, 9 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

HotCat?[fontem recensere]

Mihi videtur HotCat apud nos vim non habet (sed in aliis Vicipaediis viget). An recte observavi? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:43, 8 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Recte observasti. Rectificavi. --UV (disputatio) 21:06, 8 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Nursery rhyme ?[fontem recensere]

Habemus vocabulum Latinum pro nursery rhyme, locutione Anglica? Ainsworth's, Cassell's, et Traupman vocabulo carent. Nursery in Traupman est infantium diaeta. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:18, 9 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

An older dictionary gives "nutricularum fabula" (from Quintilian) for "nursery story", so "nutricularum cantilena" (vel sim.) could make sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:50, 9 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
"Nursies' tale, nursies' tune." Looks good! Macte! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:34, 9 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Gadgets[fontem recensere]

Quomodo id Latine dicimus, nescio ... UV noster duos gadgets novos nuper inseruit. Alii fortasse, sicut iam ego, hos utiles censebunt. Si temptare vis, inter praeferentias sub verbo "Gadgets" reperis: "Reference Tooltips" et "Direct image links to Commons". Etiam temptare oportet (si non iam fecisti) "HotCat". Multo simplicius categorias paginarum nostrarum addes et corriges.

I don't know the Latin word for "gadgets" ... UV has added two new ones: others might find them useful as I do. If you want to try them, you find them in your "preferences" under "Gadgets": "Reference Tooltips" and "Direct image links to Commons". If you haven't already, it is also worth trying "HotCat". It makes it much easier and quicker to add and correct the categories on our pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:13, 10 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

It's not in Cassell's and Traupman; Merriam-Webster says the English word was a novelty in 1886, origin unknown. My guess would be apparatus; there's also machina(mentum/tio). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:33, 10 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
As a 'device' there is artificium at Traupman. Also please investigate ingenium(clever device) and machinatio(mechanism).--Jondel (disputatio) 12:39, 10 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
Mihi quidem gadget ad machinam quandam solito minorem referri videtur. Itaque machinulam commendo — vel potius machillam, hapax legomenon, quod in Petronii Sat. 74.13 invenitur, si lectioni codicis Traguriensis (= c.Parisini Latini 7989) fidem facimus. Quae lectio, ni fallor, sola nobis conservata (sede machillam illam sustuli) faciliter emendari potest: sed e machilla illam sustuli, quamquam editores operam dederunt, ut hanc lectionem (conservativam) oblitterarent (e.g., e mach<ina> illam sustuli et alia audaciora). Neander (disputatio) 15:24, 10 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-33[fontem recensere]

14:57, 10 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Correction of my profile in Latin[fontem recensere]

Salve! Can anyone of you correct my profile in Latin?

Hola (Salve), ego Josep Maria Roca Peña sum et XX annis habeo.
Salve! Iosephus Maria Roca Peña sum, viginti annos natus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:59, 12 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Ego de Barcino (Catalaunia) sum, ita catalanus sum et volo independentiam Catalauniæ.

Barcinensis libertati Catalauniae faveo. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:59, 12 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Et quoque lingua hispanica et lingua lusitana loquor, quia aliquantisper in Portugallia vixi. Ego maxime tres series amo: Star Trek, Code Lyoko et Winx Club, et vicies de his seriebus in multis linguis habeo.

Si translationem vel correctionem vis facere in Flag of Catalonia.svg, Flag of Spain.svg, Flag of Portugal.svg, Flag of Galicia.svg, Flag of Italy.svg vel Flag of Occitania.svg, nuntium mihi mittas cum petitiom tuam et hoc faciam, solum nuntium debes scribere ad paginam disputationis meam.

Thanks! --Josep Maria Roca Peña (disputatio) 21:42, 11 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata: Access to data from arbitrary items is here[fontem recensere]

CXXCXXMMMCDLVI[fontem recensere]

Omnibus de centum viginti milibus paginarum gratulor; nunc ad 123 456 spectare possumus! Lesgles (disputatio) 16:15, 12 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

 :=) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:20, 19 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #4—2015[fontem recensere]

Elitre (WMF), 22:28, 14 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-34[fontem recensere]

16:17, 17 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

How can we improve Wikimedia grants to support you better?[fontem recensere]

My apologies for posting this message in English. Please help translate it if you can.

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback about how we can reimagine Wikimedia Foundation grants, to better support people and ideas in your Wikimedia project. Ways to participate:

Feedback is welcome in any language.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) through MediaWiki message delivery. 00:59, 19 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Categoriae geographicae de monasteriis/abbatiis/secessibus[fontem recensere]

Videte s.v.p. Categoria:Monasteria per civitates digesta. Velim categorias quae sequuntur movere quia nomen generale "monasterium" abbatias, secessus, eremitagia, etc. comprehendit. Ita omnia instituta huius generis in categorias geographicas sine difficultate inserere possumus. Alias categorias mutare non propono. An quis dissentit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:33, 22 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

De anonymo Theodisco[fontem recensere]

Look out for an anonym who appears around 2200 European time and wants to change our capitalization and punctuation to the German standard. That's a new one on me. It's a different IP address each day. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:25, 22 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

These contributions are becoming a little more useful (see Lingua Neograeca‎‎) :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:12, 23 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-35[fontem recensere]

13:02, 24 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Campfire in Latin[fontem recensere]

Hello. I guess "campfire" in Latin didn't survive to this day, but one of my dictionaries says ignis castrensis, which might not be a very good word. Does anybody know another word? Related languages to Latin have similar words to each other; fuoco di bivacco in Italian, fogata in Spanish, fogueira in Portuguese and feu de camp in French. -- Donatello (disputatio) 20:10, 24 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Salve Donatello, secundum dictionarium Theodiscum, simpliciter scribas "ignem". Si voles, vide huc. Vale. Laurentianus (disputatio) 23:16, 24 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Laurentianus: you make a camp and you light a fire, simply "ignis". But if in some context there was a need to be more explicit, I think the phrase "ignis castrensis" would be OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 25 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
That'll want to be the lemma then, because Lagerfeuer will be a different article from plain old Feuer. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:59, 25 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Maybe divided understandings[fontem recensere]

Hello again. I just created an article about the sense taste; Gustus. I discovered later that there's an article about it already; Sapor. I was looking in the language list in the English article Taste for a Latin link, which didn't exist, but the English article Flavour has one. How should we do? It's a little complicated. -- Donatello (disputatio) 11:54, 25 Augusti 2015 (UTC).

Completely different ideas, deserving different articles: Sapor should be about flavor (analogous perhaps with Color; Gustatus [sic], about the sense of taste (analogus perhaps with Visus). According to L&S, this gustus is post-Augustan and not found in Cicero. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:12, 25 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
If an article on gustatus isn't going to develop, whichever of these (gustus and sapor) is longer should link to en:Taste because that's one of the ten thousand maximally important articles—but it would be best to have an article on gustatus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:29, 25 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like a consensus then for moving gustus to gustatus and linking it to en:Taste (the sense)? From the paltry first par. it is clear that the intent was for the page gustus to be about the sense of taste anyway.--219.87.82.162 23:32, 25 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
That looks like a good plan to me. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:49, 26 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Paginae contribuendae[fontem recensere]

Fere centum sunt paginae contribuendae, quarum multae faciles et non controversae videntur. Ipse aliquas feci, sed auxilium aliorum quaeso. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:10, 25 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

According to the (nonrandom) sample I've just made, "multae" such proposals would hardly be "non controversae" and should be rejected. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:20, 26 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
Then do it, Iacobe! Remove the contribuenda templates (with a comment in the discussion if there is a discussion) and reduce the backlog double quick. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 26 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps many should be rejected too, but this is one area where some boldness would be appreciated, I think. Lesgles (disputatio) 02:16, 27 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

"Light" in Latin[fontem recensere]

Hello. May you tell me the difference between lux and lumen? Lux is the used word for light, but I've never really figured out lumen. -- Donatello (disputatio) 13:04, 27 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Lumen is basically a 'source of light, luminary' (e.g., lamp, sun, even eye [given Aristotle's theory of seeing]), whereas 'lux' is the emitted 'light' of the source of light. Metaphorically, lumen may also refer to a distinguished person; so, a 'star' (e.g. film star) is certainly lumen in Latin (rather than stella); whereas lux may denote the 'world', the (en)lightened place. In practice, the meanings of lux and lumen may overlap, and especially in poetry, lumen and lux may be used more or less synonymously to denote 'light'. But their basic meaning difference should always be kept in mind; cf. e.g. Curtius Rufus (Alex. 8.2.21) "aditu specus accipit lucem; interiora nisi inlato lumine obscura sunt." Neander (disputatio) 17:48, 27 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Ludovicus XIV[fontem recensere]

Paginam promovi de Ludovico XIV cras morituro (vide Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis) sed augere oportet, o amici! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:41, 31 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

"Racing" in Latin[fontem recensere]

Hello. Can anybody find a good Latin word for "racing"? -- Donatello (disputatio) 16:54, 31 Augusti 2015 (UTC).

Do you have a particular context? Cursus has much of the same meaning, e.g. cursus equorum, "horse race." Lesgles (disputatio) 19:44, 31 Augusti 2015 (UTC)
That's good to ask, because the term could depend on the identity of the racers. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:31, 31 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-36[fontem recensere]

21:36, 31 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the Wikimedia public policy site[fontem recensere]

Hi all,

We are excited to introduce a new Wikimedia Public Policy site. The site includes resources and position statements on access, copyright, censorship, intermediary liability, and privacy. The site explains how good public policy supports the Wikimedia projects, editors, and mission.

Visit the public policy portal: https://policy.wikimedia.org/

Please help translate the statements on Meta Wiki. You can read more on the Wikimedia blog.

Thanks,

Yana and Stephen (Talk) 18:12, 2 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

(Sent with the Global message delivery system)

Open call for Individual Engagement Grants[fontem recensere]

My apologies for posting this message in English. Please help translate it if you can.

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants program is accepting proposals until September 29th to fund new tools, community-building processes, and other experimental ideas that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), Individual Engagement Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

Thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 20:52, 4 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) through MediaWiki message delivery.

"To record" in Latin[fontem recensere]

Hello. Does anybody know a good word for "to record" in Latin (like when you record a movie, song and sound)? We have "conserve" and "save" in Latin, which might give a clue. -- Donatello (disputatio) 21:18, 4 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Fortasse "noto" vel "subscribo". --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 21:33, 4 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
Imprimere?--Jondel (disputatio) 22:52, 4 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
Inveni verbum «incīdere», sed opus est metaphora idonea. — Anedia (disputatio) 11:15, 6 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-37[fontem recensere]

17:29, 7 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

de Pronominibus sine Generibus[fontem recensere]

Suntne pronomina Latina quae genus non monstrant, sicut ze vel hu anglice (vel etiam they numeri singularis)? Et quid de adiectivis? Hoc est, cum dicam anglice "Alex brought zer book; I saw zem," quomodo eodem Latine dicere debeam? "Alex librum tulit," scilicet, sed deinde? "Eum," "eam," vel "id" non re vera eadem sunt atque "zem." Et anglice possum rogare "Are you tired, Alex?" sed si velim latine dicere, debeam eligere "num fessus/fessa/fessum es?" Est nunc in universitate mea homo cui debeo latine et graece loquor, sine generibus, sed nec ego, nec collegae, nec homo nesciunt quo modo nobis facere licet. Equis potest adiuvare? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:23, 8 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Haec pronomina Anglica neque audivi neque usque adhuc legi. An talia pronomina aliis linguis exstant? Neograece fortasse? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:54, 8 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
Vide en:Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns. Lingua Suecica hen habet, secundum hanc paginam; aliae linguae autem nihil simile habent, ut videtur. Difficilius est graece ubi dicimus ὁ Ἀνδρέας vel ἡ Ἄννε: articulum etiam cum nominibus propriis mittimus! (Scio autem mihi licet dicere Ἄλεξ sine articulo, si necesse est.) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:18, 8 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
[Conflictus editionis:] In linguis quae genera grammatica habent, necesse est genera verbis congrua de hominibus omnium sexuum adhibere: e.g. Francogallice "une personne" et "une victime" possunt vir, femina, infans esse: adiectiva feminina his nominibus congruunt. Theodisce verbo "das Mädchen" adiectiva neutra congruunt, nisi fallor. Homo tuus igitur, si se modo convenienti linguis quae genera grammatica habent describi postulat, debet imprimis verbum substantivum de se idoneum eligere; quo verbo electo, genus grammaticum consequetur.
Filia mea, annum decimum agens, bracis induta, in popina Nicaeënsi bouillabaisse postulavit. Quod ferculum immensum inferens pincerna ait Voilà, jeune homme! Dixi ego "He thinks you're a boy ... It doesn't matter ..." Illa (fame fortasse coacta) assentiebatur. Homo tuus, si sicut Odysseus per terras et populos vagat, errores haud dissimiles incursurus est, et eadem verba sibi dicere cogetur! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:48, 8 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Etiam pura Latinitate nonnullae rationes sunt: pronomen vitare, ut dixisti, aut pronomine reflexivo suus uti, quod genus subiecti non indicat. Nova pronomina fingere possis, fortasse pro "is, ea", ia; pro "eum, eam", em? Nullum autem exemplum anterius novi. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:01, 8 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
mea sententia universitates videntur omnes se perfututae fieri velle modo 1984 libri. Quid malum mundum adflictat?59.115.179.76 13:27, 9 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
Re vera? Nonne scis homines esse qui nec viros nec feminas sint? -- vel qui ambo sint? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:22, 9 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
Cum anonymi sententiis non assentior, sed ego usque hodie homines esse qui nec viros nec feminas (neque iuvenes) sint nescivi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:35, 10 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
Cum de rei generibus biologico nil refert vel nil de genere referre volumus, mos traditus et venerabilis latinus est huius rei genere grammatico uti. Non sunt querci ambo et feminini et masculini generis biologici? et dracones? cur ille de his rebus dicimus? Ita si de hominis genere biologico referre nolumus, utendum est genus grammaticum masculinum. Hic est mos latinus, nonne? Conatus igitur ad linguas modificandas ut omnes clamationes politicas quam irrationales e partibus placentur, me sic pladit ut programma Fratri Magni illius ex libro 1984. Nolo nemimem offendere.59.115.251.2 13:22, 10 Septembris 2015 (UTC)
Melius iam sententias tuas intellego atque haud dissentio: error est sexum humanum (o quam multifarium!) cum generibus grammaticis confundere. Homines pro certo, si velint, se sexum aut tertium aut quartum aut nullum possidere censeantur et proclamentur, sed linguam aliorum, ante quam loqui didiscerint, ad mentem suam mutari ne postulent. Hoc modo nihil discitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:50, 10 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Belavia?[fontem recensere]

Paginas de ducibus civitatum hoc tempore scribo. De nomine civitatis Oceanicae, quam nos "Belavia" appellamus, alii autem fere omnes "Palau", dubito. An quis originem nominis nostri dicere potest? An oportet ad "Palau" movere? Exstat enim verbum adiectivum Latinitatis scientificae "Palauensis". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:49, 9 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-38[fontem recensere]

16:17, 14 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Vilém, nomen Cechicum[fontem recensere]

Latine Gulielmus vel aliud? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:05, 14 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Ita. Vide etiam Guglielmo (it.wiki). --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 17:29, 15 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Database Access (September 2015)[fontem recensere]

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:

  • EBSCOHost - this is one of our largest access donations so far: access to a wide variety of academic, newspaper and magazine sources through their Academic Search Complete, Business Source Complete and MasterFILE Complete
  • Newspaperarchive.com - historical newspapers from the United States, Canada, UK and 20 other countries, and includes an Open Access "clipping" feature (1000 accounts)
  • IMF Elibary- a digital collection of the IMF's reports, studies and research on global economics and development (50 accounts)
  • Sabinet - one of the largest African digital publishers, based in South Africa, with a wide range of content in English and other European and African languages (10 accounts)
  • Numérique Premium - a French language social science and humanities ebook database, with topical collections on a wide range of topics (100)
  • Al Manhal - an Arabic and English database with a wide range of sources, largely focused on or published in the Middle East (60 accounts)
  • Jamalon - an Arabic book distributor, who is providing targeted book delivery to volunteers (50 editors)

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including expanded accounts for Elsevier ScienceDirect, British Medical Journal and Dynamed and additional accounts for Project MUSE, DeGruyter, Newspapers.com, Highbeam and HeinOnline. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 19:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

We need help! Help us coordinate Wikipedia Library's distribution of accounts, communication of access opportunities and more! Please join our team at our new coordinator signup.
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

Aide pour traduction demandée / help for translation latin into french[fontem recensere]

Hello, salve

I'll try it in english, sorry i've been learning latin langage , but it was more then twenty years ago .

I need help to translate the short latin language sentences below, for this article :Abbaye Saint-Léon de Toul https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbaye_Saint-L%C3%A9on_de_Toul

This is coming from this book : http://data.bnf.fr/10674801/pierre-etienne_guillaume/ P 373

thank you for any help, i should translate any help from English, italian or german native langage into french

may everybody have a nice day...

Sincerely

--Letazwiki (disputatio) 11:55, 17 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Le nécrologue du Pape Saint-Léon s'exprime en ces termes au sujet de Lutulfus, fondateur de son abbaye à Toul :

"Obiit Lutulfus piae memoriae levita et canonicus hujus

loci, quia cum decanus esset majoris ecclesiae, Coenobium

hoc a fundamentis construxit, opibus, ornamentis variis

multimoda decoravit ;itinera multa et longa , pericula

plura pro hujus exaltatione Loci sustinuit."

— Dans histoire du diocèse de Toul, Par Pierre Etienne Guillaume, p 373

Dont voici une traduction argumentée possible :

Latin translittération Proposition de traduction sources
Obiit Lutulfus piae memoriae levita et canonicus hujus loci, Lutulfus décéda pieusement diacre et chanoine de son domaine

levita \Prononciation ?\ masculin

  1. (Religion) Lévite, diacre.
quia cum decanus esset majoris ecclesiae, parce qu'il était le doyen (l'ainé) d'une grande église Decanus munus (Moine doyen ayant certaines prérogatives)
Coenobium hoc a fundamentis construxit, [de cette] Abbaye [les] fondations [il] jeta
opibus, [il la dota de ] ressources
ornamentis variis multimoda decoravit, et la décora avec des ornements de toutes sortes
itinera multa et longa, de nombreux détours il a suivi [et]
pericula plura pro hujus exaltatione Loci sustinuit. Loci--> Leuci(i) de nombreux dangers , pour le salut des âmes des Leuques, il a enduré Exaltatio : élévation de l'âme (Gaffiot)

"LUTULFUS décéda pieusement diacre et chanoine de son abbaye dont il avait jeté les fondations en tant que doyen de son Église.

Il l'avait dotée de ressources et embellie de multiples manières,mais avait aussi dû prendre de nombreux détours et endurer de nombreuses peines pour le salut et l'élévation des âmes de sa communauté touloise de Leuques."

Bonjour! Le mot "quia" me parait étrange dans ce contexte: littéralement le texte dit qu'"il est mort parce qu' étant diacre d'une plus grande église il a bâti ce monastère", ce qui évidemment n'est pas vrai. L'intention pourrait être de dire qu' "il est ici commémoré parce qu'étant diacre d'une plus grande église il a bâti ce monastère". Il n'est pas nécessaire de corriger "loci" en "Leuci"; pas de mention d'âmes. Essayons cela:
Lutulfus de pieuse mémoire est mort diacre et chanoine de cet endroit parce que pendant qu'il était doyen d'une plus grande église (ou "de la majeure église") il construisit ce monastère de ses fondements, l'embellit de dotations et d'ornements de maintes sortes, et subit multiples et longs voyages et beaucoup de dangers pour l'exaltation de cet endroit.

:Si on pourrait lire "qui" au lieu de "quia", plus facile ...:

Lutulfus de pieuse mémoire est mort diacre et chanoine de cet endroit, qui, étant doyen d'une plus grande église (ou "de la majeure église"), construisit ce monastère de ses fondements, l'embellît de dotations et d'ornements de maintes sortes, et subît multiples et longs voyages et beaucoup de dangers pour l'exaltation de cet endroit.
En relisant je pense que "quia" ne pose pas de problème. On nous donne l'explication du fait qu'il est mort dans la qualité de diacre et chanoine de cet endroit et non de doyen de la cathédrale. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:57, 17 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-39[fontem recensere]

18:29, 21 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Only one week left for Individual Engagement Grant proposals![fontem recensere]

(Apologies for using English below, please help translate if you are able.)

There is still one week left to submit Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) proposals before the September 29th deadline. If you have ideas for new tools, community-building processes, and other experimental projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources 21:01, 22 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-40[fontem recensere]

15:15, 28 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Reimagining WMF grants report[fontem recensere]

(My apologies for using English here, please help translate if you are able.)

Last month, we asked for community feedback on a proposal to change the structure of WMF grant programs. Thanks to the 200+ people who participated! A report on what we learned and changed based on this consultation is now available.

Come read about the findings and next steps as WMF’s Community Resources team begins to implement changes based on your feedback. Your questions and comments are welcome on the outcomes discussion page.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 16:56, 28 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

An exstat forma verborum brevior?[fontem recensere]

Paginam recensens de praeside Iosepho Kasa-Vubu scripsi "fuit praeses eius rei publicae quae hodie Congensis democratica appellatur". Illa enim civitas eo aevo "République du Congo" appellabatur, sed alia civitas postea idem nomen usurpavit! Nomen capitis est Kinshasa, sed eo aevo fuit Léopoldville! Brevitatem amo. Omnibus nominibus interdum aut semel aut bis mutatis, an brevius exprimere possumus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 29 Septembris 2015 (UTC)

Non video modum breviorem hoc explicandi. In aliis Vicipaediis aut forma aliquantum falsa (fr: "président du Congo-Kinshasa") aut forma etiam longior adhibetur (ru: "президент Республики Конго (затем Демократическая Республика Конго, затем Заир, затем вновь Демократическая Республика Конго)")! Forma brevior "Congo-Léopoldville", fortasse non optima in prima sententia, alibi autem adhibeatur. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:48, 2 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
De nomine capitis et de adiectivo haec inveni: "Leopoldopolis" in Actis Apostolicae Sedis, fortasse primum anno 1919. Vide etiam "in Republica Congica (Leopoldopoli)" (1963), "in republica Congensi" (2001). Et in Nuntiis Latinis: "Kinsasa", "Kinsasanus", "in re publica democratica Congica". Formam "Congus Leopoldopolitana" editione Latinitatis reperio; nescio cur genus femininum optabant, quod alibi non reperio. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:16, 2 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Ex voto aut ex-voto ?[fontem recensere]

Haud dubium est quin virgula media a consuetudine orthographiae Latinae abhorreat sed intelligentiam sententiarum faciliorem facit dum declarat 'ex voto' velut nomen unum intelligi debere. Utrum censetis scribendum ? An litterae Italicae praeferendae sunt ? Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 14:27, 2 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Quamvis ex voto in aliis linguis substantivi vice fungi videatur, mea quidem opinione praestat huic dictioni statum adverbialem apud nos tutari. Itaque suadeo, ne ex voto utaris titulo sed potius donum votivum inscribas (cf. Sen. Phaedra 105). Sententiam "Parva dona ... in fanis suspensa [[ex voto]] appellantur" ego potius scripserim "Parva dona ... in fanis ex voto suscepto suspensa [[donum votivum|dona votiva]] appellantur." Neander (disputatio) 15:20, 2 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
Ita faciam. Idem sentio atque tu de vera Latinitate. Placuit tamen ad locutionem Latinam hodieque multis liguis usitatam velut adludere.

Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 11:09, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-41[fontem recensere]

18:32, 5 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-42[fontem recensere]

16:28, 12 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Circulus nexuum qui non fieri potest?[fontem recensere]

Ferrivia vaporaria = de:Dampflokomotive = en:Steam locomotive = Vaporitraha
Ergo, Ferrivia vaporaria = Vaporitraha? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:10, 16 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Hoc est cur Vicidata spectare debemus. Num via, nec vehiculum, potest vaporaria appellari? Lesgles (disputatio) 15:22, 16 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-43[fontem recensere]

16:02, 19 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

nuper mutata[fontem recensere]

Salvete! Mihi plane non liquet, quae causa in capite dictae paginae exprimatur verbis huic vici. Nonne exspectandum est huius vici? Si fallor, callidiorem quaeso me reddatis. --Bavarese (disputatio) 12:47, 24 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Nobis quoque sic exspectandum est. Ergo per hyperbaton:
mutationes recentes huic vici→recentes huius vici mutationes
Vel fortasse locutio participio caret: "mutationes recentes huic vici collatas"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:55, 24 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
Sane caret! Auctor huius versus (Inspice mutationes recentes huic vici in hac pagina) affectasse videtur "dativum commodi", qui tamen nomini substantivo attribui non solet, immo verbum poscit, cui attribuatur: Inspice mutationes recentes huic vici in hac pagina factas. Sed huic vici? istud nihil utile confert. Equidem dixerim: Inspice mutationes recentes in hac pagina factas. Neander (disputatio) 15:04, 24 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
At quomodo hic versus mutari possit, nescio. Neander (disputatio) 15:23, 24 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
Non autem mutationes "in hac pagina" factae sunt, sed inspectio harum mutationum. Fortasse "Inspice in hac pagina...", vel "hic inspice", vel etiam "Ecce mutationes recentes"? Lesgles (disputatio) 19:12, 24 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
"Ecce mutationes recentes" mihi placet. Neander (disputatio) 05:45, 25 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
Optime. --Bavarese (disputatio) 08:49, 25 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-44[fontem recensere]

18:04, 26 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

Latin pitch accent?[fontem recensere]

These are a few questions I posted at the Reference Desk of the English WP (though I wasn't the OP) in the context of a thread regarding the relation between the sound of Latin and that of its daughter languages. (Even when the statements are not strictly speaking questions, they actually are, as I believe you can tell.)

I read somewhere, but so long ago that I couldn't give you a source, that, hypnotized by Greek grammar, ancient Latin grammarians uniformly described the Latin accent as a pitch accent, but that they were almost certainly uniformly wrong, and were certainly wrong for vulgar Latin.
On the other hand could it be that literary Latin became influenced by Greek to such an extent that it adopted a pitch accent?
Literary Latin did after all adopt an entirely foreign quantitative metric for Latin poetry (which completely replaced the stress based Saturnian verse) and it is known that literate Romans were pronouncing Greek borrowings in Latin using Greek phonemes that did not otherwise exist in Latin (e.g. pronouncing Greek upsilon like French 'u', or aspirate pronunciations of ph, th, ch, and rh).
Someone with access to Latin grammatical literature may be able to shed more light on this.
One related question I find intriguing is that, this being the case, you would expect Latin grammarians to also try to find in Latin an equivalent to the circumflex/acute distinction of Greek.
The one way this would be likely to happen (since the place of the Latin accent is completely determined by the quantity of the penultimate syllable) would be to describe the accent as a circumflex if the penultimate had a long vowel, but as an acute if the penultimate syllable was short and the antipenultimate carried a long vowel, as this would result from the simplest pitch accent rule (ignore the last syllable and raise the mora two moras back).
Again, if someone has access to Latin grammatical literature, I'd be very curious if any such description is found anywhere.
Something to possibly watch for would be if they used Greek terms such as paroxytone, proparoxytone or properispomenon to describe the Latin accent, e.g. if they described the Latin accent as a properispomenon if the penultimate had a long vowel, a proparoxytone if the penultimate was a short syllable, or a paroxytone if the penultimate was a long syllable but had a short vowel.

I figured there are probably more people able to answer such questions here than there. Thanks for any help. Basemetal (disputatio) 04:15, 29 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

It is agreed that classical Greek had a pitch accent, but this was to change: modern Greek has a stress accent in the same position. The most likely period for such a change is when Greek spread rapidly to speakers of other languages (early to mid Hellenistic period: Robert Browning, Medieval and Modern Greek (1969) p. 33, sees signs of the change "by the end of the third or beginning of the second century BC"). If that's the case, classical Romans read descriptions of Greek with a pitch accent, but actually heard Greek with a stress accent. So their use of that terminology to describe a stress accent in their own language would be no surprise at all! My answer on that point, then, would be that literary Latin didn't adopt the Greek pitch accent, which was already largely a thing of the past.
Thinking further, the effect of this change in Greek was that the acute and circumflex were no longer distinguished in pronunciation. As to whether a parallel distinction in Latin was ever hypothesised, I don't know! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:50, 29 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Andrew. As a side note: for the distinction between acute and circumflex to disappear, that is for them to merge, it is not enough that the pitch accent be replaced by a stress accent, as you could still, in principle, have a "stress" acute (resp. circumflex) if the stress accent applied only to the 2nd (resp. 1st) mora of a long vowel. It is also necessary that the distinction between long and short vowels disappear. Basemetal (disputatio) 20:14, 29 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
I think there is no such principle. I don't know of any language in which a stress accent is applied specifically to the second mora of a long vowel. Note that the Wikipedia article en:Stress (linguistics) describes stress as placed on syllables, not vowels, let alone half-vowels. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:14, 30 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but the question still remains whether in Greek the loss of the distinction between circumflex and acute preceded or coincided with the entire reorganization of the ancient Greek vowel system, which, incidentally, did not only involve the loss of the distinction between long and short vowels but also vowel shifts which ultimately transformated a 7 vowel color system into a 5 vowel color system. I can see that irregular spellings (for example) can tell you the latter has happened or is happening, along with things like transcriptions of foreign words from languages such as Hebrew, Aramaic, Persian. On the other hand I'm not clear what independent and direct signs of change there can be for the former (i.e. the loss of the distinction between acute and circumflex), except that when the latter processes are complete there can no longer be any room for a distinction between acute and circumflex, as it depends on the existence of vowel quantity distinctions. I'm curious how Robert Browning can tell when that happened. I'm talking of specific signs, not a priori arguments such as that "it must have happened" when non-Greek speakers started adopting Greek as a lingua franca. Basemetal (disputatio) 20:44, 30 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
I myself guessed that the change from pitch to stress accent was most likely to happen during such a period; I then looked at Browning, who in a single sentence very briefly cited evidence that it did happen at that particular period. I can feel your need to delay the date at which the acute/circumflex distinction disappeared, but I don't think I can help you prove it. Sorry! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:07, 30 Octobris 2015 (UTC)
Basemetal, if you haven't yet checked out W. S. Allen's Vox Graeca (3rd ed. 1987), you might want to. Here are his conclusions, which differ from Browning's:
  • loss of length distinctions (p. 94): probably in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, linked to change to stress accent
  • change from melodic accent to stress accent (p. 130): some evidence in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries AD (in the hymns of Clement of Alexandria), conclusive evidence in the 4th century AD (Gregory Nazianzen).
In Vox Latina (2nd ed. 1978) he has several pages (pp. 83 ff.) on the nature of the Latin accent and concludes that there is no good evidence of Latin ever having had a pitch accent, despite the statements of Latin grammarians who tended to copy concepts of accent unquestioningly from their Greek predecessors. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:15, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Novam seriem paginarum mensualium excogitare oportet[fontem recensere]

Pagina mensis Novembris 2015 (Ganges) est seriei iam excogitatae ultima. Videte id quod apud Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis scripsi et nomina paginarum promovendarum proponite, o amici! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 30 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #5—2015[fontem recensere]

Elitre (WMF), 18:18, 30 Octobris 2015 (UTC)

[fontem recensere]

Vicipaedia logo is not showing on my computer at all; it's blank up in the upper left corner ... StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:36, 1 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

If it was broken before, it's fixed now. Who knows? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:26, 1 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Note a big bug[fontem recensere]

Note a big bug in the EmausBot: in Lingua Amharica, it's done its thing, explained as "Bot 3 nexus intervici removet, quod nunc apud Vicidata cum tessera d:Q28244 sunt," and that leaves a nice array of other wikis that have links to this article in Vicipaedia—BUT THE BOT DIDN'T INCLUDE THE ENGLISH WIKI AMONG THEM, so people reading the English wiki won't know about the Latin article. I'd noticed this pattern repeatedly for months but hadn't connected it to that particular bot. Can someone fix the bot? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:46, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

WAIT! Now—only a few minutes later—a link to Vicipaedia has correctly appeared in Wikipedia. Does the EmausBot read the Taberna?! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:05, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
However, it's correctly inserted in the English wiki a link to some other Latin articles. Is the problem random? or what? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:54, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
But I just went to Lingua Amharica and in the left margin I see links to lots of languages, including English. I click on the English page, and I see a link to Latin among the rest. These links are maintained at Wikidata. It's correct for a bot to remove all the links on the local page that duplicate a Wikidata link. Does that answer your point, or am I misunderstanding? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:08, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
OK, I see your later comment above. I guess it was just a refresh delay: usually clears within a minute, in my experience. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
On the third hand, no wiki-linking bot has even noticed Programmatura computatralis yet, and that article has been in existence for more than 40 hours now. Likewise Agricola and Agronomia and Organismus genetice mutatus. (I point these out because they're among the 10K most important articles, and it would be a shame if Vicipaedia's score were lower because of a faulty bot.) Is it just a matter of time? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:54, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
It may get slower, I guess, as the old system of local links has become obsolescent and the demand has fallen. But surely this task will remain on the bots' to-do list: there are still some creaky old editors who don't use Wikidata :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:11, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
The problem with Programmatura computatralis is that it is not in Wikidata. This means it will not show up on the 10K table, nor will it be linked to the other articles it should be linked to. It's never a good idea to add manual inter-wiki links: rather, when we add a new page, we need to go to the parallel page in another language (say, English), go to the "Wikidata item" link in the left-hand sidebar there, follow that link, edit the Wikipedia section in the page, and add Latin. I've done that for Programmatura computatralis just now, and you will see the correct list of inter-wiki links in the sidebar. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:28, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Any change that invites humans to expend more effort to produce the same result is a disimprovement, and surely the Authorities wouldn't have made the change in Wikidata unless they'd already designed or approved bots to handle the manual bother you've just described. Let the bots do it. This isn't the twentieth century anymore! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:47, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I just did agricola (munera) (which should probably be moved to agricola (munus), right?) by my preferred method: remove the [[en:...]] link, click on add links in the sidebar, type "en" in the first box, "farmer" in the second, and presto! They're all added. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:40, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
1. I preferred [[agricola (munus)]] too, but [[agricola (munera)]] was already a redirect (to Agricultura), so the quickest thing when I added the article on farmers seemed to be to piggyback on it, since it'd have to be re-redirected anyway. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:43, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
2. I'm not seeing "add links" in the sidebar, which appears all in Latin on my screen. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:43, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
1. Yes, I guessed that's what it was! 2. You have to be logged on Wikidata first. Once you are, "add links" should show up. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:00, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I don't log in there. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:10, 8 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-45[fontem recensere]

16:42, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Capsa hominis Vicidata[fontem recensere]

Dear Friends, since more than a week the Capsa shows the birth and death dates in English and not in Latin. Can somebody of you help us please?--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 09:47, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

I've got a query in at Wikidata. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:58, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
phabricator:T116503. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:08, 3 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the problem has been located and a patch being developed. Stay tuned ... StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:48, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
thanks--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 18:53, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Latin is back! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:27, 8 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Great news! Note that some pages' caches will have to be flushed. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 01:44, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

More on Caspa hominis Vicidata[fontem recensere]

Another issue I see—and I haven't been able to find a solution without Lua—is the question of multiple values of a single property. Consider the late Petrus Trudeau, whose son Iustinus was just elected Prime Minister. I went to Wikidata to add Latin labels to the other two brothers' Wikidata entries, in the hopes that this would cause three separate items to come through the property call, with the link to Iustinus Trudeau thereby turning blue. Those updated values haven't appeared yet, but more to the point: the three sons' names apparently come in as a single text string. This, in turn, means that the link is a red, gibberish link. This might be a reason to remove links from items that have a strong possibility of containing more than one value. Just a thought ... StevenJ81 (disputatio) 19:52, 11 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is also an issue with the capsae civitatis; see Disputatio Formulae:Capsa civitatis Vicidata. In that template, I ended up removing the links from the fields which are most likely to have multiple items, but ideally someone will find a way to link all the items separately. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:37, 11 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

We've another problem[fontem recensere]

Now the links to nationality are always red also for the nations we certainly have a page (USA, Germany etc.). Really we have a page for all the world's nations--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 17:00, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Helveticus montanus, it seems to be working ok for me right now, as long as there is only one value returned for nation. (When more than one nation is returned, we see the same problem as with other fields where multiple values are returned.) Can you give an example? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:42, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is that same issue. I knew it would happen, and it is why I did not originally put any links in these places. Lesgles added the links. I don't say he was wrong to do so, but we have unluckily no solution to the problems they sometimes cause! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:37, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)


Why? + Right-aligned?[fontem recensere]

I see that the Capsa hominis Vikidata is spreading on many pages. Is it necessary to use it? I just always have to think how ugly it is. Often there is no appropriate information, just some numbers. And it is not possible to change the size of the picture. The biggest problem is, I think, that it is placed on the left side of the article and therefore it damages its layout. Could anybody change it so that it is aligned to the right? --Packare (disputatio) 17:33, 6 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

You're not the only one who's been having these thoughts. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:57, 6 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
As the page itself explains, the capsa can be removed if editors think it useless. In cases where it gives no useful information I would advise deleting it.
It is formatted left for two reasons: to distinguish it visually from Vicipaedia, because it is an external source of imformation; and because in this way it was easier to add it automatically to pages many of which already had a different image formatted right. However, like practically every other single thing on Vicipaedia, the left formatting of this box can be changed, if right-thinking Vicipaedians conclude that these reasons were insufficient. (Personally, I'm a left-thinking Vicipaedian :)
Although it is an external source of information, any Vicipaedian can improve the information this capsa offers, because Wikidata is also a Wikimedia project. This is why a link is provided in the infobox itself. Wikidata can be edited to add names where at present only a number appears, and to add a different image or a detail. For example, an hour ago, I myself created, added to Commons, and inserted at Wikidata a portrait detail to make the capsa at Maia Parnas give a nice portrait at a more useful scale. I'm no wizard, so if I can do it, anyone can. If you can't see how to, just ask! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:22, 6 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
I should add, maybe, since both of you have expressed disapproval of the left side placing, that I can't (yet) grasp your reasons! I put these boxes on the left side for the two specific reasons I gave, but to me the two sides of the window are, I think, equal. Is it simply a formatting issue that doesn't affect my browser? Or is my lack of understanding here perhaps a result of the fact that I'm left-handed in a right-handed world? Do you both also dislike seeing the Wikipedia logo and column of links on the left side, or is that somehow a different thing? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:02, 6 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
I like Wikipedia logo on the left side but the capsa is a different thing. If the capsa is on the right side it can never affect the layout of the page, if it is on the left side it can easily collide with the table of contents or headings. For example in case of Maia Parnas it perfectly works even on the left side although it is really weird that there are (due to capsa) two same pictures. In case of Angela Merkel the capsa on the left side makes the appearance of the article very unevenly (unsightly) because too many different boxes, pictures, titles etc. are chaotically placed on the top of the page; because of the left-placed capsa the article's headings are not in one row, which all makes the article's appearance amateurish – pointlessly.--Packare (disputatio) 22:14, 6 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I get it. I don't ever want a table of contents so I have disabled them for myself, hence I couldn't see that problem, but, yes, I remember how it used to be! I didn't see the headings thing as a problem, but others may. Those are good reasons, then.
You also said the box was ugly. Perhaps you don't remember the other miscellaneous biographical boxes we used to have -- they were far worse, believe me, and it was partly to get rid of them that I introduced this one. But it's evident from the above discussion that I am not a good judge of beauty (in infoboxes) so if you want to experiment with the layout etc. you obviously can -- anyone can -- the layout is fixed at Formula:Capsa Vicidata. Only please test the results widely -- many pages now use that formula -- and revert if errors are caused.
If others agree with you that the box should be moved to the right, you could do that too, but before doing it wholesale you should consider the results on short pages that also have illustrations on the right. When we introduced this box (it wasn't just me!) nobody at first remarked on a left-hand problem so we often moved illustrations to the right to balance this box. You would have to move them to the left again, or, if all illustrations on the left displease you, you might have to delete some, or be prepared to add more text. I also am concerned with pages looking amateurish (though evidently I see it with different eyes) and I regard it as amateurish if there is a column of illustrative stuff on the right much longer than the column of text. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 7 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
You are right that the illustrations on the right side would be then also a problem together with a short text. Is it somehow possible to move the capsa boxes to the right side case-by-case? Because in some articles it is perfect on the left side, in many others it would be much better on the right...--Packare (disputatio) 10:10, 7 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
I am sure it is possible. I agree it would be a good idea, allowing us to adjust the format of our pages more freely. It would require an addition to Formula:Capsa Vicidata to make the parameter variable; the parameter could then be set either in individual boxes, with a default choice maybe set at the next stage up (e.g. to make the Formula:Capsa civitatis Vicidata display on the right by default, since those should mostly be long articles). I say this glibly, but I am honestly not very good at introducing such extras (the original design of this capsa was very carefully tailored to what I knew I was able to do!) Perhaps you can try, or perhaps someone else will have a go?
Incidentally, I think myself that the really amateurish thing is the formatting of the table of contents. But is there any way to improve that?
Yes, it's odd that Maia Parnas looks at us from both sides, but as soon as Commons has an alternative image of her, all will be well! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:20, 7 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Similarly with Angela Merkel (though with different images). ¶ I, too, have suppressed the table of contents ever since I've been able to. It's almost always nothing but clutter. ¶ One thing that should be considered in relation to layout is how articles are appearing on handheld devices—which may be the main (or only) point of entry for most people under the age of, say, thirty. If the layout looks different there from how it looks on tabletops & laptops, discussion needs to be had! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:30, 7 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Good point, Iacobe. I, unsmart as I am, can't comment, but others surely can ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:00, 7 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
While it would technically be easy to add a parameter to Formula:Capsa Vicidata that would allow the box to be placed either on the right or on the left, I would strongly prefer to see this box either always on the left or always on the right. We have several explicit rules and unwritten laws as to how our articles should be formatted (e. g. do not use a different font face or a different font colour for the text of your article just because you think the article would look better, use boldface for the lemma in the first sentence only, do not use

horizontal lines in articles, do not use


excessive line spacing, do not place the "Nexus externi" section before the "Vide etiam" section, and many more). All these rules help our readers in recognizing a Vicipaedia article and in quickly grasping its contents, because the reader is not distracted by design variations and does not need to find its way around design variations in order to get orientated about what parts of the article's content are to be found where. I would therefore prefer to see not more design variations to be imposed on pages according to what "looks better" (what is "better" in terms of design anyway? de gustibus …) on one's own browser and one's own screen or even according to personal preference, but rather would prefer perhaps even a tiny bit more rigour in terms of visual display and layout of contents. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:18, 7 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Mostly, I agree with UV. But in working on ladwiki, one thing I have discovered is that if an article is very short, but also has pictures, then if everything (the caspa-equivalent, the pictures, what have you) is on one side, you get a tiny little stub on the left, and a whole column of "stuff" on the right, and that, too, looks kind of amateur. So I think making the float changeable, but with a default to one side (probably right), makes the most sense.
  • Are you all aware that in long articles with many sublevels of headings, subheadings can be suppressed from the TOC? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 22:47, 7 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with UV that it is good to have a predictable layout. This was part of my thinking when I put the boxes on the left and made them stand out with a shadow: "this material helps Vicipaedia but it is not from Vicipaedia, its reliability and sourcing differs, it needs to be distinguished from all other standard parts of the page", I said to myself.
So I think, before going further with this, we need more people's opinions on whether pictures/boxes on the left are a Bad Thing. Packare says so, and Iacobus had expressed this opinion earlier I think, but although when Packare gave a couple of reasons I could follow the reasoning I don't myself think that those reasons are very persuasive ... What do others think about this simple issue? Have others felt that the Wikidata capsae look wrong on the left and would look right on the right? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:36, 8 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
The problem on my screen isn't the content: it's the layout. Could such boxes be HIDDEN until we pass a cursor over the lemma, or something like that? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:11, 8 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need to do that in desktop version. In mobile, should it autocollapse? How does one do that? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:30, 8 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
They could, of course, simply be deleted :) There are those who think that biographies are better without infoboxes. Note, though, that this would deprive some of our biographies of their only image -- I don't know how many. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:26, 8 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Actually it's not such a good idea to delete it, because (I'd forgotten this) it also adds the appropriate category "Viri"/"Mulieres" to the page it's on. Better all round to improve it, like everything else on Vicipaedia, till it matches the heart's desire. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:15, 9 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
I am indifferent about the alignment (and maybe we should use more Comic Sans; it would make the pages look more fun! ...just kidding). In general I am not in favor of infoboxes except in articles where it is useful to have quick access to data (countries, chemical elements, galaxies, etc.). Lesgles (disputatio) 20:59, 9 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
I have now found my way to the mobile site (didn't know how to do that before). Interesting. If I have it right, even short pages (like David Cameron) have a compulsory table of contents, and the table of contents always demands a full column and will appear below all text-and-pictures-and-boxes that precede the first subheading. Only after that long gap will the rest of the text begin. Currently, moving the Wikidata box from left to right (while making no other adjustments) makes the effect worse, because then all the pictures and boxes form a single longer column, with a longer blank space beside them. Also, the Wikidata box does not autocollapse, so all the uselessly redlinked Q... numbers appear in full strength. This seems very bad to me. I think I will just remove the lower, collapsing sections of the Wikidata biography infobox, retaining only the image and the dates and places of birth and death. However, if it's true that up to a third of users now approach the Wikipedias this way, we need to do more than this to make their experience enjoyable! Is my observation correct? Have others thought about this? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 11 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Thanks (to all who commented). No one spoke in favour of the left position, so others probably don't think my reasons for that position were sufficient. I'll move these infoboxes to the right, then. I have meanwhile shortened the biographical infobox (as explained just above) so that it now forms little more than a frame for a portrait image. I hope this may make it slightly more acceptable to Lesgles (who isn't alone in preferring no biographical infoboxes at all!) and slightly less ugly to Packare :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 12 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Dear Andrew, I really appreciate your approach. I think it was a good decision to reduce the number of shown fields in the infobox. The importance of the portrait image has been emphasized therefore I would recommend to make the pictures bigger (maybe 2x). I think, it is really better to have the infoboxes on the right because of the headings etc. but now we need to get used to it and to adjust other pictures in the articles to it. One important problem which I did not realized is that the infoboxes were designed as left-sided but now they are on the right side and it looks weird. The text is going too close to the infobox from the left side, while there is too much free space on the right side. If you have time and you know how to solve it, it will be nice from you to improve it. Anyway, thank you very much! --Packare (disputatio) 21:03, 14 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, Packare. Yes, I'll adjust the formatting when I have a few minutes to spare (probably not today though). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 15 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
I did the image size adjustment today. I aim to do the page-placement adjustments tomorrow. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:57, 16 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

dative[fontem recensere]

Hi. May I ask if it not too much trouble, if you would be able to understand the following sentence? e.g. Would Cicero be able to understand this? Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:03, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Is est heres solio.

Solium is indeed used sometimes in classical Latin to mean kingly or imperial power. However, in the texts that come to my mind the dative case, following heres, is used to denote the person to whom one is heir, not the property or power that one will inherit. It's unusual to begin with is, but possible: it's a little as if you are pointing a finger to identify the subject (but maybe that's what you want to do). So I think I'd have said Heres est solii (a bit poetic) or Heres est imperii, although Is est heres solii/imperii is also possible. Hmm, what will others say? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. Cicero would certainly have wondered who's the guy called "Solius". Neander (disputatio) 13:58, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
And everyone is agreeing with Cassell's, which offers the pattern "heres esse alicui or alicuius." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:22, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

ok.The examples I refer from are:

Tuo viro oculi dolent. 
your husband has sore eyes. (For/to your husband the eyes are sore)
Hoc est oppidum primum Thessaliae venientibus ab Epiro.
This is the first town for those coming from Epirus.
Estne ille mihi liber cui mulier imperat? 
Is that man, in my judgement free who takes orders from his wife?

p264 TYL by Betts. I feel the direction follows the dative word. E.g.For the advantage of, in the eyes of, with respect to. Thanks for your help in clarifying this anyway.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:36, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Neglecto casu fortasse scribere velis: "Eum solium sequitur." –-Laurentianus (disputatio) 15:58, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
It is supposed to mean 'He is heir to the throne.'--Jondel (disputatio) 22:20, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Heres legitimus = 'heir apparent' (Traupman). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:51, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
This is great and useful. I hope we are in agreement regarding the dative. I can cite more examples if still not convinced. --Jondel (disputatio) 11:06, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not convinced. To convince me you'd have to cite an example using the word heres or relevant to inheritance. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:26, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Jondel, in response to your group of examples, note that all of those datives of reference/advantage/disadvantage refer to persons; it would be unusual to use that construction with inanimate objects like solium, regnum, etc. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:43, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Well yes. Most of the time, a person. Here is a predicative dative; the camp-castris is dative: Quinquie cohortess castris relinquit. Here, the dative entity is not a person.--Jondel (disputatio) 22:20, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

In the real text, "Quinque cohortes, quas minime firmas ad dimicandum esse existimabat, castris praesidio relinquit ..." (De Bello Gallico 7.60.2). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:10, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Many of the sentences are shortened but the concerned grammar is conserved to demonstrate grammar usage. This I one of my favorites, albeit modified:
Neque solum nobis divites esse volumus sed liberis, propinquis, amicis, maximeque re publicae.
Nor do we wish to be rich only for ourselves, but for our children, relatives, friends and most of all the state. --Jondel (disputatio) 21:39, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
The dative case involves several semantic roles (e.g., dativus commodi, dativus ethicus, dativus finalis, dativus possessoris). Besides, the dative is a rectional case, conventionally required by some verbs (e.g., parcere alicui, parere alicui, etc.). The words in those three sentences simply picture situations in all of which there is a personal cognizer, and so Lesgles is of course right to point out that in those examples, the nouns in dative refer to persons. But this has nothing to do with the dative per se. So, Jondel, I'm not quite sure what you're out for. In the clause Caesar cohortes castris (objective dative) praesidio (dat. finalis) relinquit, neither castris nor praesidio are personal datives. But what is the point? Neander (disputatio) 21:08, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Good find, Jondel, but we must still consider how individual words should be used idiomatically. It is quite common to use the dative of reference with relinquo (often part of a double dative construction as here), but "heres solio" is rare or nonexistent, whereas "heres regni" and "heres imperii" are well established. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:20, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
--double conflict first Neander then Lesgles. Thank you, Lesgles.The point is the word in the dative, --like castris, fato-- doesn't have to always be a person. This is another non-person dative --the word fate--example:
is fratrem non potuit eripere fato.
that man was not able to snatch his brother from death.--Jondel (disputatio) 21:39, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

The point is if I say--in latin--, 'Jogging is good for your health', I would like to just put the word 'your health' in the dative with no extra addition.--Jondel (disputatio) 21:50, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Sic! Tolutim currere saluti prodit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:18, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Tolutim currere est bonum saluti. --? -- --Jondel (disputatio) 23:22, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Anyway I will changes according to your suggestions and follow it as best as I can.--Jondel (disputatio) 23:22, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

You can say "jogging is a good thing for me" (mihi bonum est), though that doesn't necessarily refer to health.
It maybe helps to think "how else might I say that in English" or "... in some other language?" while thinking about Latin options. That's what I semi-consciously tend to do -- but note that I don't always come out with the best answer! So, in this particular case, Iacobus possibly thought ... benefits health or ... promotes health while considering the translation, and he came out with something that seems to me more typically Latin. (Sorry, Iacobe, I'm only guessing!)
None the less you're fairly close to a thought of Cicero's here, Jondel. I notice ... quia bonum sit valere, meaning roughly "because it's a good thing to be healthy". Cicero isn't quite satisfied with the opinion, but even so, if he jogged, that would be why. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:57, 6 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Traupman, s.v. prosum: "(w. dat) to be good for." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:55, 6 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Dear Andrew, Lesgles, Neander and Iacobus, thank you very much for your insights. I will be review this discussion from time time and I'm sure it will be useful for others too.--Jondel (disputatio) 15:05, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

No respect[fontem recensere]

The English wiki still doesn't list Vicipaedia among the wikis that have more than 50,000 articles. See the bottom of Wikipedia's main page, here. I raise this point in case anybody would like to go over to the other side and try to do something about it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:08, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Essentially it's because we have a high proportion of very short pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:11, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but it remains misleading of Wikipedia to advertise the wikis that have more than 50,000 pages—and then to omit one on the basis of no other stated qualification. I raised this issue over there many months ago, to no avail. Apparently, repeatedly clicking Pagina fortuita turns up too many asteroids and hamlets (or stubs in general). But the logic is unexplained, for surely, as most readers will understand the list, a wiki either has more than 50,000 articles, or it doesn't. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:33, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I just tried the random-page generator on the Nynorsk wiki, and four of the first fifteen articles that turned up were short accounts of points in Antarctica. All but three of the fifteen were about as long as (or shorter than), for example, Ioannes Wright. And Nynorsk has 123,960 articles, almost exactly as many as Vicipaedia. Yet Nynorsk gets listed, while Vicipaedia doesn't. :/ IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:43, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Now I've tried the same thing with Bosnian, which has only 64,648 articles. No less than seven of the first fifteen were spatial objects (not sure whether just asteroids). The average length of the fifteen may have been slightly higher than Vicipaedia's average, but not by much: both would be "in the same ballpark," as we'd say over here. Yet Bosnian gets listed, while Vicipaedia doesn't. :/ IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:50, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Last time I discussed it over there, it seemed to me that their test was sensible (how many stubs in 50 random articles?) and they weren't aiming to disadvantage Latin. Since then, our percentage of very short articles continues to increase, and so the date when we will meet their standards continues to recede. It's a bit like the Greek economy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
What might be more sensible, if we're comparing Vicipaedia to the Bosnian wiki, is to count only Vicipaedia's longest 64,648 articles. That's how it works in poker: if I go all-in, you can call by putting into the pot only as many chips as I've put in; you yourself don't go all-in. Like should be compared with like. Vicipaedia's 64,648 longest articles, taken together, are probably longer and better than the whole of the Bosnian wiki; Vicipaedia's remaining articles are then icing on the cake (except that cake isn't usually consumed at the poker table, but you get the idea). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:47, 13 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
OK, but the point is that it's dishonest for Wikipedia to advertise a list seemingly generated by a single criterion and then silently to exclude one or more items from the list on the basis of some other, unstated criterion. A more honest way might be to be clear about listing "wikis having more than 50,000 articles whose mean is greater than N characters (determined arbitrarily by somebody)," or something like that. Leaving Vicipaedia off the 50K list while implying that the only criterion for inclusion in the list is surpassing 50K articles is functionally equivalent to saying that Vicipaedia has fewer than 50K articles. At least that's the way it'll work for most (mis)readers. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:04, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

I think you can just go there with your sources as an English editor, be bold and make the desired edits. --Jondel (disputatio) 23:28, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

I was assuming that the English front page uses the template en:Template:Wikipedias. It is the selection made for that template that I went over there and discussed, some time ago now. Well, Latin is in that template now, and it is used on many pages (good news) but the English front page doesn't use it (bad news). I must apologise for discussing at cross-purposes.
As far as I can see, the template en:Template:Wikipedia languages, the one that is used on the English front page, is protected, like other elements of the English front page. Admins only. Anyway, thinking about it, I don't advise Jondel's bold method in tnis case. I see from their talk archive that Steven asked them to consider Latin when we reached 100,000, but we failed their test comprehensively. And although Iacobus's point above is perfectly valid, it wouldn't do us any good if they were more explicit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:48, 6 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I'll make two points here:
  1. There are people over there who are really determined to preserve what they consider Wikipedia's dignity, if you will, regardless of what anyone else things, and will defend it vigorously. I had an experience there where I had succeeded in getting an article (on a fairly technical Jewish subject) promoted to GA, only to have certain editors decide it wasn't accessible enough to the general reader to be a GA. Right? Wrong? I don't know, but sometimes the standards aren't spelled out. So, too, in this case. That's one reason I do less there than I used to; I find working on smaller projects like this one, Simple English Wikipedia, and Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia more rewarding than working on English Wikipedia.
  2. That having been said, if the cutoff on their template is 50,000+, does our wiki here fail their test so egregiously that they think over half of our articles are stubs? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 18:58, 6 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict): Iacobus is absolutely right! My general understanding of administrative matters is very poor & feeble, and therefore it'd be better to keep quiet on this, but ... I tested Catalan random pages. Of 30 random pages, 10 were pages that in Vicipaedia would be marked as stipulae (5) or non stipulae (5), and yet not a single page was marked as a stub. If the entrance test consists in counting stub markings, the question arises: Are we perhaps too keen on marking articles as stubs? Neander (disputatio) 19:16, 6 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
It isn't the stub-marking. Their explorer evaluates the pages at a glance, mainly by length of text, taking 50 random pages (use "pagina fortuita" to do the same test here).
To see our current trend, look at any week's output in the Specialis:Paginae novae (note the untypical first of the month when Iacobus puts up his nice long pages). We're adding a thousand pages a month, of which about 900 are so short that they would count them as "placeholders", not stubs.
But I should immediately add (in tune with Steven above) that Vicipaedia is a good place to work because we're fairly easy-going and we can do what work we want. Getting into that list would be nice but is not a major target. We are developing something good, and the main thing is to go on developing it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:15, 6 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to hide (as it were) the nonstubs by moving them to a special place, in some sort of superharenarium? Using the random-page generator, I just checked about 100 pages, and it's obvious that thousands more, of a certain type, are either nonstubs or so close to the cutoff that they might as well be (I ignored ten to twenty such close calls), and as Andrew points out, they keep coming! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:36, 13 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Either that, or delete them without exception after the specified interval? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:56, 13 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
We could create a "Draft:" namespace, as exists on enwiki, and move such submissions to that namespace.
That said, I have to agree with Andrew that I don't see our mission as passing enwiki's test; I see it as creating a high-quality resource ourselves. So to me, the question we have to ask is: Do those non-stubs help or hurt us in achieving our mission. I can argue it both ways: Lots of garbage-y little entries don't help us look better. But making it easier and more welcoming to new contributors does help in the long run. So we need to decide what we think about that.
Possibly a "Draft:" namespace would allow us to encourage participation, while making it clear to outsiders what does and does not actually meet our standards. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:29, 13 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I am interested by the idea of a "draft" namespace. In fact we already have one (the Scriptorium) which is very little used -- see very recent discussion there -- so little used that I wondered whether it was worth keeping, but, if we began to use it actively, as a space in which we place articles that haven't met minimum standards and need help, it might serve us much better. Perhaps it would be worth trying to define what we want such a space to do and how it could work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:13, 13 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
The English "draft" namespace that Steven mentions is described here. A useful feature there is that anyone can look through random drafts (separately from the random page feature, it appears) and do some improving. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:27, 13 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
If there is community consensus to create it (name = ?), then we can put in a phabricator for it. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 21:05, 18 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been in English. Before doing anything else we should put the question in Latin to get wider involvement. I'll do that below. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 19 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I do not agree at all. From my point of view the big problem is not for vicipaedia the presence of a lot of short pages, but that sometimes we have long ones that have anything to do with the Latin language or are full of big language mistakes. When I look at other wikipedias I do not see a big difference in the kind of pages (most of wikipedias have pages on the French communes with no more information than ours) of course if we do not include the biggest ones (English, German, French, Italian ecc.). With this unkind sentence " We're adding a thousand pages a month, of which about 900 are so short that they would count them as "placeholders", not stubs." I understand that the pages I do each month and each day (and whom I'm trying to ameliorate when I have time to do it) are completely unuseful. I stop here I have better thing to do in my life. Bye Bye.--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 16:12, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Dear Massimo, you must do what you wish of course, but the aim is to keep the pages and improve them, not to delete them! Andrew Dalby
I understand this, even if - from my point of view - it doesn't make any sense to put them all in a limbo only to "ameliorate the statistics" (should we begin a political career?). Who will ameliorate these "forgotten pages? Nobody do it now that they are in the main wikipedia!Some months ago you and Iacobus amor wrote me that each page must have an internal and an external link and I've tried to do it, but it seems it's not enough.In any case what I cannot accept it's not the new policy but are these nasty judgements about the "value" of the pages I've created. In the past I have never judged yours or those of other vicipedians, also if in the last years I see very few other new pages and when I read them I'm often horrified, because of the language.In these ten years I've always believed that the more important thing was to inspire the love of the language and therefore more people to participate even if there Latin was poor (if they showed a commitment to ameliorate) or they created short and repetitive pages to avoid making misstakes (this was actually my target). According to me it's not a case that at the end of 2015 we're no more than 10 vicipedians!--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 17:29, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I believe that the draft category will have in the middle run (if not in the short one) the same meaning of a quasi-deletion. I repeat nobody has completed these pages in years during which they have been on the main Vicipedia. I ask me: who will do it later when they will be categorised as “sons of a lesser god”? What do you think if instead, for the whole year 2016, we (the administrators and the most active vicipedians) concentrate as general policy (exceptions e.g. new events and newly important people or, of course, what else somebody of us likes) not in creating new pages, but in ameliorating the old already existing pages?

Σύνδρομος / Syndroma /Syndrome[fontem recensere]

There seems to be some confusion about Σύνδρομος / Syndroma /Syndrome in our Vicipaedia (spelling, genus). There are only three commentations with "syndrome" or "syndroma" in the title , but it´s a common word in scientific languages and should be used in one form only. Unfortunately I am neither a phililogue nor a linguist. Therefore I ask for help. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 18:09, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

In Liddell and Scott I find the adjective σύνδρομος 'running together, meeting' and the substantive συνδρομή, ἡ, 'tumultuous concourse, determination, conclusion, moral', and lastly "esp. Medic., concurrence of symptoms, ʼclinical pictureʼ, Gal. 11.59, Aret.CA1.10." So I think syndrome, f., is what we want. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:20, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
A more Latinized form would be syndroma, but in Google Books, at least, this seems pretty rare. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:25, 4 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Per analogiam nominis prodromus, quod ex adiectivo ortum est, etiam nomen syndromus formari possit. Et revera talis forma apud auctores saecc. 16. et 17. invenitur, qui sub hoc vocabulo "corpus rerum collectarum" intellegi voluerunt. Apud medicos autem nulla fere forma nisi syndroma legitur, quam pars eorum iuxta tertiam declinationem adhibebant (syndroma, syndromatis, neutrius generis), alii vero et plures iuxta primam declinationem (syndroma, syndromae, feminini generis). Licet syndromus antiquitatem sapiat, licet quoque syndromata sapiant alios medicorum terminos velut carcinoma, fibroma, adenoma, plurimos tamen auctores sequendum esse videtur. Igitur syndromam scribi proponam. Laurentianus (disputatio) 18:50, 6 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Tamen scripturam usitatiorem nominativi casús puto "syndrome" esse. Vide e.g. in libris Google syndrome quae, illa syndrome, haec syndrome, etc. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:55, 8 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster's [English] Dictionary affirmat syndrome (verbum Anglicum!) a Graeco syndromē derivatum esse. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:03, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago. Ista forma quidem iuxta primam Graecorum declinationem flecti videtur. Nempe accusativum invenies syndromen. Num talem formationem sequi volemus, dum magis Latinae perhibentur? Praeterea, si Google ut testimonium habeatur, Vaticana in universitate syndroma, -matis dicitur. Quid tibi videtur? Laurentianus (disputatio) 06:30, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Syndroma, -matis barbarismum mihi videtur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 10 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Barbarismus eruditus. :–) Neander (disputatio) 11:25, 10 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Wikiproject Erasmus Prize Winners[fontem recensere]

Dear fellow wikipedians,

Wikipedia has been awarded the Erasmus Prize 2015. This prize is awarded annually to a person or institution that has made an exceptional contribution to culture, society or social science. The King of the Netherlands will present the award on 25 November. This will create media attention which will hopefully result in plenty of new volunteers. Prior to the award ceremony we would like to write and improve articles on former Erasmus Prize winners. All 80 former laureates should be notable enough to merit an article.

Please join the project and help us provide our fellow laureates with articles.

Sincerely, Taketa and FrankTMeijer (disputatio) 16:32, 8 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Qui in hoc laborare vult nexus rubros in pagina nostra de Praemio Erasmiano inspicere potest. Lesgles (disputatio) 02:19, 10 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-46[fontem recensere]

17:18, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey[fontem recensere]

Community Tech Team via MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 21:57, 9 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016 scholarships ambassadors needed[fontem recensere]

Hello! Wikimania 2016 scholarships will soon be open; by the end of the week we'll form the committee and we need your help, see Scholarship committee for details.

If you want to carefully review nearly a thousand applications in January, you might be a perfect committee member. Otherwise, you can volunteer as "ambassador": you will observe all the committee activities, ensure that people from your language or project manage to apply for a scholarship, translate scholarship applications written in your language to English and so on. Ambassadors are allowed to ask for a scholarship, unlike committee members.

Wikimania 2016 scholarships subteam 10:48, 10 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

De quibusdam verbis mutandis in indice paginarum observatarum occurrentibus[fontem recensere]

Salvete omnes! Quandocumque animus est mutationes factas inspiciendi, aegre fero verba illa a fabricatoribus huius vicipaediae male posita, miratus, quod tam raro gravamina de iis proferuntur. Sinite me, quaeso, illa huc referre et commentari et meliora forsitan proponere.

(Mihi quidem) haec sunt legenda:

Pro Laurentianus (Mutationes paginarum observatarum inspicere | Indicem paginarum observatarum inspicere vel recensere | Indicem paginarum observatarum quasi textum recensere | Clear the watchlist)
Pro Laurentianus!! Proh dolor! Nomen usoris iam in paginae capite indicatum non opus est hic repeti. Nullius enim nisi suum mutationum indicem alicui inspicere licet. Ergo delendum censeo.

'Clear the watchlist
Desine observare

### paginae in indice paginarum observatarum tuarum, sine paginis disputationis.
Latinitate omnino caret. Potius legeretur:
### paginas observas

Paginae a te visitatae et adhuc mutatae in litteris pinguis monstrantur
Neque de re neque de verbis recte dicitur. Propono:
Paginae nondum inspectae pinguioribus litteris ostenduntur.

Indicis paginarum observatarum praeferentiae: Bene est.

Legend: –> Legenda

N Haec recensio paginam novam creavit (vide etiam indicem paginarum novarum)
Quopacto obsecro istud fiat? Aut enim creatur aut recensetur. Propositum velim:
N Nova pagina creata est

m Haec est recensio minor
a Hanc recensionem automaton fecit Bene videtur.

D Recensio apud Wikidata
D Recensio apud Wikidata facta

(±123) Magnitudo paginae per istam copiam octetorum mutata est
Non per quid, sed quanto:
(±123) Quot octetis magnitudo paginae mutata sit

Subter sunt ### mutationes proximae in proximis ### horis ex 22:29, 12 Novembris 2015.
Infra vides ### mutationes novissimarum ### horarum ab 22:29, 12 Novembris 2015 factas.

Monstrare proximas 1 | 2 | 6 | 12 horas 1 | 3 | 7 | 30 dies:
Monstrare mutationes per novissimas 1 | 2 | 6 | 12 horas 1 | 3 | 7 | 30 dies factas

Indicare omnes paginas visitatas:
Male! Omnes paginas notatas amisi.
Indicare omnes paginas quasi visitatas

Help
Auxilium

Nonne iucundius scriberemus, si cardinalia saltem verba huius vicipaediae aliquantulum observarent Latinitatis?

Quid vobis videtur de iam propositis? Valete. Laurentianus (disputatio) 00:06, 13 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Proposita pergrata perque iucunda, ut mihi quidem videtur. De hoc uno tantum aliquantulum dubito: quidnam sibi vult quasi in hac sententia, Indicare omnes paginas quasi visitatas? Mihi quidem quasi idem fere valere videtur ac 'paene' vel 'proinde ac si'. Sed fortasse aliquid me fugit. Neander (disputatio) 19:12, 15 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Salve, Neander! Legenti mihi "indicare omnes paginas visitatas" visum est, si illic premerem, sicut feci, omnes paginas indicatum iri, quas umquam visitavissem. Sed res secus se habuit ac ratus sum. :-( Nam praedicative tantum hoc participium positum est. Quod me fugerat. Fortasse satis erit, si sciberetur: "indicare omnes paginas sicut visitatas", ut perspicuitas augeatur et errores vitemus. Laurentianus (disputatio) 19:43, 15 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Salve et tu, Laurentiane! Mihi quidem "indicare omnes paginas visitatas" illud legenti ambo interpretandi modi — sc. 'indicat omnes quas umquam visitavi paginas' et 'significat omnes paginas iam visitatas esse' — eodem fere puncto temporis apparuerunt. Facile tamen concedo istam a qua profecti sumus sententiam ambiguam esse. Sed ne sicut visitatas quidem mihi plane satis facit, nam in eandem fere quaestionem me provocat ac quasi visitatas. Equidem ut nudum proposuerim: "indicare omnes paginas ut visitatas". Quid tibi videtur? Neander (disputatio) 22:10, 15 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Optime proposuisti. Mea quoque sententia ut simplex sufficiet. Quis autem has mutationes, nisi forte aliis displiceant, reducet ad actum? Laurentianus (disputatio) 22:53, 15 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Consensu gaudeo! Quomodo autem hae emendationes ad actum redigi possint, me ignorare doleo. Forsitan possis Andream nostrum omniperitum adire. Neander (disputatio) 17:32, 16 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Impossibly complicated editing task?[fontem recensere]

OK, how are we supposed to make this map, which you'll find here, print? {{Location map+ | France Paris |width = 300 |caption = | places = {{Location map~ | France Paris | label = Le Petit Cambodge | lat_deg = 48.871656 | lon_deg = 2.368225 }} {{Location map~ | France Paris | label = Stade de France |mark = Red Arrow Up.svg |marksize = 12 | lat_deg = 48.91 | lon_deg = 2.36 }} {{Location map~ | France Paris | label = Bataclan | position = bottom | lat_deg =48.863056 | lon_deg =2.370833 }} {{Location map~ | France Paris | label = Le Carillon | position = left | lat_deg =48.871615 | lon_deg =2.367837 }} }} IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:06, 14 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your first question may be "yes". The English template uses Lua. As far as I'm aware, no one here knows how to. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:45, 14 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Fortunately, the need for this particular map has vanished, a suitable replacement having been supplied, but the general issue remains. :/ IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:47, 14 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I just checked and saw that Usor:LilyKitty found the answer. That's great. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:50, 14 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-47[fontem recensere]

19:39, 16 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Harassment consultation[fontem recensere]

Please help translate to your language

The Community Advocacy team the Wikimedia Foundation has opened a consultation on the topic of harassment on Meta. The consultation period is intended to run for one month from today, November 16, and end on December 17. Please share your thoughts there on harassment-related issues facing our communities and potential solutions. (Note: this consultation is not intended to evaluate specific cases of harassment, but rather to discuss the problem of harassment itself.)

Regards, Community Advocacy, Wikimedia Foundation

De nexibus ad Vicipaediam Graecam classicam[fontem recensere]

Giorno2 tales nexus, ad commentationes Graece scriptas, inserere vult. Cur non? Multi linguae Graecae eodem tempore quo Latinae student. Sed quomodo tales nexus exprimere oportet? An inter nexus externos, et fortasse per formulam? An possumus margine sinistra addere? Vicipaediani enim Graeci antiqui in "incubatore" iam diu iacent, legibus decemvirorum linguistarum (Language Committee) e mundo nostro exclusi.

Giorno2 wants to add links to the ancient Greek Wikipedia on our pages. Why not? Lots of people work on Latin and Greek at the same time. But how should we format such links? Under "External links" -- and maybe with a formula? Or can we put the link in the left margin? The ancient Greek Wikipedians are forever in the incubator, not allowed by Language Committee rules to migrate to the real world. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 19 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Saltem uno loco ...[fontem recensere]

Carissimi, ubi notam faciam de tractatione parallela lingua Graeca antiqua exarata nisi in Vicipaedia Latina?? Apud Vicipaediam Graecorum modernorum iam naufragium feci. Quod officialiter fieri non potest inserere versionem Hellenicam in elencho ad sinistram partem variarum linguarum ego ipse mutare vix potero. Intellego quia sub rubrica "Vide etiam" fortasse id facere non bona idea fuit. Sed (saltem) in rubrica "Externorum nexuum" id pote sit. GRATIAS!

Karaj, kie mi plej efike skribu ligilon pri paralele ekzistanta artikolo en la helena se ne ĉe vi, latinistoj? Eĉ ĉe la Vikipedio novgreka tion ne estas ŝatita, kiel mi jam devis sperti. Mi mem certe ne povas ŝanĝi la malkompreneblan malpermeson envicigi la helenan version en la liston multlingvan maldekstraflanke. Mi ankaŭ konfesas ke mia ideo meti la ligilon sub la rubrikon "Vidu ankaŭ" ne estis bonega. Tamen mi almenaŭ insisteti volus rajti je meto de la helena ligilo sub la rubrikon de "Ligiloj eksteraj" - dankon anticipe! Giorno2 (disputatio)

De spatio "adumbrationum" fortasse creando[fontem recensere]

Supra, o amici, Anglicam fortasse iam vidistis disputationem de paginis nostris imperfectis, exiguis, sine fonte iacentibus, ab automato tantum confectis. Multae sunt: videtis iam quantas paginas formulam "Non stipula" monstrant. Tales paginas nemo, ni fallor, delere vult, sed faciem Vicipaediae, visitatoribus obversam, colorant. An utile erit paginas nostras minimas et fontibus omnino carentibus in spatium "adumbrationum" movere -- et eodem tempore paginas e scriptorio, infectas et diu intactas, ibi removere? Si hoc utile erit, leges quae sequuntur propono:

  • Paginas diutius "in progressu", exiguissimas et fontibus omnino carentibus licet omni Vicipaediano aut (melius!) augere, aut (peius!) in spatium "adumbrationum" movere
  • Paginas in spatio "adumbrationum" licet et oportet omni Vicipaediano augere et statim ex hoc spatio liberare
  • Paginae in hoc spatio degentes nexus intra- et inter-Vicipaedicos retineant (vide commentum infra additum)
  • Paginae "adumbrationum" non inter "paginas fortuitas" reperiantur sed inter "paginas nondum perfectas", lineá marginis sinistrae separatá.

Quid dicitis, o amici? An res utiles, an omnino inutiles propono?

You may have seen the English discussion above about our pages that are unfinished, very short, unsourced, or edited only by bots. There are many. Notice how many pages already have a "Non stipula" template. Nobody, I think, wants to delete these pages, but they are the face of Vicipaedia that many visitors see. Is it worth trying to change that by moving the very shortest and completely unsourced pages into a new "Draft" space, and moving the long-untouched pages from the "Scriptorium" into the same space? If it is, then I suggest these guidelines:

  • Any Vicipaedian can (better!) improve, or (worse!) move into "adumbratio" space pages that are forever "in progress", extremely short and completely lacking sources
  • Any Vicipaedian can (and should!) improve pages in "adumbratio" space and immediately move them into main space
  • Pages in "adumbratio" space should retain their internal and interwiki links (see my comment below)
  • Pages in "adumbratio" space should not be found under "paginae fortuitae" but from a new tab in the left margin "paginae nondum perfectae".

What do others say? Is the idea useful or completely useless? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:56, 19 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Andrea, "paginas non iam perfectas": nonne "nondum perfectas" dicere voluisti? Neander (disputatio) 14:04, 19 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Ita, Neander. Gratias tibi ago. Recte correxisti; ego incaute textum restitui; denuo correxi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:30, 19 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Support. (My idea, I guess.) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:38, 20 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Nemine usque adhuc contradicente, quaestiones aliquas in pagina de hac re separata pono. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Textum ex illa pagina separata, iam deleta, hic compendiose insero. Si legere vis, fenestram editoriam aperi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:43, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Copied from Disputatio Vicipaediae:Spatium supplementorum, now deleted, by Andrew on 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC).
No one has objected (this may just mean that no sufficiently provocative or compelling explanation has yet been given). There are some important questions, though. If phabricator made us a "supplementum" space (parallel to the Spanish "Anejo") specifically for "lists and placeholders",

  1. would it achieve a useful aim? Principal aims would be to separate off from our statistics any pages that await proper sourcing or adequate text; to group such pages where they can be easily identified and improved; and to maintain interwiki links for them meanwhile
  2. would it invite unwanted side-effects? Unwanted side-effects would be a decision taken on Wikidata to cross these pages off their list, or the inclusion of these pages in our statistics after all, or the deletion of links from our mainspace into our supplementum space
  3. would it be worth the trouble? I ask this because I think that using it would be just as simple as moving a page into Supplementum space and out of it again -- practically as simple as putting a "Non stipula" formula on it and then removing it -- but I could have overlooked something basic

I hope any who have an informed view on these questions, or have any other comment to make, will write here! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree at all. From my point of view the big problem is not for vicipaedia the presence of a lot of short pages, but that sometimes we have long ones that have anything to do with the Latin language or are full of big language mistakes. When I look at other wikipedias I do not see a big difference in the kind of pages (most of wikipedias have pages on the French communes with no more information than ours) of course if we do not include the biggest ones (English, German, French, Italian ecc.). With this unkind sentence " We're adding a thousand pages a month, of which about 900 are so short that they would count them as "placeholders", not stubs." I understand that the pages I do each month and each day (and whom I'm trying to ameliorate when I have time to do it) are completely unuseful. I stop here I have better thing to do in my life. Bye Bye.--Helveticus montanus (disputatio)
Helveticus and I have exchanged emails on this, so as regards the words of mine that he quotes I won't comment here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:12, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Here are a few thoughts on the topic:
Spanish Wikipedia
If one looks at the Spanish "Anexo" (not "Anejo") space, it includes everything from pure lists to some decently sourced articles that are linked through Wikidata to mainspace pages in other wikis. See, for example,
Clearly, Wikidata allows links to this namespace.
On the other hand, at first glance (admittedly, a very small sample), everything I saw there would have qualified at least as a stub on English Wikipedia. (Some would have been list articles, to be sure.) I didn't see anything on a brief glance that really looked like a non-stipula.
The project page that describes the proper purpose of this namespace is es:Wikipedia:Anexos (actually, that's a redirect). My Spanish is not really good enough to understand nuances. But it does not look like it admits true draft articles. It looks to me like a space for mainspace-quality pages that eswiki doesn't want clogging up mainspace. But I could be wrong; a Spanish-speaker should look.
Our objective
So here's a question: How many Wikipedia projects have the explicit equivalent of non-stipula pages? I have a whole lot of such pages on Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia, most of which are not really marked as stubs. I suspect that most projects would take such pages in one of two directions, depending on quite how well developed they are:
  1. Mark as stub (criteria for "stub" status being perhaps less robust than on this project)
  2. RfD (or QD) as non-encyclopedic
Personally, I think making the distinction between stipula and non-stipula (in some fashion) is useful. But this can be accomplished using either the current approach or the new approach. So I think we need to nail down the other objective(s) here:
  1. How much do we care about maintaining interwiki links, especially for pages with lemmas that are unsourced but need sources? Yes, writing the encyclopedia is our principal goal. But an important secondary purpose here is to be a reliable source of Latin lemmas.
  2. How much do we really care about improving statistics? Are we just trying to please English Wikipedia (or some other body)?
  • Variant on preceding: Is there a value to taking things out of the Pagina fortuita function (beyond statistics)?
I think if we decide the answers to these questions, we'll know whether to move this proposal forward or not.
My opinion
Personally, I'm most interested in maintaining iw links on pages with a properly-sourced (or obvious) lemma. Such pages immediately fulfill at least our secondary purpose, so ought to be available for all to see. And if I read the rules correctly, generally such pages qualify as stipula already.
I don't care so much about statistics. I'm not sure we can make English Wikipedia happy, and I think there is a decent chance that Wikidata will start excluding this namespace (at least from us) if we include non-stipulae in it. I would like to see pages that don't even have a well-sourced lemma excluded from the Pagina fortuita function.
So what I think we should do is the following:
  • In all cases of non-stipulae already having interwiki links, work to source the lemma (which would fulfill stipula criteria #3 and #4). I'd guess that in nearly all cases that would convert the page into a stipula (or better).
  • For most other cases, create a true "Drafts" namespace and move non-stipulae there. (Don't fool around with an "Annex" space.)
  • In a few cases, make a case for maintaining the non-stipula in mainspace (example: Antisemitismus),[1] while working to move the article out of non-stipula status.
StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:06, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
  1. Possible source: good enough?
Antisemitismus is technically non-stipula, I guess, but is easy to rescue! I'll comment on that talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:12, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
See my comments at the Taberna: I don't see that we need to do anything, myself. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 22:36, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Anne. See my answer to Helveticus Montanus in Taberna. Neander (disputatio) 05:53, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)}}
I do not agree at all. From my point of view the big problem is not for vicipaedia the presence of a lot of short pages, but that sometimes we have long ones that have anything to do with the Latin language or are full of big language mistakes. When I look at other wikipedias I do not see a big difference in the kind of pages (most of wikipedias have pages on the French communes with no more information than ours) of course if we do not include the biggest ones (English, German, French, Italian ecc.). With this unkind sentence " We're adding a thousand pages a month, of which about 900 are so short that they would count them as "placeholders", not stubs." I understand that the pages I do each month and each day (and whom I'm trying to ameliorate when I have time to do it) are completely unuseful. I stop here I have better thing to do in my life. Bye Bye.--Helveticus montanus (disputatio)
Massimo, you must do what you wish of course, but the suggestion aims to keep these pages, not to delete them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:53, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I understand this, even if - from my point of view - it doesn't make any sense to put them all in a limbo only to "ameliorate the statistics" (should we begin a political career?). Who will ameliorate these "forgotten pages? Nobody do it now that they are in the main wikipedia! Some months ago you and Iacobus amor wrote me that each page must have an internal and an external link and I've tried to do it, but it seems it's not enough. In any case what I cannot accept it's not the new policy but are these nasty judgements about the "value" of the pages I've created. In the past I have never judged yours or those of other vicipedians, also if in the last years I see very few other new pages and when I read them I'm often horrified, because of the language. In these ten years I've always believed that the more important thing was to inspire the love of the language and therefore more people to participate even if there Latin was poor (if they showed a commitment to ameliorate) or they created short and repetitive pages to avoid making misstakes (this was actually my target). According to me it's not a case that at the end of 2015 we're no more than 10 vicipedians!--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 17:25, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I admit that I haven't very closely followed the discussion but if the main objective of this suggestion is to win entrance into the iw list of the main page of the English wikipedia, I'm not sure of its worth. At least, I think Massimo's words Who will ameliorate these "forgotten pages? Nobody do it now that they are in the main wikipedia! command attention. I also agree with Massimo that long pages written in poor Latin don't deserve better visibility than stubs written in decent Latin. If he gets/takes the message from the new policy suggestion that his articles will be swept into a separate locker of underdeveloped drafts, the cure may be worse than the disease. Neander (disputatio) 21:14, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Helveticus added a comment here which I am moving just below -- I hope that's OK! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:40, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

End paste StevenJ81 (disputatio) 18:13, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Commentum/comment

Nuper legem Vicidatorum repperi de hac re. Res iam alibi scriptas et a me perlectas contradicitur. Secundum hanc legem paginas adumbrationum ("Draft") apud Vicidata hoc tempore non licet annectere.[1] Paginae nostrae iam annexae, si in novum spatium moventur, nexus suos perditurae sunt, nisi

  1. hanc legem mutare possumus, aut
  2. spatium novum nostrum cum spatio alio quodam adsimilare licet (e.g. non spatium 118 quam Angli "Draft" appellant, sed spatium 104 quam Hispani "Anexo" appellant ...

I've just found a decision at Wikidata contradicting the information I had earlier. "Draft" pages are excluded from Wikidata links.[1] So if we moved any pages into this new space, even temporarily, they would lose their interwiki links ... unless

  1. we got them to change this rule (unlikely I'd say) or
  2. we got our new space assigned to a different meta-space (e.g. not meta-space 118 which the English call "Draft", but meta-space 104 which the Spaniards call "Anexo" (supplement). Don't know if that would work ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:04, 20 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about this issue, but I would be fine, for example, with having pages marked "non stipula" moved into the draft space after six months. The current "non stipula" formula says that pages should be improved within six months, but we haven't really had a procedure for doing anything with them past that point. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:15, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need a "draft" ("annex," "embryonic pages," "minimal pages") namespace, and I don't see that it's a problem that we have a lot of small pages (asteroids, small towns, random footballers,...). I also don't much care whether we're listed in one size category or another on the front page of English Wikipedia. For those who care about such things, the tables at Meta are more accurate and more complete than some stray template in :enwiki. I think we're making a big deal out of something relatively small here. I agree that it's useful to fix pages in bad Latin; an easy start would be to mark the Latinity (with our existing L-templates), when we happen to run across a page that isn't grammatical. Then at least they'll be listed in categories where they can be found, and fixed when we have leisure to do it. (And there are plenty of grammatical errors in English Wikipedia as well. In that WP, as in ours, many editors are not native speakers of the language, and make non-native-speaker mistakes. (Though I suppose there's a higher percentage of native English speakers editing :enwiki than there are native Latin speakers here!)) It's also useful to expand pages when this can sensibly be done -- not everything deserves a long article! Instead of quarantining the pages that look "inferior" by some measure or another, let's leave them in place where it's easy to find and enhance them. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 22:33, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Mea quoque sententia plus valet paginas minus maturas strictissime notare quam ad orcum quasi detrudere. Ita facillime videretur, quanti Latinitatem cuiusque paginae faciamus: aut bonam aut maturandem aut mixtam. Incurabiles vero siquae sint, statim deleantur.
Praeterea mihi quidem magno incitamento esset, si lingua ipsius superficiei (ut ita dicam), quam nemini nisi superioribus mutare licet, minus barbara videretur. Laurentianus (disputatio) 10:23, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
[Comment moved here from just above] --
I thank you all for your kind words. I believe actually that the draft category will have in the middle run (if not in the short one) the same meaning of a quasi-deletion. I repeat nobody has completed these pages in years during which they have been on the main Vicipedia. I ask me: who will do it later when they will be categorised as “sons of a lesser god”? What do you think if instead, for the whole year 2016, we (the administrators and the most active vicipedians) concentrate as general policy (exceptions e.g. new events and newly important people or, of course, what else somebody of us likes) not in creating new pages, but in ameliorating the old already existing pages? --Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 13:27, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[Helveticus Montanus]
I'd say that anyone who thinks there isn't a problem hasn't really looked. For some years I checked every new page: a few months ago I gave up in despair. I don't care which lists we are in, but I do care that people who come to Vicipaedia should find that our pages, on the whole, say something valid and useful in Latin.
Anyone who thinks that a "draft" space is not an ideal answer is surely correct. I myself don't like the idea so much now that I realise such pages would lose their interwiki links. Yes, they risk being forgotten.
But I think Helveticus's answer, proposed just above, is exactly right. I will sign up to it: in 2016 I will spend the whole of my Vicipaedia year improving old pages, creating only a few urgent and essential new pages. Would others do it too? I'm aware that some already spend a lot of time on this work, but if we all agreed on this, it would make a big difference. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:40, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
A project like this necessarily advances on many fronts at once, and all kinds of contributors play their parts: some find a typo and correct it (and may vanish, never to be seen again!); some sacrifice their own improvement, especially in vocabulary, to amplify the number of articles by repeating formulas that hardly do more than summarize people & places; some venture into more abstract ground, of which plenty remains; some perhaps do all these things from time to time. For years, at least one of us, sipping coffee while waking up in the mornings, has done the busywork of improving grammar, style, and coding (not for all time, of course, but up to standards that may help others carry the work forward). Since all this activity is voluntary, the choices inherent in our contributions are fragments of an autobiography, recording always what has passed through our minds, and sometimes (not always openly) what has affected our flesh-and-blood lives. The nature of the project makes it all welcome. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:41, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Except the vandalism! But even that's an autobiographical statement of sorts—and numerous miscreants will be surprised, when, thanks to advances in the power of the internet, what's anonymous today will be evident, on the record for all to know. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:41, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Vicipaedia would also have some sort of a Jubilee year. I'm sure Jorge Mario Bergoglio aka Pope Francis will be very jealous. :-) --Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 13:46, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
"some sacrifice their own improvement, especially in vocabulary, to amplify the number of articles by repeating formulas that hardly do more than summarize people & places" but it's me :-). Actually I would have done better things with the aim of improving my Latin but seeing the few number of new pages I've believed in the last years it was important to create new pages hoping that they will be improved in better times by a lot of new users, but unfortunately until now we are always the same ones.--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 15:43, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Not you alone. I add formulaic text about alumni of universities etc. As to your comment "we are always the same", I think I see a slow, small increase in active Vicipaedians ... better than a decline ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:52, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
The advancement of knowledge requires as many pages as possible, and so those articles on obscure hamlets are most welcome, despite the disadvantage they pose for the purpose of main-page advertising over in en:wiki. As I noted above (and it's so trite as hardly to need saying), everybody has a part to play—and happily, volunteers get to choose their own parts! ¶ Btw, over here in southern North America, today is Thanksgiving Day, when most people stuff themselves with food & drink, and the event explodes into a four-day weekend, with a commercial emphasis tomorrow so strong that the day itself has an accounting-related name, black Friday. And then there's wall-to-wall athletic activity on the major television channels, with accompanying partying. So you may notice odd editing-patterns for the next few days. :/ IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:12, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
yes you're completely right! You or some other friend do believe we have the possibility to rivive the interest of old important vicipedians I remember (it's only an exemple): Josh Rocchio, Leonardo Ciampa, Marc mage, Alynna Kasmira etc.
Limiting the random-page generator?

Is it possible to leave everything exactly the way it is but change the random-page generator so as not to include pages marked "Non stipula"? That would be the simplest and most direct way of responding to the rationale that the English wiki offers for (unfairly?) excluding Latin from its advertising of alternate wikis. (Also, then, the threat of deletion might want to be removed from the non-stipula formula itself.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:47, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

At this point I think we have consensus not to move the broad proposal forward, and to focus in '16 on improving articles. But I'd agree with Iacobus: is there a way to get the random-page generator to ignore non-stipulae? Calling UV ... StevenJ81 (disputatio) 00:48, 27 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I agree with all of that. At the end of 2016 we can consider the results! Meanwhile I think we should all feel free to improve (or, if impossible, delete) pages currently in the Scriptorium. That is already a kind of limbo or oubliette: they need to escape from it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 27 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Modifying the random-page generator to ignore non-stipulae: No, this is currently not possible. It was explicitly discussed here a few years ago but rejected.
There is a feature request at phab:T69812 to create a new special page Special:RandomNotInCategory that would allow to exclude articles in the non-stipulae category from the results, but I do not know whether such a special page will ever be implemented and become available to Vicipaedia.
While it would technically be possible to create a (possibly hidden) category of acceptable pages, add all our acceptable pages to it directly (not via subcategories) and then use Special:RandomInCategory to select a random article from this category, I would advise against this: This would not modify the behaviour of Special:Random (so the benefit would in my view be rather small), and it would be quite tedious to populate and to keep updated the category membership in this new and very large category (so the cost would in my view be rather high).
Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:59, 28 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
As I told Andrew I'll end the French communes and then, as agreed, concentrate on improving the already existing pages beginning perhaps by those on the scriptorium--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 05:43, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Yes, those French communes are very nearly done! In December, while you finish that, I will start a few missing pages on major cities, and then I will spend 2016 improving. City pages and biographies are my first priorities, but there's plenty more to do ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:56, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC).
Probably Helveticus and Nuada and I are the biggest creators of short new pages, so if at least two of us will focus instead on improving other pages during 2016, it should make a big difference ... I will ask whether Nuada will take part in this also.
Other active editors already do a lot of improving: Iacobus, with astonishing energy, improves many pages and also creates many long new pages. Don't change, Iacobe! But if editors generally agree that, during 2016, the creation of short new pages is not so good, and the improvement of existing pages is very good, Vicipaedia will be looking rather different by the end of 2016. Would anyone object to this as a general program for 2016? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Andrew, you invoked a template above ({{Res hic motae}}) that doesn't exist, so not everything is showing up here. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:58, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a bit of old discussion, I just preferred not to delete it totally. I meant to create a "collapse" template such as they use on long English discussion pages: sorry, I didn't get back to it. Maybe we already have one: if not, here's your first request ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:37, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
I'll get working on it. In the meanwhile, I'm going to comment out the future template, and make the paste small, until template is ready. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 18:13, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
I'll have two jobs, I guess, since I can't really write in Latin:
  1. I'll go through non-stipulae, and where that status is technical (because the article is substantial, but sources/links do not meet standards), I'll try to find some sources and create some links. (See Antisemitismus, which Andrew and I just fixed.)
  2. If there are any standard templates people would like to see here, let me know. I'll get the template imported and ready to take a Latin translation before publication. (I'll usually store those as subpages in my userpage while waiting for translation, I imagine.) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:08, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Both very useful ideas, it seems to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:37, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
As to the template, we already have Formula:Monstrare. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:28, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
UV, I should have seen that before I imported code to start working on this. (rueful grin) So I placed {{Cito delenda}} on Usor:StevenJ81/Harenarium/Hat and /Hab, and those can be deleted.
That said, we should add "Request by user in own userspace" to Vicipaedia:Deletio. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 19:43, 8 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Done, thank you! --UV (disputatio) 22:18, 8 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion[fontem recensere]

I started in on non-stipulae today. I notice a couple of things right away:

  • Some of these are really just dicdefs, and are likely always to stay dicdefs. I appreciate that in many cases we want to keep articles here to give well-sourced lemmas. But where that doesn't apply—see, for example, Cf or Decimetrum—do we have a template for marking suggested moves to Victionarium?
The article en:Decimetre would definitely qualify as a stub over here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:31, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
The scope of en:Cf suggests that our Cf should be a discretiva page. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:33, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
  • I suspect there are going to be questions people have from time to time as they do this. So, for example, I found an issue at Kansiopolis (Kansia), and started a discussion page there (which Lesgles saw). But I don't expect that everyone is watching every possible page, and I don't think we should clutter the Taberna with questions on these things. So I wonder if we can agree to use Disputatio Formulae:Non stipula as a place not only to discuss the formula itself, but questions that pop-up on the non-stipulae themselves. (Otherwise, should we create a subpage here?)
  • IacobusAmor reversed my removal of {{Non stipula}} at Daleth, and in a sense is right for doing so. I suppose this, too, might just be a dicdef (see above). Alternatively, if I locate some things that could probably quickly be upgraded, can others follow up on them for me? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 18:13, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
How seriously the 200-letter limit should be taken is a matter for discussion. Certainly the text at Daleth didn't reach that limit. More consequentially: perhaps thousands of pages on French hamlets hover right on the cusp. Indeed, the average of most of them is probably around 200 letters. Accordingly, calling the ever-so-slightly-longer ones stubs and the ever-so-slightly-shorter ones nonstubs may be making a distinction without a difference. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:23, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that if the pages on French hamlets all hover right on the cusp, and if they are written consistently—i.e., they only differ in the particular names and figures included—then let's decide they're all stipulae or all non-stipulae.
They do vary a bit. They aren't structured in quite such a rigidly formulaic style as the articles on asteroids, which (indeed) were created by a bot. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:14, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
As far as Daleth goes, there's just enough additional info in the frwiki article to push it over, if someone can translate that. I'm afraid you've already seen the extent of my Latin, and that mainly from cutting-and-pasting. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 18:58, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
I think Daleth and Decimetrum and Cf are three examples of things we want to deal with here (not simply to relegate to Victionarium), but will never need much text. There may be a few hundred such topics but surely there will never be enough to make a serious difference to our average page length. OK, then, two possibilities to consider perhaps:
  1. Make navigation boxes to link together groups of such items, say plainly in the navbox that these are present in the encyclopedia as definitions, and drop the issue of text length for pages containing such a navbox. [NB: such pages should still in my view have an external source, but the same external source might serve for a whole group, e.g. a single reliable source on the Hebrew alphabet.]
  2. Merge whole groups of such pages into a single catalogue page (as we might do, e.g., for characters in TV series).
For items of wide importance, likely to have many incoming links, I prefer possibility 1. Other views? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:50, 5 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
I have now done what I suggested at Decimetrum. (Lesgles meanwhile added some text.) Is this a useful pattern to follow? Shall we agree that pages in similar series, when thus linked together and including a proper source reference, are acceptable as such (neither "non stipula" nor "stipula", just Very Short Pages)?
Incidentally (note to Steven perhaps) I would have preferred the navbox in this case to be always open, not collapsed. Collapsed is usually just what we want, I think -- no general change needed -- but I don't know that we can currently even make the choice. Would someone care to have a go? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:38, 11 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
I'll partly pass that to UV. I tried to use an input field {{{status|}}} to pass a value to state= in the metatemplate {{Capsa navigationis/nucleus}}. That didn't work, which makes me think that the table class "collapsing navbox" is looking for a Latin word, not the word "expanded" that I used (which is the normal syntax in English). I don't know where to find the coding for table classes.
As to the wider question, I think #1 and #2 can both be appropriate solutions, depending on just how different the various pages could end up being. In the case of SI length units, I think we'd be better off with a single article (metrum) that includes a table of all the sub- and super-units. It's possible that chiliometrum would be sufficiently notable to have an independent article anyway; others probably don't really need one. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:48, 11 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
In cases where we take that approach, we should first make sure the sub- and super-units are linked through Wikidata, and only then change them to redirects to the main article. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:51, 11 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Fine by me. Consider whether it's best for each such item on the catalogue page to have a subheading: then the links can go directly to the subheading, and can be recaptured if, long afterwards, someone decides that full articles are needed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:31, 11 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
See Decimetrum, Formula:Mensurae longitudinis and Formula:Capsa natationis: I have now implemented this in Andrew's test template Formula:Capsa natationis. It is possible to set the navbox to "initially open" either on a page-by-page basis (this is what I have done for Decimetrum and Formula:Mensurae longitudinis) or, even simpler, for all pages that use a specific navbox. --UV (disputatio) 23:04, 13 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much, UV. Just what was needed. I have now added Formula:Mensurae longitudinis and a source reference to all the relevant pages that we currently have, but, Steven, if you prefer to apply the other solution and combine them all at metrum, that's fine! In any case this formula now provides a useful model if we want to do similar things with other very short pages that fall into a logical series. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:20, 14 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

De "iubilaeo" proposito[fontem recensere]

I wrote a brief summary in Latin below at #De "iubilaeo" nostro 2016. If there is no serious disagreement, we could add a note about this on user talk pages, including new users who appear during 2016. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:22, 9 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Upper end of stubs[fontem recensere]

As for the upper end, the point at which the stipula stigma should be removed, I'd suggest somewhere around 2000 readable letters of text. By that criterion, nearly all the Italian hamlets currently marked as stubs shouldn't be. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:51, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

De Vide etiam[fontem recensere]

Multis paginis est pars quaedam Vide etiam intitulata. Quae vero sequuntur lemmata nominative poni solent. Quod soloecismus gravis mihi quidem videtur. Itaque propono, ne opus sit sescenta milia nexuum mutare, ut titulos tantum mutemus, ita ut passive legatur Videa(n)tur etiam. Quod, si conveniat, per automaton facillime fieri possit. Placetne? Laurentianus (disputatio) 18:28, 23 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Titulum "Vide etiam" reapse legebamus quasi "Vide etiam [hos commentarios, quibus lemmata sunt . . .]" (ergo casus nominativus). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:40, 23 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Certe ita legebatur et intellegebatur. Aliis enim sermonibus utimur, dum quippiam mente concipimus. Latini vero aliter solebant. Cur non eos sequamur, quibus hic faveri proclamamus? Laurentianus (disputatio) 10:31, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Verba ubique per multos annos visa incaute accipimus ... "Videantur etiam" praefero. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:52, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Similiter, Laurentiane, mutationem fecisti sic relatam: "Eunuchus (Terentius) ad Eunuchus (Terentii) (de opere ipsius agitur, non de ipso)"—sed mos vicipaedianus omnino est adhibere casum nominativum intra parentheses sic: "[[Albania (Novum Eboracum)|Albania]]," non "[[Albania (Novi Eboraci)|Albania]]"; et Albania non est Novum Eboracum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:05, 26 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Sit mos, ut recte meministi, et quidem omnibus fere in paginis, falso scribere, minus Latine cogitare, soloecismos sescenties repetere, non tamen tollitur auctoritas eorum, qui a cunabulis lacte Latinitatis nutriebantur (quod neminem nostrum credam de se affirmare posse), quorum usus maxime sequendus est, quos numquam talia dixisse videbis.
Ad rem: Non eadem valet ratio inter fabulam et auctorem, quae inter urbes et civitates (si ad sensum hodiernum spectamus). Haec enim partitiva, illa pertinens. Utcumque sit, utriusque rationis casus proprius genetivus. Quodsi hoc pacto tituli monstruosiores fierent, id quod vereri videris, alii modi inveniendi essent (velut adiectiva vel quoscumque ponere magis placebit). Interim eos saltem titulos mutantes, de quibus constat id sine dubitatione fieri posse, sensus acuemus, ut data facultate cetera quoque magis ac magis Latine dicere valeamus. Laurentianus (disputatio) 01:19, 27 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
De titulis morem maiorum Vicipaedianorum Iacobus recte corrigere suadet. Mea mente perspicuissime "Eunuchus (Terentii ludus)" et "Albania (Novi Eboraci urbs)" scribendum est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:02, 27 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, maybe seven or eight years ago, this was discussed, and the consensus was that an identifier given in parenthesis was to be syntactically absolute, having no grammatical relation to the lemma. Thus, in [[Legatus (civilitas)]] ("qui legationem diplomaticam agit") and "[[Legatus (Roma antiqua)]]," neither civilitas nor Roma antiqua is an appositive of the lemma. Nor is Italia an appositive in [[Vinea (Italia)]]. Nor is geometria an appositive in [[Area (geometria)]]. Likewise [[Castellania (Italia)]] and [[Castellania (Polonia)]]. Likewise species whose parenthetical identifiers are genus-names in the nominative. And so forth, involving hundreds (or probably thousands?) of examples. Of course it will naturally happen that some identifiers will have an appositive function, so [[Drama (nomus Graeciae)]] is indeed a nomus Graeciae, but then [[Drama (Graecia)]] is an urbs. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:35, 27 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

"IIRC" = "si recte memini", ni fallor :) Ego de illa disputatione aut nihil scivi aut omnino oblitus sum! Titulum "Drama (nomus Graeciae)" creavi fortasse ego; titulum "Drama (Graecia)" propter ambiguitatem multifariam nec creavi nec creare temptavissem. Recte autem mones: si mutare volumus, multi tituli mutandi sunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:08, 27 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

In nonnullis paginis sub locutione "vide etiam" alia solutio reperitur, usus accusativi, e.g. "Vide etiam: [[Lutetia]]m, [[Francia]]m, etc.". Paginae discretivae quoque emendenda sunt: saepe video formulam "X potest significare + nom." Melior sit "X potest significare + acc.", "X potest esse + nom."... Lesgles (disputatio) 14:11, 27 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

The reason the accusative is Just Plain Wrong is that you're not being directed to see Francia : you're being directed to see [commentarium cui nomen est] Francia. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:35, 27 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
... interdum erroneum, interdum rectum. Helveticus noster secundum artem grammaticam scribit "Vide etiam ... Indicem communium Utrarumque Separarum", et recte scribit. Pagina nihilominus intitulatur "Index communium ..."! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:00, 27 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
That's correct because you're being asked to read the actual index (and index pages are special ones); if you'd been asked to read an article about the index, you'd say "Vide [[Index. . . ]]. Thus (with a real example!):
Vide [[Indicem librorum prohibitorum]] → You expect to read the text of the index.
Vide [[Index librorum prohibitorum]] → You expect to read an article about the index.
See again the difference between Francia (the country) and Francia (an article about the country) above. Nexus interni (below) does solve the problem. I looked to see how Russian (with its declensions) solves it, but after eight random pages, no instances turned up. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:24, 27 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Russian uses something similar to what our pages use now, e.g. at ru:Российская империя all the items under "См. также" are in the nominative. (This is mostly visible in the 1st declension singular nouns, since most other inanimate accusatives are identical to the nominative). Lesgles (disputatio) 18:10, 28 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Etiamsi "Videantur etiam" scribimus, erramus quando una tantum pagina subiungitur.
Sicut "Nexus externi", possumus "Nexus interni" rubricare: sunt Vicipaediae quae hac solutione utuntur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:00, 27 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Gratias habeo vobis maximas, quod distinctiones multo subtiliores introduxistis. Quaerenti mihi nescio quid iam occurrit dictionarium quoddam abundans in finibus partium sententiis, quae lectores ad alias partes missos volunt, dicentes (plerumque) Vide de ... vel (rarius) Vide ubi .... Fortasse hic vel alibi inveniemus, qua aptissime proficiscendum.
De additamentis vero in parenthesi ponendis miror fervorem. Ad solum auctorem comoediae cuiusdam spectabam. Quorum relatio genetiva constat. Deinde aliae relationes abhibitae sunt, scilicet locorum et regionum. Antiquitas non ad territoria spectavisse videtur, sed potius ad personas, unde Genava Allobrogum, item tempora recentiora, cum Marpurgum Chattorum dicebant. Temporis nostri videtur relationes, quae et distingui et exprimi possint, vel negare vel neglegere. Hoc est quod displicet:
canere (ego) : arma + vir (((exilium (Troia)1) venire (olim) ora (Lavinium))
Proinde est, quod moneam, ne abhorreamus neu deterreamur a casibus ponendis. Laurentianus (disputatio) 11:14, 28 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Here's an example from another encyclopedia: Hofmann's Lexicon Universale uses the nominative after vide. See here, under Abea.Bavo C. Jozef (disputatio) 19:58, 28 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
That's a highly relevant source. I must have seen similar cross-references often without ever noticing the grammar. The title is exempted from the grammar of the sentence by italics: in a similar way we disconnect the grammar of "Vide etiam" from what follows by format. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 29 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Yes, apparently so. If the nominative after the equivalent of "vide etiam" was acceptable to a Latin speaker (Hofmann) and is acceptable to Russian speakers, both languages marking accusatives with inflections, we have to conclude that it can be acceptable to Vicipaedianists. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:04, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

So we now have several possibilities for headings that solve the apparent problem. Here's another: Videnda for "Vide etiam" and Legenda for "Bibliographia" and "Fontes" and such. The syntactical parallelism could have some weight. The distinction, however, between "Nexus interni" and "Nexus externi" is attractive too. It reminds us why "Vide etiam" precedes other matter at the bottom of articles: first we send readers elsewhere within the encyclopedia (nexus interni), and only then do we send them away (notae, bibliographia, nexus externi). This point is made point-blank somewhere in the apparatus of the English wiki. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:04, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Nunc intelligere coepi, quam late haec quaestio pateat. Suspicor Latinitatem ipsam in temporis tractu aliis linguis influentibus mutatam esse. Nonne veterrimis libris tituli esse solebant, qui legebantur "De rerum natura", "De legibus", "De bello Gallico, "De Trinitate"? Quae praepositio differentiam illam efficiebat, quam Iacobus sagacissime in memoriam reduxit. Hofmannus quidem, ut homo recentioris aevi, usum nostrum certe toleraret, siquidem is multo facilior est, quamquam talia Ciceroni et aequalibus quasi improprie dicta viderentur. Sed non dubito, quin nemo omnes paginas, quod oportet, mutatas velit in "De corde", "De Australia", "De ...". Sed fortasse interdum meminisse iuvat, quam longe distemus ab illis auctoribus.
Proposita quod attinet, et "videnda" et "legenda" propter notam necessitatis prae se ferentes nimis fortes esse titulos existimo. "Nexus" vero "interni" vel "externi" placent. Sed ei, qui laborem non respuat, liceat praepositiones addere et exitus adaptare nonnullos. Laurentianus (disputatio) 00:15, 1 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Artem grammaticam titulorum et enumerationum Latinarum an quis iam scripsit?
De titulis recte dicis, sed a Terentio "Eunuchus", non "De eunucho" scribitur; a Cicerone "Brutus", non "De Bruto"; a Petrarca "Africa", non "De Africa". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 1 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Recte quaesivisti! Quo tandem trahemur, dum pergimus? :-) Tituli quidem variare videntur secundum genus. Quos enim adduxisti, generi fictivo tribuuntur. Non igitur sunt de aliqua re (velut paginae nostrae), sed vel personas quasdam agere faciunt vel historias ipsas agi. Quod certe etiam propius dinosci poterit. Laurentianus (disputatio) 16:48, 1 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-48[fontem recensere]

20:26, 23 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Your input requested on the proposed #FreeBassel banner campaign[fontem recensere]

This is a message regarding the proposed 2015 Free Bassel banner. Translations are available.

Hi everyone,

This is to inform all Wikimedia contributors that a straw poll seeking your involvement has just been started on Meta-Wiki.

As some of your might be aware, a small group of Wikimedia volunteers have proposed a banner campaign informing Wikipedia readers about the urgent situation of our fellow Wikipedian, open source software developer and Creative Commons activist, Bassel Khartabil. An exemplary banner and an explanatory page have now been prepared, and translated into about half a dozen languages by volunteer translators.

We are seeking your involvement to decide if the global Wikimedia community approves starting a banner campaign asking Wikipedia readers to call on the Syrian government to release Bassel from prison. We understand that a campaign like this would be unprecedented in Wikipedia's history, which is why we're seeking the widest possible consensus among the community.

Given Bassel's urgent situation and the resulting tight schedule, we ask everyone to get involved with the poll and the discussion to the widest possible extent, and to promote it among your communities as soon as possible.

(Apologies for writing in English; please kindly translate this message into your own language.)

Thank you for your participation!

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

Chirurgus[fontem recensere]

Could I ask for help in improving the latin of this article? Thank you so much in advance.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:58, 28 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Being lazy[fontem recensere]

... I wonder whether someone has a bot that could do this for me. If not, I'll just do it myself!

  • For each city entry in the German list de:Liste der Millionenstädte --
    • Find the Latin pagename of our page if we have one, otherwise give me the de:pagename
    • Give me the item number on Wikidata (Q...)
    • Record the continent from de:wiki (the country in each case is available from Wikidata, but the continent isn't)

With this I could update and enlarge Maximae urbes orbis terrarum as a basis for improving our pages about major cities (my ambition for 2016). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 29 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot do this, but you could ask for help either at d:Wikidata:Bot requests or, if nobody reacts there, at de:Wikipedia:Bots/Anfragen (asking in English is fine). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 17:45, 29 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, UV. I will ask over there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:38, 1 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
My request was answered in a trice :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:15, 4 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-49[fontem recensere]

16:16, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey[fontem recensere]

MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 14:38, 1 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Calculus coniunctionibus[fontem recensere]

Cur ablativus? Burzuchius (disputatio) 18:00, 2 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

"Tech News eunt domus!"[fontem recensere]

Is it possible to get the Tech News and other items coming in from outside Vicipaedia (e.g., "Community Wishlist Survey") to go to some page other than Taberna? They're never in Latin, and their thrust always differs from that of the matter that Vicipaedians typically put on this page. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:37, 7 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

I think you'd have to deal with each one separately. As regards Tech News, go to this page, delete the line containing "Vicipaedia:Taberna", and (if that's what you want to do) add an entry for the destination page that you've created. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:55, 7 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-50[fontem recensere]

17:52, 7 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

De "iubilaeo" nostro 2016[fontem recensere]

Supra sub rubrica #De spatio "adumbrationum" fortasse creando ab Helvetico Montano suggeritur, ab aliis (sed Anglice tantum scribentibus) accipitur, novum de anno 2016 propositum: eo anno a stipulis paginisque brevissimis creandis abstineamus, textum autem paginarum breviorum iam apud nos exstantium -- sunt enim permultae -- augeamus et melioremus. Si fere omnes hanc rem facimus, post duodecim menses Vicipaediam valde utiliorem et inter alias Wikipedias haud spernendam lectoribus praebere possumus. (NB: Creationi novarum paginarum paulo longiorum, citationibus &c. munitarum, nihil obstet!)

An amici qui Latine et non Anglice loquuntur consentiunt? An quis fortasse propositum ita relatam mutare velit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:14, 9 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Placet utique. Speremus satis nobis temporis fore, ita ut propositum est pergere valeamus. Feliciter! Laurentianus (disputatio) 14:06, 11 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Available Now (December 2015)[fontem recensere]


Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for new accounts and research materials from:

  • Gale - multidisciplinary periodicals, newspapers, and reference sources - 10 accounts
  • Brill - academic e-books and journals in English, Dutch, and other languages - 25 accounts
  • Finnish Literature Society (in Finnish)
  • Magiran (in Farsi) - scientific journal articles - 100 articles
  • Civilica (in Farsi) - Iranian journal articles, seminars, and conferences - 50 accounts

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including EBSCO, DeGruyter, and Newspaperarchive.com. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 01:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Help us a start Wikipedia Library in your language! Email us at wikipedialibrary@wikimedia.org
This message was delivered via the Global Mass Message tool to The Wikipedia Library Global Delivery List.

De facie nostra[fontem recensere]

An quis potest succurrere? Vide id quod Laurentianus nuper apud me quaesivit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:34, 11 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Big cities[fontem recensere]

I think I can say "Urbes centenas myriades incolarum habentes" as a translation of the German category name de:Kategorie:Millionenstadt. But am I right? The grammar of such large numbers isn't easy (to me). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:12, 12 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

You're right, for me: myriades = 10.000, centenas myriades = 100 * 10.000.--Maria.martelli (disputatio) 16:04, 12 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Fortasse scribas urbes milies milium (vel plurium) incolarum, quia non satis constat, utrum urbes incolas an incolae urbes possideant. Laurentianus (disputatio) 16:25, 12 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Dissimilitudo senior[fontem recensere]

Exempli gratia hic istud legitur: https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vicipaedia%3ATaberna&type=revision&diff=2990628&oldid=2990626

Non autem dicitur res talis Latine "dissimilitudo senior", verum potius "differentiae pristinae". Dissimilitudo enim paginarum est quidam status, qui tunc demum constitui videtur, cum paginis duabus comparatis inveniuntur differentiae. Differentia autem in his est singula res, qua paginae duae inter se differunt, quaeque, cum conspicitur, constituit paginarum dissimilitudinem. Et in talibus rebus id quod necessario agitur index differentiarum est legenti praebendus potius quam una nescio qua "dissimilitudo".

Utut res se habet, illud "senior" iam plane perperam positum est, quod "senior" idem est ac plus senex, "senex" autem in oratione prosa et sobria et cotidiana nonnisi homo dici potest (res autem inanimatae etiam in carminibus rarissime sic appellantur).

Probe dixisti. Sunt praeterea plurima alia emendatione digna, quae quemque supervenientem deterreant nec facile mutari possunt. Utique conabor ... Vale. Laurentianus (disputatio) 19:37, 13 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Non omnes commentarios perlegi, sed fortasse possumus paginam separatam creare, e.g. Vicipaedia:Verba corrigenda, ubi tales emendationes proponere possunt, ne in profundis tabernae amittentur? Ii qui TranslateWiki laborant pagina separata facilius utere possint, ut mihi videtur.
Res ipsa perquam placet. UV olim glossarium coepit, quod locum praebeat ad eas res disputandas. De quo videas ipsius disputationem. Vale. Laurentianus (disputatio) 11:31, 15 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-51[fontem recensere]

17:41, 14 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Soft redirects[fontem recensere]

In the interests of cleaning up, I was looking at the Specialis:Paginae breves. Most of the first hundred or so are soft redirects on cheese and forenames, using Formula:Appellatio. I wanted to ask if all of these are still necessary. I see that Andrew created the ones on cheese partly to have more interwiki links (Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_10#Cheeses_and_others), but most of them seem not to be attached to any Wikidata item. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:19, 17 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Unless the appellations themselves have their own separate articles on other wikis, and as long as the existence of the appellation is included on the target page, I don't see any reason these can't be converted into standard redirects. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 22:38, 17 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I created the cheese ones, for reasons that seemed good at the time, but that was a long time ago ... If I remember correctly, the creation of the forename redirects aimed at simplicity and standardization, because someone (I forget who) was creating masses of untidy short pages or discretiva pages for foreign forenames. Both sets could be turned into ordinary redirects (or deleted, if nothing links to them).
About the cheeses I was systematic, I think, and normally included a mention of the appellation on the substantive page. But I linked it to the soft redirect (so that the soft redirect would not be signalled as having no incoming link!) Therefore, if deleting the soft redirect or turning it into an ordinary redirect, we should also remove the link to it from the substantive page. Maybe a bot could do that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:33, 18 Decembris 2015 (UTC)
A bot would, I think, be the easiest way. Changing {{Appellatio|Ibores}} to #REDIRECT [[Ibores]] and the like. Perhaps one of our botmasters could take this on? Lesgles (disputatio) 16:48, 21 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Get involved in Wikipedia 15![fontem recensere]

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

International-Space-Station wordmark blue.svg

As many of you know, January 15 is Wikipedia’s 15th Birthday!

People around the world are getting involved in the celebration and have started adding their events on Meta Page. While we are celebrating Wikipedia's birthday, we hope that all projects and affiliates will be able to utilize this celebration to raise awareness of our community's efforts.

Haven’t started planning? Don’t worry, there’s lots of ways to get involved. Here are some ideas:

Everything is linked on the Wikipedia 15 Meta page. You’ll find a set of ten data visualization works that you can show at your events, and a list of all the Wikipedia 15 logos that community members have already designed.

If you have any questions, please contact Zachary McCune or Joe Sutherland.

Thanks and Happy nearly Wikipedia 15!
-The Wikimedia Foundation Communications team

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 20:58, 18 Decembris 2015 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageAdiutatum

"Ioannes Marius"[fontem recensere]

Hi all, I write in English here for ease.
I find many (actually, I am feeling that's the case for all...) French-language "Jean-Marie" are translated as "Ioannes Maria" here. However, this is obviously stupid. Indeed, "Marie" can be both masculine and feminine in French. "Marie" is rarely used alone as masculine, but such a use is actually in the coumpound name "Jean-Marie". In this case, "Marie" is therefore "Marius", not "Maria" ! So I invite a gentle bot or however wants to do it to correct all those wrong "Ioannes Maria" into "Ioannes Marius". I have already modified a few ones (Poiré, Lustiger and Le Pen). I notice that we (fortunately) have Ioannes Marius Spacca for Gian Mario Spacca and Ioannes Marius Crescimbeni for Giovanni Mario Crescimbeni.
Best.
SenseiAC (disputatio) 10:37, 19 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

These people are named after "Maria" the mother of Jesus; except that the two Italians you name whose vernacular name is "Mario" (note the "-o") are named after some saint who shared the name of "Marius" the Roman politician.
We don't make things up, we are guided by reliable Latin sources. A good source is the Latin news Ephemeris (those nice people don't like Vicipaedia much, so they wouldn't use us as a source). They have the name "Georgius Maria Cardinalis Cottier" for the cardinal that we happen to call, by his full name, Georgius Maria Martinus Cottier.
If you search for the phrase "Mariae Cardinalis" in double quotes on Google you will find some other examples from various kinds of source, including title pages of books, Vatican documents, etc. Similarly if you search for "Ioannes Maria" or "Iosephus Maria" in double quotes: there are many.
So before changing this usage here you should find independent evidence that a male called "... Maria ..." or "... Marie ..." in the vernacular is called "Marius" in Latin documents. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 19 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-52[fontem recensere]

18:29, 21 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy 2016 everybody!!![fontem recensere]

Rei Momo (disputatio) 20:04, 24 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #6—2015[fontem recensere]

Elitre (WMF), 00:06, 25 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Japanese athletes: capital letters and non stipula[fontem recensere]

Perhaps some kind programmer would like to devise a program that would change [[Pediludium|Pedilusor]] [[Iaponia|Iaponiae]] to [[pediludium|pedilusor]] [[Iaponia|Iaponiensis]] (or something like that), saving the author some wasted time. ¶ Also, in view of today's Japanese athletes (but pertinent generally), could a program be devised to insert {{Non stipula}} at the top of articles whose texts (excluding nexus interni & externi, bibliographies, and so forth) have fewer than 200 letters each? That would save other vicipaedians some wasted time. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:53, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

As to the number of letters, 200 isn't a magical concept, and maybe some other number in that vicinity (250? 216? 193? 176?) should be the criterion. Even better: perhaps a kind programmer would want to devise a program that would make a list of all the pages whose texts fall in certain ranges (say, from zero to 187, or from 175 to 225), with the limits being experimentally movable, so that the effects of setting the criterion at a given number can profitably be contemplated. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:53, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that information would be very useful! Agreed, 200 means nothing, though some such target may help to identify pages whose creators aren't even able to say one notable thing about the subject.
A propos of that, I feel sure a bot could make some improvements to the new pages you mention, but it couldn't add useful and interesting text, which is what they really need ... :( Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:00, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
For comparison's sake: *this text* has about 141 letters (right now), so I've marked it NS. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:49, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
For the record: it gained several hundred more letters overnight and has therefore become a stipula. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:48, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Impressionalistically, I'd say it's approaching the cusp of stipulability, but (like many of the commentaries on French hamlets) it may not be quite there. So 200 is probably an appropriate benchmark, but if a bot were to be able to do the NS marking as discussed above, we might want first to compare an array of examples to determine whether some other number, slightly higher or slightly lower, might not be better. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:49, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
*This one* has about 127 letters. It's a fine definition, perhaps more than adequate for a geographical dictionary, but the text lacks that certain "aliquid maius" that would make it an ideal vicipaedian text. So 127 letters is probably too few to make a stipula. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:03, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
UVbot could change [[Pediludium|Pedilusor]] [[Iaponia|Iaponiae]] to [[pediludium|pedilusor]] [[Iaponia|Iaponiensis]], if that is what we agree to do with this pages. As Andrew supposed, UVbot cannot, however, add content to these pages that is not already present there.
Using the dump of December 26, I have compiled a list of all pages not longer than 250 bytes: Project:Dump/Paginae breves. However, I feel that the decision (not) to mark a page {{non stipula}} should be made by a human examining the page rather than a bot looking at the page size. --UV (disputatio) 23:26, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
That's probably a good idea. Is there a way of making certain that unknown user Japan Football knows of this invitation to impose the formula {{Non stipula}} on most of the—hundred or more?!—articles that he or she added yesterday? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:57, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, you know the answer to that -- one can only write on JapanFootball's talk page, as we all three have done :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:45, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes, but can we force the user to read it? ("You can lead a horse to water, but can you drench him?") The immediate worry, which one hopes will be proved premature, was that the user, having barged in to impose (in the order of magnitude of) a hundred formulaic nonstubs without having tested the waters by trying the formula out beforehand, here in the taberna, was in effect (though, one hopes, not intent) being quasivandalistic. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:07, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Usor:Japan Football created 239 new pages in the article namespace within a total time span of less than 6 hours. --UV (disputatio) 22:28, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
There was no response on the talk page. If JapanFootball doesn't come back within a generous week and assuming no one else wants to improve them, I propose deleting those pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, certainly those that aren't stubs! A single page on Japanese football might be more useful to most potential readers. A curious discovery about the wikifying process is the popularity of contributing many little things instead of one big thing. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I will not object to deletion of these pages (magistratus can do that very easily via Specialis:Nuke, inserting "Japan Football" as username of the user whose page creations should be deleted). --UV (disputatio) 13:59, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I wonder whether "Japan Football" is going to come back here soon, since he has a history of being blocked on several wikipedias, including for not responding to comments on his talk page (sv.wikipedia): Special:CentralAuth/Japan Football. We might also want to block him (but leave his own talk page open so that he can, if he wishes, explain). --UV (disputatio) 19:33, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I didn't think to check cross-wiki activity. Good idea, I'll block him (allowing use of talk page). If he says "I want to improve those same pages", that might be fine and he could be unblocked, but that, sadly, seems the least likely result. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:04, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
In fact that is what happened ... He is now working on those pages. I will leave to others to judge whether he is making them into acceptable stubs. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 4 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, we currently have a backlog of more than a thousand pages at Categoria:Non stipula. What do we intend to do with that mass of pages - are we going to delete them automatically after 6 months (which is not what I would be ready to do), or is someone going to propose them individually for deletion after 6 months? Before that is sorted out, I am not sure whether it is a good idea to tag much more pages as non stipula. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:26, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
A highly useful list! Thanks! We note right away that (at least) two kinds of articles might want to be exempted from the wordcount rule: articles about years, and articles about forenames. More thinking is advised. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:46, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
We discussed above whether certain groups of very short articles (essentially dictionary definitions, but important to the encyclopedia) should be guaranteed safe. A suggestion was that some of these groups could be linked with a navbox that indicates their special status. See now Decimetrum. Actually the year pages are linked by navboxes already, and we can surely agree that it is pointless to mark these year pages "Non stipula". We need them.
The forename pages (for non-classical-Latin forenames) are different in that no one defines them and their spelling and meaning and etymology are often uncertain or variable. An encyclopedia that has such articles should treat them as full scale articles, to be properly documented, I think. But it isn't easy to do. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:45, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, on second thought, the forenames probably should be full-fledged articles. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:07, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

And then at the other end of the scale, we have big articles that someone has marked as stubs. I just encountered one that was 17,219 octeti in size, and have removed the non-stipula formula. A lot of articles on Italian hamlets fall into this class, especially in the range of 3000 to 6000 octeti. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:15, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

And now another one, at 12,185 octeti. These things abound! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:20, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I have now created a new list of short pages where year pages are excluded: Vicipaedia:Dump/Paginae breves. --UV (disputatio) 22:28, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
That's a very useful list. It would be easy to go through it, looking for pages that can be grouped in series. Useful series can be linked with a navbox (cf. Decimetrum and Aulus) or else converted into redirects to a page that deals with the whole series. Of pages that don't belong to any evident series, the very shortest (minimal text, no sign of notability, no external link or source) could be deleted or tagged "Delenda". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I agree with all that, and thank UV for the list. Progress is being made! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
If anyone wants to comment at Disputatio:Index praenominum, please do! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:03, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

The formula for Japanese athletes[fontem recensere]

For example, a text added today:

Alessandro Santos (三都主 アレサンドロ Santos Alessandro?, natus in Maringa die 20 Iulii 1977) est pedilusor Iaponiensis, sed etiam Turmae Pediludicae Nationalis Iaponiae (2002 - 2006) lusor est. Alessandro Santos inter alia cum turma Shimizu S-Pulse et Urawa Reds lusit.

Things to consider: (1) The name is wrong (Italian, not Latin). (2) Why the question mark? (3) Why not the locative? (4) The sequence of tenses is faulty. (5) Use of the pagename formula results in clumsy prose (for the second one, qui might read better). (6) Why isn't it turmis? As I've suggested earlier, continuing to impose articles that are entirely formulaic without first checking with the community is inadvisable. For a lesson in how to do it right, see the history of the formula by which several thousand articles on asteroids were created (it's archived somewhere). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:22, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember where it is, but you're right, some very careful discussion took place.
Recently many of the Wikipedias have grown enormously in exactly the way that Japan Football is doing it, Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the articles on asteroids are several times as long as the recent articles on football players—and informative enough to qualify on all counts as genuine stubs. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:33, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
but whether this is any use to their readers I don't know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
These sorts of articles have never seemed to have much use to me (and I've created precious few of them, e.g. Neiafu), but the counterargument is that everything deserves an article; certainly our founder has been quoted as having said that every human deserves an article ("notability" be damned). Every new article that has less than 200 (or maybe even 500 or 1000) letters lowers the mean length of Vicipaedia's texts, and by that measure of "Vicipaedian quality" lowers the value of the entire enterprise. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:33, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
It's ironic that he set silently to work on the very day we had agreed to cut down on the production of new stub pages! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Irony abounds! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:33, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I think the proper way for us to go is gradually to increase our standards. On en:wiki, for example, the minimum requirement for a page is far higher than it was ten years ago. That, I guess, is what we're engaged in this year, and at some stage -- perhaps quite soon -- pages like these will fall off the edge. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:47, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, strict enforcement of the 200-letter cutoff would do the trick! But do six months still have to elapse? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:33, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not a law or even a policy -- it was just me, replacing 7 days with 6 months because we were adding a large number of "Non stipula" tags all at once! I believe, at some stage, I chose the number 200 as well. Anyone else could alter the template again. You're our censor: if anyone has the gravitas to do it, you have. I wonder if anyone else will comment ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:09, 7 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Another option that just occurs to me is to have an alternative "Non stipula" formula specifically for pages created after 1 January 2016. We have, after all, agreed and broadcast a new policy -- avoid creating very short pages -- to be applied from that date. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:15, 8 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
That would seem a good way to me. On the one hand, we need to be careful not do discourage via sudden deletions of good-faith page creations newbies/tirones that are able, at least after a number of weeks/months, to contribute useful content to Vicipaedia. But on the other hand, very short pages with contents that do not add much to what Vicidata already knows, are not too useful. A new "non stipula" formula that allows newcomers who are eager to learn and to find their way around Vicipaedia six months to improve their page creations, while very short pages created on or after January 1, 2016 without remarkable content that are not improved after six months may be deleted, seems to strike the balance well. --UV (disputatio) 19:37, 8 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I'll draft something, then. As you are maybe hinting, Japan Football is working harder than other wikis' experience led us to expect; there is meaningful communication; he is prepared to see the least promising pages deleted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:39, 9 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
And all that tinkering, mirabile dictu, improves Vicipaedia's reputation—because a higher number of edits per article is alleged to be a sign of higher quality. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:16, 9 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Please consider Formula:Augenda. Any changes needed? Should a minimum length be added or not? Is 3 months enough or not? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:03, 9 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Gratias ago tibi, Andrea, maximas, qui hanc formulam instituisti. Quam libenter Theodisce vertam. Praeterea minora aliquot iuxta rem ipsam disputabo. Tres menses quod adtinet, is terminus mihi quidem satis largus videtur. An mentem tuam recte concepi, qui hanc formulam non nisi in paginis abhinc creatis puto applicandam? Laurentianus (disputatio) 17:02, 9 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Collaboratione tua gaudeo, Laurentiane. Ita, versionem Theodiscam adde! Possumus (ut mihi videtur) hanc formulam in paginis brevioribus post diem 1 Ianuarii 2016 creatas imponere; fortasse et in veterioribus. Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:25, 9 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Nemine usque adhuc abnuente, possumus formulam {{Augenda}} in novis paginis brevissimis ("non-stipulis") imponere. Audacter recensete et corrigite, o amici, tam formulam ipsam quam paginam annexam Vicipaedia:De paginis brevioribus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 10 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

categoria:historici Italiae[fontem recensere]

Illi qui de Italia scripserunt aut illi qui Italiani sunt? --Alex1011 (disputatio) 21:30, 26 Decembris 2015 (UTC)

Qui Italici/Italiani sint profecto erunt historici Italici (vel historici Italiani). Eximia locutio classica est civis Romanus sum, non civis Romae sum. Ergo, ut videtur, qui historias Italiae scribant historicos Italiae appellare debemus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:00, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Bonum est scire. --Alex1011 (disputatio) 17:25, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Neque omnes Italici neque omnes de Italia scribentes. Casu genetivo in titulis categoriarum de incolis civitatum utimur: ita "Incolae Italiae" sunt qui in Italia habitaverint; tali modo "Artifices Italiae" sunt artifices qui in Italia habitaverint; tali modo "Historici Italiae" sunt historici qui in Italia habitaverint. Si, sicut hoc casu, sensus ambiguus sit, explicationem addere possumus, quam nunc ibi addo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:33, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, usu vicipaediano, categories are a special case. I was thinking of running text. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:45, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Happy Public Domain Day 2016![fontem recensere]

Logo Public Domain Day

Feel free to translate this message in your language!

On January 1 we celebrate Public Domain Day as many works of authors who died 70+ years ago now enter the public domain and can be used freely.

Let us be aware: copyright is temporary. It only lasts during the authors lifetime and 70 years afterwards (in most countries). During those years it is limiting Wikipedia and her sister projects in showing works of art, literature, public art and buildings in countries without freedom of panorama, and more in the articles. But now a new batch is freed from copyrights!

An overview of images and texts that are restored or added to the Wikimedia Commons, are collected on: this page.

Many of these files still need a place in articles. You can help!

You can also help by uploading new files of subjects that are freed of copyrights.
You can also help by tagging all requests for deletion pages with the category when the file can be restored, which will be/was deleted.

As I follow the log of restored files this week, more images and texts will follow. If still files or texts are missing in the list, let me know or add them yourselves.

A very happy Public Domain Day! Romaine (disputatio) 13:18, 2 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)


  • Some of the freed files:


Mobile view[fontem recensere]

Memini oportet editoribus qui paginas recensent (dico ego) iam plus quam 30% lectorum non computatris magnis sed tabulis telephonisque mobilibus ad Vicipaedias accedere (qui numerus certe crescit et crescet). Quando igitur faciem et structuram paginae constituimus, necesse est de aspectu "mobili" consulere. Si duas imagines, aut capsam et imaginem, aut capsam permagnam, aut imaginem latam iuxta praefationem ponimus, ipso facto omnem textum ad pedem paginae demittimus. (Textus autem, re graphicá omnino carente, oculos lectorum hodiernorum fatigat.) Ergo quando satis verborum habemus, melius erit rem graphicam primam neque valde magnam ad caput paginae, rem graphicam secundam (tertium etc.) non iuxta praefationem sed post rubricas imponere. De hac re quid dicunt alii?

When revising pages it is, I think, important to keep in mind that already over 30% of Wikipedia readers are reading it on a hand-held device, and this proportion will surely grow rapidly. (This was new information to me: discount the enthusiasm of a convert.) So, when considering the layout, number and placement of images, etc., we should look at the mobile view (use link at foot of any page) before deciding.

It appears to me that having more than one image, or an infobox plus an image, or just one wide image, or a very big infobox, in the initial section is likely to push the whole text a long way down. (But having no graphic at all makes the introduction boring.) So, as soon there is enough text to matter, it is better to put second and additional graphics below the first and later section headings. I wonder if others (especially any who read Vicipaedia on hand-held devices) agree or disagree? Maybe other guidelines spring to mind? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:11, 3 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Gratiae tibi sint, mi Andrea, qui meos, fortasse etiam aliorum oculos ad hanc facultatem mobilem vertisti, cuius plane immemor fui. Profecto duriorem praebet et exsanguem fere aspectum. Omnino optimum factu est modum quendam servare in paginis exornandis. Ad quod assequendem sine dubio valde utile erit aspectum mobilem conferre. Laurentianus (disputatio) 13:56, 4 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

De categoriis aspectu mobili invisibilibus[fontem recensere]

Computatro meo "aspectus mobilis" Vicipaediae monstrat imagines, capsas informationis, capsas navigationis, sed non categorias. (Aliis linguis nonnullis, inter quas Anglicá, capsas etiam navigationis invisibiles sunt.) Nisi mutatio quis proponatur, mihi videtur categorias editoribus assiduis utiles sed lectoribus plurimis mox ignotas fore. Alii quid de hac re censent?

On my screen the mobile view shows our images, infoboxes and navigation boxes but it does not show categories. (In many other languages even the navigation boxes do not appear.) Unless some change is intended, this suggests to me that categories will in the future only be useful to active editors; soon the majority of users won't even be aware of them. Any other comments on this? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:41, 4 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016 Scholarships - Deadline soon![fontem recensere]

Please help translate to your language

A reminder - applications for scholarships for Wikimania 2016 in Esino Lario, Italy, are closing soon! Please get your applications in by January 9th. To apply, visit the page below:

Patrick Earley (WMF) via MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 01:49, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

De nexibus ad Communia[fontem recensere]

A year and a half ago, we talked about links that point to Commons – more specifically, links that point to categories on Commons (via {{CommuniaCat}}) and links that point to galleries on Commons (via {{Communia}}).

Over the years, among the more than 75.000 links to Commons, we had accumulated about 6.000 broken links to Commons as well (= links pointing to a redlink on commons).

  • Of these, about 1.000 broken links pointed to Commons galleries. I have by now dealt with these (most were easy to deal with, because in most cases I found a commons category that was able to replace the broken link to the gallery).
  • Then, there were several thousand broken links to Commons categories where Wikidata knew a good replacement (a statement with d:Property:P373 on the corresponding Wikidata item). I have corrected these by replacing our broken link with the link from Wikidata.
  • So by now, only ~688 articles and ~143 category pages remain where the link to the commons category is broken and Wikidata knows no replacement. These articles and category pages can be seen at Categoria:Paginae cum nexu ad Communia rupto. What shall we do with these? If we agree, UVbot could remove the {{CommuniaCat}} template altogether from these articles and category pages.

Using Wikidata also allows us to compare the link we use to the link Wikidata knows of. The two categories Categoria:Error formulae CommuniaCat (~324 cat, ~1.865 pp.) and Categoria:Error formulae Communia (~256 pp.) list articles and category pages that point to a valid ("bluelink") category, gallery or redirect on Commons where nevertheless Wikidata (via a statement with d:Property:P373 or d:Property:P935 on the corresponding Wikidata item) proposes a different link target. I have changed {{CommuniaCat}} and {{Communia}} so that in these cases they show both link targets. If you come across such an article or category page, it might be a good idea to check whether the link target should be changed (either here on Vicipaedia or on Vicidata).

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:07, 10 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-02[fontem recensere]

16:59, 11 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Newfangled box[fontem recensere]

Is there a way of keeping the newfangled box from deranging the layout? Vide, e.g. Antiquitas. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:46, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

You have an oldster's definition of "newfangled": it was added to the page by Golradir six years ago (less two weeks), and it seems to have been Ssolbergj who designed the current version of the portal boxes in 2013. OK, OK, that's pretty new :) I don't know whether their effect on the layout could be tweaked, but they aren't compulsory and I find it is better simply not to put them on short pages that also have images.
So, you could delete it; or you could do what I've done right now, which is to put it first on the page, before the text and any images. The simple question is, is it important enough to take that privileged position? If not, delete it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
I think I fixed the problem, by adding a "clear:right" property to the mother template (Formula:Capsa seriei), though we should check if it messes up any other pages. That should allow us to choose the ideal order of the images and boxes, whatever that may be. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:32, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
That's a much better solution than mine! They are useful, certainly, even if not compulsory. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:20, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

de quadam caeruleitate[fontem recensere]

Cum quasdam nostrae vicipaediae paginas observo, verba vere trivialia litteris caeruleatis saepius scribi mihi videntur. Cum nostra, ut spero, a studiosis linguae latinae attente legantur, tamen ego quidem ea non adaeque etiam a pueris vix prima rudimenta discentibus perquiri puto. Quae cum ita sint, cur homines iam diu ultra primas litteras latinas aliquantum progressos litteris caeruleis ad vocabula maxime cotidiana, quae a primis annis iam noverunt, dirigendos esse putemus? Secundum meam opinionem, ut talibus adiumentis lectores opis indigos opportet adiuvare, ita tamen dictam nimiam paginarum - sit venia verbo - caeruleitatem exaggerare non iuvat, eo modo, ut ad omnia fere verba, de quibus paginas habemus, commendationes faciamus. An aliud censetis? Habemusne, o sodales, omnino aliquid of feedback (voces resilientes?) lectorum nostrorum non scribentium? --Bavarese (disputatio) 20:58, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

The comment printed above invokes a long-standing but only temporarily unresolvable discussion, one that will almost certainly be resolved by technology within another couple of decades. If you don't like the color blue, by all means use the long-ago-requested gadget (in "meae praeferentiae") to enable you to turn colors off. (Hovering the cursor should still reveal the linking.) As technology marches on, all words will surely have links, made automatically, perhaps not involving coding in what we think of as the text : after a thoroughly analytic electronic dictionary has been built up outside the visible part of Vicipaedia, the machinery will know to link, for example, mentibus to mens—except when some alternate link is desired, and then a human may have to add some coding to make a technically unexpected connection (until that, too, is made automatic!), as, for example, in the first paragraph of en:England, where the word part—perhaps one of those trivial, schoolboy words you don't want to see blue!—is linked to the article Countries of the United Kingdom. Additionally, the color of links is editorially useful: I myself, by now, after eight or nine years, may well have added 1000 articles so as to turn red links blue; indeed, a proportion perhaps approaching half the articles I contributed in 2015 served that purpose. Additionally, a not entirely negligible point is that links apparently gain Vicipaedia points according to the lists of the 1000 and 10,000 most important pages—and they thereby improve the "wikipedian quality" of the enterprise, as defined in Meta and therefore as perceived by readers. But as noted, this has all been discussed before. ¶ Out to lunch; no Latin. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:57, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
De hac re iam in Taberna disputavimus. Qui nexus ad res communes et triviales addiderunt, contra utilitatem lectorum egerunt. Remove igitur audacter nexus minime utiles, mi Bavarese. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:15, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-03[fontem recensere]

17:55, 18 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

2016 WMF Strategy consultation[fontem recensere]

Please help translate to your language

Hello, all.

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has launched a consultation to help create and prioritize WMF strategy beginning July 2016 and for the 12 to 24 months thereafter. This consultation will be open, on Meta, from 18 January to 26 February, after which the Foundation will also use these ideas to help inform its Annual Plan. (More on our timeline can be found on that Meta page.)

Your input is welcome (and greatly desired) at the Meta discussion, 2016 Strategy/Community consultation.

Apologies for English, where this is posted on a non-English project. We thought it was more important to get the consultation translated as much as possible, and good headway has been made there in some languages. There is still much to do, however! We created m:2016 Strategy/Translations to try to help coordinate what needs translation and what progress is being made. :)

If you have questions, please reach out to me on my talk page or on the strategy consultation's talk page or by email to mdennis@wikimedia.org.

I hope you'll join us! Maggie Dennis via MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 19:06, 18 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Latin is missing[fontem recensere]

Latin is missing from this page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/There_is_also_a_Wikipedia_in_your_language
More than 100 languages are now listed.
Thank you, Varlaam (disputatio) 17:12, 22 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Varlaam -- I've added Latin. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:05, 22 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-04[fontem recensere]

16:38, 25 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Article Placeholder: do we want to try that, or do we have too many placeholders already? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:48, 29 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering that.
I feel doubtful. From a user's point of view, a service we should hope to perform is to supply an acceptable Latin name for something, if we do little else. The problem with such placeholders is that they won't even have a verified Latin pagename.
However, biological taxa would have a pretty reliable Latin pagename. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:10, 29 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources[fontem recensere]

Novus fons apud Logeion qui nobis utilis esse posset: "Update January 2016: We are delighted to announce the advent of the Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources in Logeion." Vide e.g. sub "DMLBS" carrus, Lundonia, vicus...

Eugepae! Magnificum lexicon. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:47, 29 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Macte!Est verbum Arrestare!--Jondel (disputatio) 21:51, 31 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Quid potest verbum temporale posse?[fontem recensere]

Facite quaeso ne nimis kritikón me putetis! Sed in paginis discretivis legens e. g. Gallicanum seu Gallicanus potest ..., me ipsum rogo, quid hoc verbum 'posse' possit. Utique sententia A potest B sensu carere mi videtur, nequaquam idem est ac A potest esse/significare B. (Num vocabulum latinum cum italiano valere confunditur?) --Bavarese (disputatio) 18:07, 31 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)

Consentio. Credo auctorem fortasse constructionem ellipticam erroneam facere voluisse. Ego cum haec video, ad "potest esse" muto, quod quaestionem casus nominativi aut accusativi vitat. Vide etiam hanc disputationem priorem. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:59, 31 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
"X potest" (sine pluribus) sunt verba Nuadae, qui multas paginas discretivas suo modo facit. Nobis oportet formulam fixam paginarum discretivarum statuere, si consensum invenire possumus! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:58, 31 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)
Tecum consentimus. IacobusAmor (disputatio)
Placet, optime. --Bavarese (disputatio) 19:17, 2 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Toth[fontem recensere]

Si tibi lectori placeat qua videtur dubium sit et emenda si possis. Gratias tibi ago.Jondel (disputatio) 13:13, 1 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

North Coast Inland Trail‎[fontem recensere]

Si tibi lectori et magistro placeat qua videtur dubium sit et emenda si possis. Gratias tibi ago.Jondel (disputatio) 13:13, 1 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-05[fontem recensere]

21:02, 1 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Bold text in search page[fontem recensere]

A small matter, but perhaps easily fixable: on the search page, e.g. [206], the whole page appears in bold, including the top and side bars. Is there an extra ''' somewhere in the code? Lesgles (disputatio) 03:32, 2 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I have now fixed this at translatewiki:MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new/la, should take effect within a few hours. Thank you for pointing this out! --UV (disputatio) 21:28, 2 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
As of right now, the "Eventum investigationis" page remains all in boldface. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:13, 3 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
Corrections made using translatewiki can take 2-3 days to get here. I wouuldn't worry yet. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:13, 3 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Formula falsa[fontem recensere]

In ima pagina hanc sententiam lexi. "Novissima mutatio die 10:16 hora 8 Februarii 2016 facta". Formula ergo corrigenda est. Quomodo fiat, nescio. Quis adiuvabit? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 09:23, 8 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Corregi apud TranslateWiki; post paucas dies novam formulam videbimus. Gaudeo te errorem invenisse! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:30, 8 Februarii 2016 (UTC)
Peccaveram ego. Vos vigilantiores huic mendo remedium invenistis. Optime fecistis! Laurentianus (disputatio) 10:31, 9 Februarii 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-06[fontem recensere]

18:58, 8 Februarii 2016 (UTC)