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

Formula:Religiosi[recensere]

Formula:Religiosi in pluribus paginis de monachis addita est, e.g. in Claudio Hummes, sed ordines, non homines tractat; itaque haec tantum in paginis de ordinibus religiosis mihi apta esse videtur, et delenda ex paginis de hominibus. Quid dicunt alii? Lesgles (disputatio) 02:15, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Probe. Ergo placet. Laurentianus (disputatio) 06:27, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Mihi etiam placet. Andrew Dalby 08:31, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Assentior; nomen formulae autem aptum esse non videtur; melius esset "Ordines" (sicut in categoria "Ordines Ecclesiae Catholicae")--Utilo (disputatio) 12:47, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Factumst (UVbot adiuvante). --UV (disputatio) 20:15, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)
Macte! Lesgles (disputatio) 20:45, 30 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Cur iam operatur hic Chobot?[recensere]

Prohibetur a nonnullis vicis, envici non excluso. Vide hic. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:26, 30 Septembris 2014 (UTC)

Quas res malas hic fecit? Andrew Dalby 08:35, 1 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Novus mensis, nova pagina[recensere]

Spero Franciscum Martinumque uná concorditer paginam primam habitaturos esse! :) Partem autem "Scin tu" renovandam esse animadverto. Lesgles (disputatio) 02:53, 1 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Si de rubrica "Scin tu?" curas daturus es, o amice, laetissime tibi confido ... :) Andrew Dalby 08:44, 1 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

catoeciis[recensere]

Estne catoecia verbum latinae? Plurima passim video hic nam non in lexicis.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:44, 3 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Verbum est graecum (sc. κατοικία) quod "domus" vel "colonia" vel etiam "cives peregrines" significat. (Est aliud verbum, κατοίκια, minime usitatum, quod "res domesticae" vel "supellex" significat.) Verbum latinum "catoecia" non invenio in corpore illius Packard Humanities Institute, sed, ut mihi videtur, saepissime scriptores verbis graecis utuntur -- quare ergo non hoc verbo quoque? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:55, 3 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Inopinans eram graecam fuisse. Nomen scientificae commodum sit verbum Graeciae et cum egeat in sensu in latina(similes cellphone, tv, etc), in aliis uti dubius mihi est. Amplius hoc aliis discipuli latinae non inveni possint in lexiciis suorum. Sed ut dices, est mos uti verbis graecis. Confestim respondisti gratias tibi ago O Amahoney. --Jondel (disputatio) 13:31, 3 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Nomen categoriae[recensere]

Quid erit optimum nomen categoriae Anglice "African-American dramatists and playwrights" appellatae? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:23, 3 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

"Categoria:Scriptores scaenici Afroamericani"? Lexico interno meo dramatist idem est atque playwright. Andrew Dalby 13:34, 3 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

De "usore" illo[recensere]

Disputationem Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 12#Usor, usuarius aut utens? modo perlegi. Fortasse fatuum est tam sero normam nostram mutare, sed quoniam "usor" satis visibilis in Vicipaedia est dubitatoribus purae nostrae Latinitatis, disputationem renovare commodum censui. Etsi usor bene formatum est, ne apud Du Cangium quidem reperitur. Utens et usuarius etiam dubii sunt, sed ut Iacobus in hac disputatione dixit, non necesse est ad conversionem "user" adhaerere. Is scriptor proposuit, ego addam particeps (cf. Russice участник), vel collator/conlator (cf. conlationes), vel etiam Vicipaedianus. Alii quid dicunt? Lesgles (disputatio) 17:18, 7 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

De mutatione quamvis sera assentior; num verbis "scriptor", "particeps", "collator" an "Vicipaedianus" utamur in dubio sum.--Utilo (disputatio) 19:24, 7 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Verbum q.e. "particeps" mihi placet. Quidam enim nullis verbis scriptis, vel verba vandalistica removentes, collaborant. Andrew Dalby 08:30, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Iamdudum "usorem" illum haud facile fero. Equidem faveo nomini "collatoris", quia medium tenet inter et "socium" et "participem", praesertim cum significet eum active participere. Praeterea etiam "collatrices", ut dignae sunt, salutare poterimus. Laurentianus (disputatio) 11:32, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Verbum "collator" amo et ego, sed non "Collator aut collatrix". Sunt multae hominum species: si dividere volumus, cur duas, neque plures, definiemus? Oportet verbum singulum ponere quod ad omnes aequaliter applicari potest. Andrew Dalby 11:54, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Probe dixisti. Per me licet. Laurentianus (disputatio) 15:03, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Mihi quoque placet illud "collator." A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:30, 8 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
If, as it seems, everyone likes collator, the question now is how to change it. Perhaps UV or Amahoney know? Lesgles (disputatio) 03:36, 23 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Ego quoque consentio--Rafael Garcia.--114.45.124.251 12:08, 23 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Presumably we change it in TranslateWiki (a vast morass of complications, mea sententia), but there may be other places as well. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:18, 23 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Category Video games[recensere]

Sorry for not writing in latin and for posting something I already reported, but since there were no answers... :) I just want to report that Categoria:Ludi televisifici and Categoria:Ludi computatrales, both with link at commons:Category:Video games, are redundant and should be merged. Thanks, bye. --Superchilum (disputatio) 13:42, 9 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Nomen "Ludi televisifici" mea sententia male formatum est quia "tele" in "televisifici" ad distantiam refert trans quam transmissio imaginum effecitur. Televisifici igitur ad televisionem ("television games") refert et haud ad ludos qui in computatris luduntur! Terminus Latinus qui proprie ad "video" spectat est "visificus". Ego "Ludi visifici". Meae duae centesimae!--Rafael Garcia--114.45.124.251 12:21, 23 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions Rafael. I feel you're over-latinizing it. Remember, the devices work through microchips which are computers. --Jondel (disputatio) 19:37, 23 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

So what would you suggest, Jondel? Are the two categories to be combined? What name would be best? Andrew Dalby 15:32, 24 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Et quoque "Ludi televisifici" ad "television plays" melius refert! Non solum ad "television games": "price is right", "family feud", "tv reality games", et "certamen mundiale pediludii televisione transmissum"--114.45.124.251 03:06, 25 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Saludos Rafael, que tal? Porque no escribe como antes ?Que sepa que hay 'console games' y es mejor a mi por el 'visificus'. Tambien como dicho abajo, hay spectaculum lusorium por el television games. Que opina usted?--Jondel (disputatio) 01:08, 26 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

To Andrew:I would like to suggest that they don't need to be combined in Latin since appropriate terms are are available in the dictionaries, well, I tend to to favor Traupman as you know(Cassell's is ok, if the terms are available). I think our links shouldn't be considered redundant. I think the English wiki should consider separating TV video games, and arcade games and house them under the category of console games if already done.I wish I participated in earlier debates. I know a lot of discussions were already conducted. I will try to go over the computer game issues. There may be errors with my suggestions but I will focus on the video game issues and see if I can make the appropriate links as well as come up with a separate article for game shows.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:08, 26 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

For game shows,Spectaculum lusorium (Traupman ), thus, Spectaculum lusorium televisicorum. I see Rafael's point with visificus because it derives from Televisicus which can be found in Traupman. Game shows are in essence 'shows' with a non participating audience and are broadcast on high frequecy radio waves.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:08, 26 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

For tv games, you only need to use the monitor, however, you connect to the antenna plug, meaning you still need to translate to longdistance radiowave frequency and modulation. Ludus televisificus(and Categoria:Ludi televisifici, no change) should really be ok. However if there would be there may be confusion and debates again with 'game shows' , then perhaps we should insert an adjective corresponding to computer(ordinatralis?). --Jondel (disputatio) 01:08, 26 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

The English should distinguish their links to the video games.There is confusion with 'video games' because these correspond to arcade games and tv video games. --Jondel (disputatio) 01:08, 26 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Rafel's suggestion(visificus) for me best corresponds to console game. --Jondel (disputatio) 01:08, 26 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Which games in the category "Ludi televisifici" actually correspond to a "TV video game"?--59.115.162.121 16
33, 3 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
so, which solution can be the most adequate? "Ludi televisifici" as "Console video games"? --Superchilum (disputatio) 15:18, 19 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for this delay. There is already Consola lusoria for the English video console game. However , console ultimately derives from consolator. May I suggest consolator lusorius as an alternate candidate? And for video game. Could I suggest Ludus visificus? The categories would need to be created, if not yet existing.--Jondel (disputatio) 16:47, 19 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC) I will do my best t4o resolve this within this week.--Jondel (disputatio) 16:56, 19 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

"Consolator" means a comforter (i.e. a person who comforts you). Your link above, Jondel, is to an etymology of the verb "consóle", which means "comfort", and not the noun "cónsole", which is historically an architectural term (I didn't know that before, so thanks for making me check) and has a different origin. Andrew Dalby 17:29, 19 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
your welcome. I'm glad to be of help. Thank for looking into this as well. Can I suggest "Cartibularum ludi" for "Console video games"? --Jondel (disputatio) 08:09, 20 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't seen it till now, but Neander had already explained the etymology of "console" (noun), six years ago, at Disputatio:Consola lusoria. I am not up to deciding where the discussion might best continue, let alone commenting on a solution, because, living on a different planet as I do, I have really not the faintest idea what all this is about :( I will drop out so as not to duplicate things any further! AndrewDisputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby Dalby 09:51, 20 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
yes he did. Needs actual implementing though.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:44, 20 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Traupman (2007): video game = 'lusus magnetoscopicus'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:02, 20 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Nice! I will make the adjustments.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:44, 20 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Imago mensis: retractactio descriptionis[recensere]

Ubi et quomodo descriptio imaginis mensis fieri potest?--Utilo (disputatio) 20:51, 9 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

In pagina Vicipaedia:Imago mensis/Octobris 2014. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:45, 9 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago!--Utilo (disputatio) 16:56, 10 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

"Per thematae" etc.[recensere]

In hac pagina, quid significant locutiones "Per Thematae," "Per Forma," et aliae? Nonne petit praepositio per casum accusativum? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:50, 10 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Certe tota pagina corrigenda est! Lesgles (disputatio) 18:15, 10 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

What's a stub?[recensere]

How many characters does a short text need before it becomes unmarked as a stipula, and thus is promoted from the status of a stub to the status of an article? That is: what's the upper limit of a stipula? I'd suggest 2000 characters on average, or even 1750, but consensus may be lacking. A practical reason for concern over this question is that stubs reduce a wiki's so-called depth—a concept that Meta uses as a measure of quality: the greater the ratio of stubs to articles, the lower the quality of the enterprise. Compared with other wikis of about the same size, Vicipaedia scores unexpectedly low. This state of affairs must partly be due to thousands of stipula-marked articles produced by our European hamlet-loving contributors. For example: Cusinum, from which I've recently removed the stipula mark because the text fills up a whole screen-page and therefore doesn't (subjectively) look like a stub on my screen. The way the quality-assessing game is played forces participants to be cautious about calling texts stubs. Every new article marked as a stub may reduce the supposed quality of the enterprise as a whole. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:57, 15 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Instead of an absolute number, perhaps some number on a sliding scale relating to the "ideal" size of a given topic would be more appropriate, but although we may have a (subjective) sense of these proportions, finding objective criteria might be impossible. For example, a 2000-character article on WWII would be woefully inadequate (we'd all surely agree), and such a text should indeed be marked as a stub, as might a 3000-character or even a 4000-character article on that topic, whereas the mere 751.3 characters of Caychax—a settlement consisting of twelve people!—might be more than anyone, except perhaps the residents of the locality, and their friends and relatives, would ever want to know, and so maybe that text (and numerous others not unlike it) should be considered an article, rather than a stub. Is there any obective way to make such distinctions? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:57, 15 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Meta does not look at the "stub" formula. The depth calculation doesn't even look at the actual sizes of articles, but at the number of edits and the number of support pages (talk pages, pages in the Vicipaedia namespace, and so on). Marking something as a stipula tells us, and our readers, that we don't think the article is finished. You are quite right that the length of the article depends on the topic -- our page Unus negativus is pretty short, but at least one competent observer thinks it says everything it needs to (probably correctly: the pages in other languages about -1 seem over-long). If you want to improve the depth number, the most useful thing to do is to add pages outside the main namespace (that is, talk pages and so on). If we add 5900 of those, we will increase our depth by 1. The next most useful thing to do is to edit existing pages (in any namespace); 278,321 more edits will increase our depth by 1. The shortness of the articles about towns in France does not affect any of the obvious measures in use at Meta. The number of such articles has helped move us to the "more than 100,000 pages" category, which is A Good Thing. It is not true that marking something as a stub hurts us in any way. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:25, 15 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
This page sez:
  • The "Depth" column (Edits/Articles × Non-Articles/Articles × [1−Stub-ratio]) is a rough indicator of a Wikipedia’s quality, showing how frequently its articles are updated. It does not refer to academic quality.
If the stub-ratio isn't the ratio of the number of stubs to the number of articles, what is it? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:47, 15 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Oh, wait! This page sez "The stub ratio is (1-(Articles/Total))." But how can that be? How can a stub ratio be anything but a numerical comparison of stubs and something other than stubs? Moreover, that the proportion of stubs might assist in the estimation of quality is a reasonable proposition. A wiki consisting only of incomplete articles (stubs) will probably exhibit lower quality than a wiki consisting only of complete articles, and the proportions in between those extremes could offer a quality-defining continuum. ¶ But the game has to be played according to the rules, and given the rules stated above, perhaps the creation of every new article should be followed immediately by the creation of a disputation page for it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:01, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
The "stub ratio" in the description on the List of Wikipedias page is a red herring: it's not a very good name for what's actually being counted. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:54, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Well, it certainly led me astray! But in the light of the discussion above, it's not just a red herring: it's a false statement. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:42, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
No one claims that "depth" is a measure of the quality of the articles; it is a measure of "Wikipedian quality," which means the amount of collaboration going on. The measure has been rather contentious over the years (as you'll see if you look around at the talk pages in Meta). There is also some argument (in the talk page for the List of Wikipedias, most recently) about "articles created by bots." These are generally short and similar one to another -- like our own asteroid articles. Some smaller languages have more of those than of human-created articles -- as we did, too, long ago. This is the only place where I'm aware of concern about really small articles, and it doesn't apply to us because we are marking them as "stubs" or "not finished," and fleshing them out as appropriate over time. We don't have a problem here.
Now, the question "what's a stub?" certainly is worth discussion -- but for our own purposes, not for competition with the rest of the Wikipedias. And I entirely agree that it's going to depend on the article: sometimes 2,000 characters is a lot, sometimes it's pathetic. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:54, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
In some cases — can't give examples right now — it seems to me that stub formulas are being used for decorative purposes. Or what's the reason for some articles having double stub formulas? One answer may be: because our world of stubs is subcategorised into subject specific classes. Though they do have nice little pictures prefixed to them, I don't find the stubs particularly informative. But perhaps the fault is in me, not in the idea of stubs. :-) Neander (disputatio) 15:08, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
[Edit-conflict: duo textus eodem tempore scripti.]
Let's assume that Cassius was wrong, and the fault is indeed in our stars! ¶ Since one purpose of the stub-marking formula is to generate lists of stubs sorted by topic so that contributors interested in a given topic can find stubs to enlarge, multiple stubs should be welcome, no? For example, stubs marked as biographies cry out to have at least a second stub-marking formula, so as to put the article in a list concerning the topic for which the person is famous. See the stub Mitt Romney: at the moment, it's marked merely with a bio-stipula, but contributors looking for articles about politics won't find it, as it's not in the list generated by {{polit-stipula}}. For biographies of scientists, someone created {{scien-bio-stipula}}, but maybe keeping the implied formulas separate would have been a better idea, as some potential contributors might be interested in science but not in biography. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:38, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
I suppose one reason for these stub categories is to allow an editor interested in, say, religion, to focus on improving the list at Specialis:Nexus_ad_paginam/Formula:Reli-stipula. But I don't think anyone is really working that way right now. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:17, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Someone you know has done so. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:48, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
I take it back then! :) Lesgles (disputatio) 17:22, 16 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

I have wondered before about the stub categories. My view is that they are not much use honestly, and I would not myself spend time on elaborating them, because, since 95 per cent of our articles are crying out for expansion and improvement, anyone wanting to do this might as well use the ordinary categories directly. These are more effective at bringing related articles into a handy list than the stub categories can ever be. But, for those who find them useful, there they are!

As for What is a stub? I generally remove the stipula tag or tags when an article that I encounter has a good paragraph of real Latin text, defining the topic and placing it in context , plus really useful references and links, plus a picture if the topic can be illustrated. I think at that point the article is launched, but of course, like all others, it is still longing for improvement. Andrew Dalby 11:06, 17 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Followup[recensere]

Using the random-page generator, I've been marking as nonstubs the revealed pages that have no corroboration outside Vicipaedia (as required by the formula: "Paginis minimis Vicipaedicis necesse sunt: . . . Nexus extra-Vicipaedianus (sive et fons bibliographicus) qui rem satis corroboret"), but it doesn't seem to me that all those that aren't improved within seven days should be deleted. True enough, some—e.g., Bronn (and indeed perhaps all the entries in Categoria:Personae ficticiae e Game of Thrones), De-Loused in the Comatorium, and Tavia—are old and slapdash or formulaic, and perhaps they should be deleted if nobody wishes to improve them. Others—e.g., Cursus publicus, Lacus, Restauratio Meiji dicta, Salammbô‎, Salonina, Saulus Niinistö, and Vladimirus Vernadskij—show good effort, often by multiple contributors, and should be saved. Does some sort of limbo exist where they can be put so they don't get deleted? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:04, 21 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

The reason is that the rule about an external source was first stated (I think) about 2 years ago. Most of the pages you are catching are probably older than that. Until that time, in practice, we accepted the existence of a Wikipedia page in another language as an accceptable source. We no longer accept that. Andrew Dalby 09:53, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Followup question then (scholarship often seems hardly more than followup after followup): does Vicimedia Communia count as an external source? Our graphic design puts it under that heading, but it doesn't seem external enough to me, so to speak. Yesterday, I let a few pages supported only by that kind of link to pass, but marked others. One was Lacus, which I did mark. Helvetius has now inserted a Commonscat link and removed "Non stipula." What's the plan? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:51, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
sorry Iacobus I haven't yet read this discussion. I will insert also an external source--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 18:47, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Excellent! But the general question remains: how "external" does a source have to be? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:51, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
I believe others will agree: Wikimedia projects, including Commons, are not "reliable" (because they are user-created) and therefore not normally qualified to be reliable external sources. We should look for something beyond.
Exceptions are possible! An inscription, with a photograph on Commons, could be a very reliable source for someone's Latin name. A text of an article or book, which happens to be on Commons or at Wikisource, could be a very good source for a biographical or historical article. B ut these are special cases, in which we would not be making a general link to Commons but citing a specific text and using Commons or Wikisource as a handy link. Andrew Dalby 20:46, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
OK, then, "Non stipula" is the limbo. Anyone, including the original author, may improve the page; if that doesn't happen, various magistratus, I among others, eventually delete "Non stipula" pages after the regulation delay (sometimes long after, it depends what else we are doing etc.) Anyone can also change your "Non stipula" to an "In progressu": that doesn't save the page but in practice it postpones the day of deletion.
If you are suddenly adding a lot of pages to the list, it is probably better for us to wait a little longer before deleting. I certainly have no objection to this triage: the result will be a better Vicipaedia. There will however be some pages among these that it would be much better to improve than to delete. I'm sure you'll have this in mind, and others will wish to look out for pages-to-save as well. Andrew Dalby 09:53, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Quomodo invenire "non stipulas"?[recensere]

How can I see / find all nonstubs?--Utilo (disputatio) 10:16, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Facile est, mi amice. Eandem rem et aliis Vicipaedianis dico. Perlege categoriam Categoria:Non stipula. Si paginam augere vis, auge; quo facto, formulam "Non stipula" e capite paginae dele. Andrew Dalby 14:01, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago! Certe quasdam non stipulas augere velim, ut commentationes lectu dignae fiant.--Utilo (disputatio) 14:08, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Videte subter rubricam "Non iam stipulae" die 4 Martii inceptam. Andrew Dalby 12:47, 4 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Looking for a latinist[recensere]

Hello, dear latinists!

As you can guess by the language I am using, my level in latin is not sufficient to write and communicate with it. This is the reason I need someone who already has a good level in latin (and the odds are, if you are a regular here, your latin level must be pretty good). Being a scholar specialized in eighteenth century philosophy, I am working on an electronic edition of a text, actually a french translation of an english book that has been published in 1713. The book contains numerous quotations, many of them in latin. I checked various editions of the book while establishing the text to make sure the quotations on the electronic edition are accurate, but my latin is not sufficient to make me sure each quotation is fine, especially in the cases where I couldn't find any recent edition of the quoted textes. There is also a problem with the early eighteenth century writing of the "s" that look like "f" and are mistaken for "f"'s by optical character recognition (OCR) programs.

If someone here is curious enough to check this, he will stumble on many interesting (and sometimes unorthodox) quotations about Christianity and contribute to the progress of knowledge. The book is Anthony Collins' Discourse on Freethinking. It made quite a buzz when it went public.

Of course, being a french speaker might help but it is not mandatory. What matters here is a bunch of latin quotations.

Yours, --Katanga (disputatio) 03:46, 18 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Hi Katanga, on Google Books, where they do have a digital copy of an English edition, it looks quite interesting. There are also some seven Greek passages. I would like to assist your efforts at least with the Latin parts. Polytonic Greek is sometimes hard to convert into Unicode, but I guess, since you are into digitizing, you might find a way. I don't know how to do, but it is possible to send me an email through Wikispace. Or just leave a note, how to get in touch. (I know, privacy is a big deal here, which I also appreciate). Regards, Laurentianus (disputatio) 18:18, 18 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Formula:Cite book[recensere]

I just noticed at Cairus (see the bibliography) that this citation formula is messing up the page layout. It seems to be only this one formula, and not the others in the same family. Can anyone see what is wrong? Andrew Dalby 13:30, 20 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have something to do with the presence of an ISBN in the book entry: if you take that out, the extra grey box disappears. More if I get a chance to poke at it before my next meeting (or if this inspires anyone else, go right ahead!). A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:48, 20 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. --UV (disputatio) 22:43, 18 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

In progressu[recensere]

Fere 400 paginae formulam ferunt "in progressu", quarum multae pluribus annis non recensae sunt. Nobis (mihi non in postremis) fortasse oportet indicem aspicere et formulam removere vel paginam perficere. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:14, 23 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Bonum consilium; libenter adiuvo. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:41, 23 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Ego quoque.
Commentationes fere 100/150 ex illa serie manent, quam Helveticus noster incepit, de gubernatoribus civitatum CFA. Helveticus his diebus non laborat apud nos, sed fortasse reveniet. An alius quis opus perficere velit? Andrew Dalby 15:57, 24 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Hanc saltem commentationem auxi. Neander (disputatio) 20:49, 24 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Etiam haec iam rescripta est.--Utilo (disputatio) 22:48, 24 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

De litteris pinguibus[recensere]

Collator 71.163.190.104 Dissolutionem Unionis Sovieticae non stipulam designavit, recte secundum hanc formulam, quia litteras pingues non habebat, sed disputationem hic incipere volui, quoniam enchiridion Anglicum huic regulae praebet exceptionem: "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it." Nunc Anglicam Vicipaediam sequi non cogimur, sed rescriptura manifesta, ut in aliquis aliis commentatibus reperitur, e.g. "Dissolutio Unionis Sovieticae fuit dissolutio Unionis Sovieticae, quae..." mihi supervacanea videtur. Alii quid dicunt? Lesgles (disputatio) 20:38, 25 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Amice, multae sunt rationes quibus pellem feli detrahere possumus! Vide: "The dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was a political process which culminated on 26 December 1991, when, by declaration no. 142-H of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, the USSR ceased to exist." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:35, 26 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Iam exstant apud nos commentationes nonnullae quarum tituli in primis sententiis verbatim non repetuntur. Mea mente talis regula saepissime utilis est, rarius molesta. Quando molesta est, nonne propheta "Rule 1: ignore all rules" proclamavit?
Eádem (meá) mente, formula "Non stipula" nobis a caelo datur ad paginas usque hodie inutiles ad utilitatem futuram aut deletionem cogere. Pagina autem "Dissolutio Unionis Sovieticae" iam utilis erat: ergo ille anonymus, cui prima sententia displicebat, potius rescribere debebat. Andrew Dalby 09:47, 26 Octobris 2014 (UTC)
Hoc in casu saltem Alexander primas sententias bene rescripsit. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:21, 26 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Languages in censuses[recensere]

Hello, Dear wikipedians. I invite you to edit and improve this article and to add information about your and other country.--Kaiyr (disputatio) 12:23, 31 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource Latin textbook[recensere]

There's a scanned copy of a Latin grammar book at Wikisource: s:en:Index:The New Latin Primer (Postgate).djvu It needs to be proofread and formatted. It's possible that someone who reads Latin would find that easy to do. WhatamIdoing (disputatio) 00:04, 9 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

The use of "ut"[recensere]

Salvete! I’d like to know if this is good Latin (it’s for an article I’m planning about the daisy, Bellis perennis):

Bellis a Chaucer est canta, ut signum feminae fortitudinis et amatoriae fidei.

It’s supposed to mean, “The daisy was sung by Chaucer, as a symbol of female bravery and loyalty of love.” The pertinence of ut here is my chief hesitation. Casquilho (disputatio) 21:30, 9 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

Mea quidem sentantia nihil est, quod te impediat, quominus ita dicas. Sin autem malis, etiam omittas licet. Equidem vero praeferam et canitur pro est canta et muliebris loco feminae. Vale. Laurentianus (disputatio) 09:13, 10 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
Si Latinitati classicae favemus (ut debemus), suadeo hanc respicias differentiam tenuem:
* Bellis a Chaucer canitur, ut signum ('as if it were a symbol') femineae fortitudinis et amatoriae fidei.
* Bellis a Chaucer canitur, signum ('as a symbol') femineae fortitudinis et amatoriae fidei.
Id est, attributio praedicativa sine ut (= 'as'). Utrum dicere vis? Neander (disputatio) 17:12, 10 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
Fortasse hoc iam scis, Casquilho: nomen apud Chaucer est dayesye, quod nomen ille modo etymologico interpretat, That wel by reson men hit calle may / The dayesye or elles the ye of day, / The emperice and flour of floures alle, Latine scilicet "quam bona ratione hominibus appellare licet dayesye sive aliter "diei oculum", imperatricem et florem florum omnium." (Galfridus Chaucer, The Legend of Good Women 183-185) Andrew Dalby 09:28, 11 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

File information[recensere]

Since we don't have any files, we don't have to do anything for the file metadata cleanup project. So we're already done! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:27, 14 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

de generibus operum poetarum[recensere]

Habemusne, o sodales, in vicipedia nostra paginam nomina generum singulorum litteraturae epicae continentem? E. g. short story/Kurzgeschichte/?, novella/Novelle/?, novel/Roman/? et alia. Gratias agens Bavarese (disputatio) 16:58, 21 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

Categoria:Genera litterarum fortasse tibi erit utilis. Iam habemus commentationes de diegemate (short story) et mythistoria (novel), sed hae conversiones etiam disputari possunt. Pro novella, fortasse mythistoria brevis? Lesgles (disputatio) 19:03, 21 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
Vocabulum quidem mythistoria (pro en:novel) dubium videtur. Ubi in mythistoriis recentioribus est mythologia? Vide recognitionem libri de Thucydide mythistorico hic. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:07, 21 Novembris 2014 (UTC)
Sed "mythos" non est "mythologia". Si sensum verbi "mythos" in lexicis Graecis quaeris, reperis word ... story ... fiction etc.
Sicut nos "mythistoria", Graeci hodierni "el:Μυθιστόρημα" utuntur sensu novel, work of fiction. Andrew Dalby 12:46, 25 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Paginae, Sonus, Imagines mensuales proximi anni[recensere]

Quid vultis videre in pagina prima nostra, anno ineunte? Disputemus hic! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 16:48, 25 Novembris 2014 (UTC)

reditus in Vicipaediam[recensere]

Salvete amici! Si quis me diu tacuisse vel in Vicipaedia nihil scripsisse animadverterit sciat me multis in negotiis vehementer occupatum fuisse. Nunc autem, quod mihi plus otii est, redii voluntate, ut Vicipaediae Latinae iterum utilis essem.--Utilo (disputatio) 18:03, 9 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

Gaudio! --UV (disputatio) 21:00, 9 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
Bene redisti, Utilo! Lesgles (disputatio) 21:04, 9 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

"-ne" in question sentences[recensere]

Sorry for not writing in Latin. I have only studied it in school decades ago and my knowledge isn't good enough to write fluently, although I think I can read Latin to a passable degree. On to my question. For my entire life, I have thought that "-ne" in Latin was used exactly like "-ko/-kö" in my native Finnish, i.e. (Look! There's Latin!) to signify that the sentence is a yes/no question, and the word the suffix is attached to is the one being asked about. But the English Wikipedia Language Reference Desk told me it isn't required, including it only signifies "isn't it so?". This is the first time I have heard of such a thing. I have seen "-ne" used quite a lot in Latin, in very much neutral questions with no hint of "isn't it so?". What is the situation here? You can answer both in English and in very basic Latin. JIP (disputatio) 00:28, 10 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

Profecto illud ne nihil significat nisi quod phrasis quaedam quaestio est. De more supponitur primo verbo (vel secundo, si primum locum praepositio quaedam teneat), nisi verbo primo per se vis quaestionis insit (velut cur, ubi, quis).
Quaestiones igitur disjunctivae potissimum per utrum ineuntur (demanding a decision between two given answers). Si insinuatam velis affirmationem, scribas nōnne (i.e. not?), sin autem negationem, num.
Num desiderio tuo satisfeci? :-) Laurentianus (disputatio) 00:57, 10 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
It's "always appended to the emphatic word, and generally serves to denote a question, without indicating the expectation of the speaker."—Gildersleeve, #454. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:12, 10 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
Following Iacobus, just as a detail, "-ne" can therefore be attached to "non" if "non" is the emphatic word. That forms the question-word "nonne", which is indeed used to mean "isn't that so?" "surely yes?" (see Laurentianus above). I haven't read the discussion at the reference desk, but possibly that's what they were getting at. Speaking generally, all of us agree, -ne is a neutral question particle, expecting either yes or no as answer. Andrew Dalby 09:42, 10 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
The discussion in the second part of en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Latin question was more about the difference between questions with ne and questions with no interrogative word at all: "Videsne?" vs. "Vides?" I threw in a quote from Gildersleeve, but anyone who knows more should jump in. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:48, 10 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

Salmo[recensere]

Lentius iam paginas novas creamus, Helvetico requiescente. Hodie autem paginam no. 112 000 creavit Usor:Lesgles de piscibus tam pulchris quam gustabilibus. Gaudeamus! Andrew Dalby 21:42, 10 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

Nunc esurio! Lesgles (disputatio) 22:05, 10 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

"In progressu" redux[recensere]

Paginarum "in progressu" designatarum nunc sunt minus quam centum. Conatus sum paginas nuper mutatas non tangere, sed si formulam removi ex pagina in qua laborabas, quaeso ut iterum eas addas. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:42, 12 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

Laborem perutilem perfecisti! Andrew Dalby 19:31, 12 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

English-language introduction[recensere]

Hi, I think it would be useful to have an English-language introduction to the Latin Wikipedia project, explaining such things as what era and style the language reflects, how modern concepts for which no Latin words could have existed are handled, what kind of people nowadays have sufficient Latin knowledge to understand and contribute (are they all classical scholars?), and any other information that may be of interest to casual non-Latin-speaking visitors. Does such a page exist anywhere? I couldn't find it, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. The project does seem very cool by the way. I love how I can read some phrases just by matching to English words or components/roots of English words! 86.152.160.175 14:57, 14 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

Lege hic. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:01, 14 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer, Iacobe. That article certainly answers some questions. It strikes me that one whole area was omitted from it (the many cases where something has a modern official Latin name) so I have added a bit about that. If anyone cares to have a look at my latest edit over there and improve it, please do! Andrew Dalby 16:59, 14 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
I have made a similar edit at Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis and Vicipaedia:De nominibus propriis/en. Again, please check and correct my work, anyone who wishes. Andrew Dalby 17:45, 14 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. That is the kind of thing I was looking for. Would it be worth linking to this from the Vicipaedia main page, under the title "English-language introduction to Latin Wikipedia" or similar? 86.152.160.175 18:10, 14 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
On the right side of the main page, under "Participatio", there are links to a list of helpful pages in [Vicipaedia:Ops nexusque usoribus novis/en English], German, Spanish, Norwegian, and Romanian (I think the only reason for that peculiar collection of languages was that people were motivated to do those translations). We can think about how to improve those pages and make the links to them more prominent, but we should be careful, though, not to give too much priority to English, since we have users who speak many different languages, and we don't want to exclude them. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:42, 14 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi, while I'm here, I have a couple of other questions just for personal interest. First is how easily would someone from ancient Rome, let's say in the first century BC for the sake of argument, be able to read Latin Wikipedia? Would it look like completely natural language to them? (I mean this to be a question about language, not a speculation about what people from that era would make computers, or quantum mechanics, or some other modern invention or discovery.) Second question is how people nowadays become proficient enough in Latin to read and write these articles. What sort of background do contributors here typically have? 86.152.160.175 20:36, 14 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
To try to answer the first question: Latin has been an international language for 2000 years. Probably most people who have written it during that time have tried, in their own ways, to write classical Latin -- that has always been the standard -- but about a whole range of new topics. That includes us! So, if we succeed, yes, Cicero and Caesar would be able to read us, but (as you realise) would be often puzzled (a) by the subjects we deal with (b) by the vocabulary, some of which comes from medieval, renaissance and modern scientific Latin (c) by the dating systems and the measurements, which were introduced into Latin long after their time.
I don't honestly know if there's a typical Vicipaedian. I think the greatest and most visionary achievement of Jimmy Wales is the multilingual encyclopedia. Lots of Wikipedians work in more than one language. Well, there's more than one way to be multilingual, but, in the particular case of Latin, I guess it most often comes about by studying Latin at school or university -- that's what I did :) Andrew Dalby 21:34, 14 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
I think a contemporary of Cicero would be able to read Vicipaedia easily, though as Andrew says this hypothetical Roman would be surprised by the maps of the world, by articles about football, by all the new languages we talk about and link to, and so on. Pliny the Elder would think this was absolutely heavenly! There have been stories about ancient Romans brought to life in the modern world -- a favorite is Nicodemus Frischlin's play Julius Redivivus, in which Caesar and Cicero get to visit 16th-century Germany. As for where contributors come from, I learned Latin in school and am now a professor of classics; I often ask my own students to contribute to Vicipaedia, when they can write well enough, and they've written in pages from Ilias to Superbia et Odium. I have an article about Vicipaedia coming out in the spring in Classical Outlook, the journal of the American Classical League, that answers basic questions about what we're doing here; check your nearest university library in a few months! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:38, 15 Decembris 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies and good luck with the project. 31.49.120.248 20:58, 16 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

milio et avis et numerus?[recensere]

Legens paginas Soa et millio miratus sum quod vocabulum milio usitatum est pro mille et milia. Quod si recte fit, nonne sequitur, ut, etsi nomina numerorum - et qua de causa tantum numerorum? - a scriptoribus classicis adhibita habeamus, persequi liceat temporum recentium consuetudines, quales reperimus e. g. in illa Pace Westphalica? Bavarese (disputatio) 10:16, 27 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

Magnorum numerorum scribendorum habere videmur modi tres: i) notae numerales (cifrae), e.g. "6 000 000"; ii) nomina antiqua, e.g. "sexagies centena milia"; iii) nomina mediaevalia,* e.g. "sex mil(l)iones". Ego quidem omnes tres in variis paginis usus sum, praeferens autem modos i et ii. Sed millio, billio, trillio, etc. utiles videtur ad magnos numeros simplices scribendos, e.g. "quingenti trilliones", pro quibus nomina antiqua non sunt (sed hic quaestionem habemus Scalarum longarum et brevium).
*De historia vocabuli millione, Oxford English Dictionary dicit "post-classical Latin milio (from c1365 in British sources), millio (from c1430 in British sources)"; vide etiam Du Cangium. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:57, 27 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

Pagina mensis[recensere]

Videte s.v.p. Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis#2015. Ibi ad mensem Ianuarium Hobbesium Malmesburiensem proposui. Si consentitis, dicite; si dissentitis, aliud quid proponite ... et paginas ad menses futuros addite! Felicem annum ...! Andrew Dalby 13:00, 29 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

Quaestio de conversione[recensere]

Hi all. We are having a discussion about the homosexuality of Pope Leo X. It is known that Paulus Jovius commented on this accusation and, in his Vita Leoni Decimi I found this:

Non caruit etiam infamia, quod parum honeste nonnullos e cubiculariis (erant enim e tota Italia nobilissimi) adamare, et cum his tenerius atque libere iocari videretur. Sed quis vel optimus atque sanctissimus princeps in hac maledicentissima aula lividorum aculeos vitavit?

Now, I am a part on the discussion. Could any of you provide a neutral translation of this? El Huinca (disputatio) 16:55, 3 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Please supply a link to the discussion.
I suggest this: "And scandal was not absent, because he was seen to be quite improperly devoted to some of his personal attendants, who were from the noblest families of all Italy, and to joke with them freely and rather amorously. But in that extremely slanderous court did even the best and holiest of princes escape the stings [i.e. verbal attacks] of the spiteful?" Andrew Dalby 17:30, 3 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot!! The discussion is here. The article says this: "[Paulus Jovius] explained that "the pope did not escape the accusation of infamy, for the love he showed several of his chamberlains smacked of scandal in its playful liberality", and suggesting that what occurs in the night remain left unexamined" El Huinca (disputatio) 18:02, 3 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Terra Mariae[recensere]

An quis fontem citare potest huius nominis> Fontem "Marylandia"e denuo repperi. Andrew Dalby 16:18, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Vide latus obversum sigilli civitatis, etiam Cases and Points of the Supreme Court. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:44, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Bene! Imaginem sigilli in paginam inserui.Andrew Dalby 18:01, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

imperator aut Imperator?[recensere]

Bis-Taurinus, qui se nuper amicis Vicipaediae applicavit et ceteroqui iam multa utilia fecit, paginam Franciscus II (imperator) ad Franciscus II (Imperator) movit, cum caput imperii, non exercitus fuisset. Quaero, utrum in Vicipaedia Latina hoco modo inter imperatores / Imperatores distinguatur sive distinguendum sit necne.--Utilo (disputatio) 11:11, 9 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Usque hodie non fecimus: sunt apud nos fortasse 500 paginae, fortasse etiam plures, in quibus tituli (rex) (imperator) (papa) etc. litteris minusculis videntur. Cur capitalizare necesse est, haud scio. Sed quid dicit Bis-Taurinus? Andrew Dalby 12:09, 9 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Quid de antiquum imperium/Imperium Romanum regnantibus? Nonne essent et imperatores et Imperatores'? usor:Bavarese (disputatio) 14:31, 9 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Editores philologi nusquam I maiusculà utuntur de capite imperii loquentes. Neander (disputatio) 14:36, 9 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Paginam reverti.--Utilo (disputatio) 11:42, 10 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Credo nunc, quod movens "imperator" in "Imperator" nec prudenter nec reflectens egi. Haec discretio mihi de schola in mente erat. Cum autem in libris nostrae aetatis lego, "Imperator" nusquam invenio. Gratias vobis omnibus ago propter hand correctionem! Bene fecisti, Utilo, quod paginam revertisti. -- In textis et praecipue in titulis paginarum autem saeperrime usus maiuscularum linguarum theodiscae aut angliae invenitur. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 13:21, 10 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Certe, nec usus sat concinnus est!--Utilo (disputatio) 13:59, 10 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

De Platonismo et platonismo[recensere]

Dum in maiusculis et minusculis detinemur, subit mihi in mentem distinctio subtilis, quae est in initio symbolae de Platonismo disserentis: "Platonismus (P maiusculo) est philosophia Platonis vel nomen cuiuslibet alius formulae philosophicae ex ea arte deductae; et (p minusculo) philosophia quae adfirmat exsistentiam res abstractae, quae habentur exsistere in "regno tertio," a mundo exteriore sensuali mundoque interno conscientiae distinctam, et est nominalismo (n minusculo) opposita." Hac in re ad morem editorum philologorum decurrere non possumus, sed demiror, an haec distinctio re vera extra linguam Anglicam observari soleat. Quaeritur igitur, an Theodisce "platonismus" scribi soleat, cum de "mundo tertio" Caroli Popper agitur; an Vicipaediam etiam hac in re morem Anglicum sequi et observare oporteat. Neander (disputatio) 15:01, 9 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Mihi quidem, cui lingua Theodisca est sermo patrius, haec distincito ignota est.--Utilo (disputatio) 15:13, 9 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Iacobus, qui hanc paginam incepit, mira fidelitate ex Anglico sermone vertere solet. Quae habitudo paginas perutiles nobis praebet sed non perfectas. [At quis Vicipaedianorum mortalium perfectus est?] Semper quaerere necesse est, quando paginas tali modo versas legimus, "An haec definitio (etc.) re vera ad linguam Latinam convenit?"
Distinctio hic facta ex opere re vera philosophico citatur, sed an omnes philosophi Anglicizantes ita scribuntur, nescio. Ἀγγλικίζω sed non φιλοσοφῶ! -- Andrew Dalby 16:55, 9 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Scio alios philosophos Anglice scribentes "platonismum", alios autem "Platonismum" scribere, cum de abstractis vel mathematicis obiectibus disserunt. Mores igitur variant — scilicet ideo, quod alii etiam obiectùs mathematicos nihilo minus a Platone proficisci putant. Cum igitur usus etiam apud Anglophonos variet, non mihi quidem videntur praecepta in initio symbolae Platonismum tractantis Vicipaedianis serviliter observanda esse. Itaque suadeo, ut initium symbolae Platonismi mitigatione quadam leniatur. Neander (disputatio) 20:18, 9 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

De saevitia mea[recensere]

Paginas fere 60 verbis "non stipula" diu rubricatas hodie delevi, inter quas meas ... et vestras! Si paginas delevi quas recensere vultis, o amici, restituere possum. Dicite, s.v.p. Andrew Dalby 15:55, 11 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

De biographiis mulierum[recensere]

Recent research reveals that Latin wikipedia has the second lowest percentage of biographies of women (compared to biographies of men) of all the top 50 wikipedias by biography count: Only about 11% of our biographies deal with women, while this percentage is about 21% on the Persian, about 24% on the Chinese and about 26% on the Japanese wikipedia, see [1] (section “Gender by Wikipedia Language”). --UV (disputatio) 22:26, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

11% is fairly close to the percent (13.9) for all 2,561,999 humans listed in Wikidata, not far from the range of 15%–16% seen in the English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, and Spanish wikis. In the early days of Vicipaedia, an emphasis on popes, cardinals, priests, consuls, writers, and ancient figures generally may well have set up a bias toward biographies of males, but as articles are added, especially including modern figures, the percent of female biographies might naturally be expected to rise. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:58, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel quite so optimistic :) And even if we set aside the raw numbers, too many of our biographies remain at only-just-stub stage. I'm sure that this is true of many of our biographies of women as well as men.
Perhaps, to help ourselves and others, we should develop a list of (say) 1000 women who ought to have biographies on all Wikipedias; and then transfer the list to Meta; and try to ensure we have reasonable biographies of those 1000. This could improve the representation of women's history here and in other wikipedias too. Does such a list already exist? I don't see one.
Utile erit fortasse si, nos ipsos una cum aliis adiuvantes, enumerationem creemus feminarum (e.g.) mille de quibus omnes Vicipaediae biographias praebere debent -- enumerationemque inceptam ad Meta transferre -- et vitas harum 1000 feminarum apud nos aut creare aut augere. Ita facientes opera nostra omniumque Vicipaediarum de mulierum historia meliorabimus. An talis enumeratio iam exstat? Non reperio. Andrew Dalby 11:22, 19 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
That could be a useful project. One should think that such a list would have been started by now, in some language, somewhere in Vicilandia. ¶ Google tells us that lists of important women abound; as usual with assortments, however, the potential criteria for admission vary and produce varying results. At the most extreme, for example, see "The 50 Most Important Women in Science": in terms of achievement, perhaps almost all these women deserve to be in a list of the world's 1000 most important women; in terms of "fame," perhaps almost none of them do. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:59, 19 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Usque hodie indicem nullum a Vicipaedianis factum vidi, sed hanc, olim visam, aegre repperi! Recensio Anglica variis modis ordinare licet, sed versio Francogallica plenior ordine auctoris componitur. Ab his incipientes possumus fortasse enumerationem utilem derivare ... incertus sum ... Andrew Dalby 14:14, 19 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Non omnes sunt biographiae, sed en:Category:Top-importance Women's History articles et en:Category:High-importance Women's History articles possunt esse utiles. Etiam sunt feminae sine paginis in Vicipaedia:Paginae quas omnibus Wikipediis contineri oportet/Expansio/Homines. -- [ Usor:Lesgles ]

This is a side issue, but the researchers cited by UV above don't seem to have come up with the right answer. If you consider our categories Categoria:Viri and Categoria:Mulieres, which should be complete, Viri are 6/7 and Mulieres are 1/7 of the total: thus Mulieres are over 13%, by my mental arithmetic, and closer to the general averages noted by Iacobus. But we still need to improve! Andrew Dalby 16:13, 22 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Modo Lindsey Vonn et heri Iuliam minorem addidi, ne propter neglegentiam feminarum vituperemur.--Utilo (disputatio) 17:29, 22 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
While our Categoria:Mulieres should be more or less complete, our Categoria:Viri is not.
As of the last dump (December 17, 2014), we had 23554 biographies with year-of-birth and year-of-death categories. Of these, 2470 were in Categoria:Mulieres, 15087 were in Categoria:Viri and the remaining 5997 (nearly all of them men, for a list go here and click on "Do it!") were in neither of the two. So if I divide 2470 by 23554, I get 10,5% ;-( --UV (disputatio) 00:10, 23 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Vae! Vae! Even worse than we thought. I had not realised that categoria:viri is incomplete. OK, I intend to work on this imbalance and have asked Anne to help with converting the list mentioned by Lesgles to a useful form. She's busy just now, and so am I, but in a few days I at least will have some time to spare. Andrew Dalby 09:57, 23 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Two kinds of lists could perhaps be justified:
Descriptive: the 1000 women most frequently sought in the biggest (i.e., English) wiki.
Prescriptive: the 1000 women that Vicipaedia thinks are the most important.
The problem with the latter, of course, is that no set of criteria for admission to the list will be accepted by everybody—and almost everybody familiar with history will have an opinion about it! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:34, 23 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
The "prescriptive" general lists of 1000 and 10,000 seem to be doing some good: that's the pattern I had in mind to begin with. But I'm not starting today, as I said. If you fancy preparing that "descriptive" list, go ahead: could be useful. [Even a much shorter list, the most popular 50 or 100, say, could be very informative.]
In your choice of terms you seem to be forgetting that Wikipedias are crowd-sourced. This means (to me, anyway) that the editors who create the "prescriptive" lists, as you call them, are not different from the searchers whose clicks would create the "descriptive" list. The editors are, rather, the most active subset of the searchers. Andrew Dalby 18:12, 23 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

[recensere]

Sorry for not writing in Latin, but the logo for la.wiki is not optimized for Retina screen. Can someone help to fix that? I attached two screenshots for comparison (one is the French Wikipedia before the logo optimisation).

--Alexlur (disputatio) 01:45, 22 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Should work now. Can you please check whether you see the high-res logo now? --UV (disputatio) 00:26, 23 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Gratias! --Alexlur (disputatio) 05:34, 24 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Nomina feminina munerum[recensere]

Consilium a vobis peto de modo recto femininorum munerum nominum scribendorum. In lexicis invenio aliqua vocabula binaria, e.g. actor/actrix, scriptor/scriptrix; atque alia vocabula communis generis quae ut auctor utraque genera habere possunt (sed etiam est auctrix). Sed quid facere de nominibus in -nomus, -logus, etc.? E.g. in pagina de Carolina Ioanna Spellmann Shoemaker, debemus scribere "astronomus qui", "astronoma quae", aut "astronomus quae"? Lesgles (disputatio) 22:30, 24 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Salve Lesgles! Sensus meus, non nimis quidem eruditus, consuaderet, ut scribatur "astronomus, quae". Res est dubia, haec est opinio mea. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:02, 24 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Certe res est dubia, sed cum Bis-Taurino consentio. Nomen Graecum compositum duas formas accipere solet, "-us" masc. et fem., "-um" neut. Ergo "astronomus" (etiam sine fonte priori) secundum artem grammaticam Graecam aut masc. aut fem. construere possumus. Andrew Dalby 19:52, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Gratias vobis ago. Ita in pagina de Shoemaker feci. Alibi inveni "astronomas", "biologas", etc. non grammatice scriptas, quae corrigendae sunt. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:41, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Paginae ex aliis Vicipaediis versae / Pages translated from other wikis[recensere]

Quando paginam e Vicipaedia alia vertimus, nobis oportet (secundum licentiam CC) fontem versionis auctoresque illius fontis rite citare. Apud alias Vicipaedias haec res rite facitur. Iamdudum de hac re disputavimus, sed consensum haud attinximus. Usor:Habemus ad paginam Seiko Noda quaestionem retractat Versiones ex aliis Vicipaediis rarius facio ego, sed sunt qui crebriter faciunt, nisi fallor (e.g. Iacobus, Maria Martelli; Jondel? alii?). An oportet modum "normalem" citationis intravicipaedicae constituere? Quid dicitis, o amici?

When we translate a page from another Wikipedia we ought, according to the CC license, to cite the source and the authors of that source. On other Wikipedias this now happens. We talked about it long ago but we didn't reach consensus. Usor:Habemus has raised this question again at Seiko Noda. I rarely translate from other Wikipedias in this way, but some do it quite often, I think (Iacobus, Maria Martelli, Jondel I guess? others too?) Should we fix on one particular style for citing another wiki as text source? What do you think about this? Andrew Dalby 10:09, 25 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Aliae Vicipaediae habent formulam conversionis (e.g. en:Template:Translated page) quae attributionem desideratam praebeat, ut mihi videtur. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:10, 25 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Our previous discussion was here: Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 17#Acknowledging translations. My view on these matters has not changed since then. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:32, 25 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Please forgive me for doing this: from that long confusing discussion (which everyone can still read!) I am copy-pasting your first comment in here because I think it makes the position beautifully clear. ?Andrew Dalby 10:31, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
When translating an article from another wikipedia, it is legally required to attribute the original text to the original authors. On the different ways how this can be done, see en:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, in particular en:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution. --UV 21:15, 29 Maii 2011 (UTC)
Forgiven. ;-) --UV (disputatio) 22:25, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
I think we need now to decide among us which method to follow, and make it a firm rule. To me, the two choices are to insert a proper form of words in the summarium, or to create a talk page and add a template to it. I would gently suggest that acknowledgement on the page itself is a bad idea (it would eventually either get deleted, or become irrelevant to the current state of the page). So I am going to list the two good possibilities that I can see. If anyone needs to add a third possibility, go ahead. So, please, if you edit Vicipaedia, state a preference below and then add a comment if you wish.
Necesse est igitur modum seligere et regulam inter nos imponere; aut citationem in summario editionis inscribere, aut paginam disputationis creare ibique formulam implere. Suggero peius esse in pagina ipsa encyclopaedica citationem addere, quia aut obsolescit aut delebitur. Subter igitur optiones separatim scribo, omnibusque, qui apud nos agunt, praeferentias vestras subscribere suadeo. Andrew Dalby 10:31, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Modus 1
In summarium verba inserere talia: "E pagina [[:fr:François Hollande]] conversa. De auctoribus vide historiam eius paginae" --
  • Praefero Andrew Dalby 10:31, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
  • Praefero etiam. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:54, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
  • Praefero ut facere solebam anteriore. Mihi simpliciore videtur. Nunc de vertere quia iam fama est res alia lingua, melius vertere quam creare.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:10, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
  • Et ego hunc modum praefero.--Utilo (disputatio) 15:22, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
  • Praeferro --Aylin (disputatio) 16:43, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
  • Praefero Lesgles (disputatio) 17:30, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
  • Hunc modum praefero (but I consider modum 2 acceptable as well, in particular when the translator forgot to add that line to the edit summary in the first place) --UV (disputatio) 22:25, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC
  • Praeferendus et mihi videtur hic primus modus, sed usoris:UV opinionem supra dictam confirmo. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:39, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Modus 2
Paginam disputationis creare ibique formulam inserere talem: "{{Attributio|fr|François Hollande}}" --
  • Since increasing the number of talk pages will increase the project's wikipedian quality, measured as depth (and vicipaedians surely want to increase Vicipaedia's quality), the preferable procedure will be to follow some version of modus 2, creating a talk page not long after creating its article, ea re duos parietes de eadem fidelia dealbans. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:26, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Commentationes --
  • At the bottom of every text I translate and then add to Vicipaedia, I put a link to the wiki and article from which the content comes. That method establishes the history without much verbal baggage. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:36, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Are you choosing one of the two methods above or proposing a third?
If you mean that you insert one of the old-fashioned interwiki links, I think it doesn't meet the need (and is likely to be deleted anyway), but others may wish to comment ... Andrew Dalby 15:20, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Surely (for legal purposes, recently invoked) the machinery remembers everything, whether casual readers can see it or not? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:26, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Well, old revision text is not as easily accessible as the history page itself, and looking through the text of old revisions can be quite cumbersome. But, most importantly of all, I fear that adding an old-style interwiki link will not sufficiently convey the idea "hey, I herewith attribute this text to the authors that can be found on the history page of the page that appears to the left below 'linguis aliis'", but rather just "I believe that this article deals with the same subject as that other article". Therefore, I fear that just adding an old-style interwiki link does not satisfy the requirements of attribution to authors, while modi 1 and 2 above (more or less) do. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:25, 26 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
  • UV's point (further above) is significant -- the editor needs to know what to do after forgetting to choose the correct summarium. It's easily done! But easily corrected. Yes, it's quite possible to create a talk page and give an acknowledgement on it; also, perhaps, it's possible to make a minor edit afterwards, and choose the required summarium when saving the minor edit? Andrew Dalby 09:33, 27 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
  • With Iacobus's point (further above) about increasing Vicipaedia's so-called depth I disagree. I very often agree with you, Iacobe! But if we have a few seconds to spare, I say, let's use them to make Vicipaedia better, not to make a bot think Vicipaedia is deeper. (I know I'm speaking to the converted -- you use your own spare seconds in exactly the way I suggest!) Andrew Dalby 09:45, 27 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
It's rare these days to encounter the argument that killing two birds with one stone (duos parietes de eadem fidelia dealbans) is a bad idea; but in any case, modus 2 has to be available, even if only as a backup. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:10, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
It's just a personal view. But, yes, both methods are needed. Andrew Dalby 18:02, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
In Italian Wikipedia, we insert this template in the talk page <<Tradotto da|fr|Cornelis Helmbreecker|25 marzo 2010|43986277>>, that is <<Translate from|fr|Cornelis Helmbreecker|March, 25th 2010|43986277 (revision number)>>. So we obtain "Questa voce contiene una traduzione, completa o parziale, della voce originale «Cornelis Helmbreecker» tratta da fr.wikipedia.org. La versione tradotta è la numero 43986277 del 25 marzo 2010. Consulta la cronologia della pagina originale per conoscere l'elenco degli autori", that is "This page includes a translation, complete or partial, of the original article Cornelis Helmbreecker from the French Wikipedia. The revision translate is the number 43986277 of March, 25th 2010. See the original article's history for knowing the authors". So, we highlight both complete and partial translation. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 18:55, 27 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion (?)[recensere]

I want to explain (because of the point raised by Iacobus above) that this is about people, not about what the machine can read. Just as in academic writing people acknowledge in some appropriate way, for human eyes, the work of preceding authors that they are using (e.g. footnotes, bibliography, preface, mention in the text) we need to do this here too. It's different in detail in this case (a) because the preceding authors have given their work under the CC license, and (b) because they are numerous and tracing individual contributions would be hard work. But, under the CC license and under intellectual property law and practice, this thing needs to be done! If we don't do it in one of the very simple ways proposed, we would have to do it in a far more complex way, identifying and acknowledging the work of individual wikipedia editors that we have adapted. Let's not go that way!

My impression is that most editors prefer the method of inserting a proper form of words in the summarium, but that there is a need to make both methods available (e.g. if one forgets to use the summarium text, or if the acknowledgement has to be more complex, or if there is a reason to create a talk page anyway).

The summarium method is quickest -- all you need to do is to copy that full text in once, and then, each time afterwards, call it up, paste the foreign pagename into it, and save -- but the talk page method can be almost as quick if we make a formula. I will make a formula later today. We should from now on accept that one of these two methods is required when a whole page or a large part of a page is translated, and all agree to do it. OK? Andrew Dalby 10:16, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see this before my comment below. I agree with having both methods on hand, and I can add the formula to some of the pages I've translated in the past. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:35, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

The formula {{Attributio}} is now available, intended to be placed on a talk page. To use it in the simplest way, just insert the language and the original page name, e.g. {{Attributio|fr|François Hollande}}. Andrew Dalby 19:24, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Date veniam, o Latinistae! Usque adhuc caudam huius disputationis Anglice, non Latine, supposui. Gratias nunc licet agere -- et re vera necesse est! -- propter paginas quas nos ex aliis Vicipaediis convertimus. Duobus modis facere possumus: aut verbis (sicut supra citavi) in summario statim positis, aut disputatione iuxta paginam novam creata et formula {{Attributio|en|Pagename}} inscripta. Si exemplum quaeritis, vide s.v.p. Disputatio:Renascentia Franciscopolis ab Iacobo nostro nuper creatam. Andrew Dalby 17:15, 2 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Attributions and wikipedian quality[recensere]

Implementing the suggestion to attribute translated texts to their sources, I've recently added about 600 talk pages with attributions in them—the method that current users did not prefer (vide supra). Probably as a result, Vicipaedia's wikipedian quality has risen from about 10.61 to 10.67. (Because of the confounding effect of the continuing addition of new items, the true correlation can't be known, but the trend, ordinarily stable but recently rising, has been clear.) By this measure, defined here, Vicipaedia ranks 105th out of 129 wikis, far below its ranking on other indexes of quality: the 1000 most important pages (37th out of 278) and the 10,000 most important pages (49th out of 275). Quality is measured as a relationship between the number of articles and the number of nonarticles, defined as "user pages, redirects, images, 'project' pages, categories, templates, and all talk pages." Long ago, Vicipaedians (me quidem recusante) decided to slow Vicipaedia's growth in said quality by disallowing the local uploading of images, but the other methods remain. Let's have more "user pages, redirects, . . . 'project' pages, categories, templates," and talk pages! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:14, 18 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on the templates right now.
If you have decided to tidy up some pages on Italian villages (see below), you can sugar the pill by encouraging the creation of even more redirects from alternative Italo-Latin names ... if you really think we need them :) Andrew Dalby 14:30, 18 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
The Italian hamlets (not to mention the French communes) are too numerous to save singlehandedly, but a few clicks on the fortuitous-page generator will almost invariably turn up one of those pages (not to mention an asteroid), almost all of which exhibit vacant sections. ¶ The Italian ones have the curious formula englishable as "X is a town of Italy and a municipium." One wonders why that's not X est oppidum et municipium Italicum. It's almost as if "a town of Italy" must be a technical term, like oppidum Novae Angliae, but then the special definition might want to be signaled to the reader with a link: municipium et [[oppidum Italiae]] or municipium et [[oppidum Italiae|oppidum Italicum]]. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:01, 18 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
The asteroids are on my mind. Personally I think those pages look OK, but I can't deny they are boring. I began long ago to write about the origin of each name in turn, and it is near the top of my list of things to get back to ... Andrew Dalby 15:06, 18 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
The asteroids look fine to me. Ironically (because their aim was to improve Vicipaedia), since the bot failed to generate talk pages for them, they reduced Vicipaedia's "wikipedian quality," and since there were so many of them, they did so to a large degree. One wonders if the bot couldn't be summoned to come back and generate talk pages with attributions on them. Can a bot recognize its own work? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:15, 18 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
They aren't translations: they are (in nearly every case) longer and fuller than is to be found on any other Wikipedia. The source is off-Wikipedia, and is already credited on the page itself. Hmm, but, would you care to start an astral bodies project? I'll join it, and we can add all these pages to it with a talk page banner, and move the attribution at the same time. Andrew Dalby 15:46, 18 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

What's to be done with people[recensere]

What's to be done with people unfamiliar with wikipedia (perhaps in any language) who in good faith contribute translated articles without the acknowledgment discussed above? Should their texts be marked {{Non stipula}}? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:10, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

You see, we often do agree! I was wondering about the same thing.
Common case: if it's immediately recognisable as a translation, that will often be because it's Google "translated" and therefore to be marked "Non Latine". Much rarer case: if it's goodish Latin, but we happen to know that it's a translation, it would be a pity to condemn it just for that reason. I'm not sure, in other words ... Andrew Dalby 17:29, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Could we include a retroactive edit summary? Find something to edit, then write "Recensio prior textum continet ex pagina fr:François Hollande conversum" or something like that? Lesgles (disputatio) 18:34, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)
Or (as you suggest above) start a talk page with {{Attributio||}}. Yes, I think so. To be honest, it largely depends on whether the page seems worth keeping or not. Andrew Dalby 21:03, 2 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

en:Do not buy Russian goods![recensere]

Hello! Could you translate an article about boycott of Russian goods in Ukraine for the Latin Wikipedia? Thanks for the help.--Trydence (disputatio) 22:19, 25 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLIX[recensere]

Since the super bowl is "second only to the UEFA Champions League final as the most watched annual sporting event in the world" (sez Wikipedia), I've created a page for today's event, perhaps attracting visitors who might notice it while taking a break from stuffing themselves (Americans eat more food on this day than on any day other than Thanksgiving). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:19, 1 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Feminae 1000 +[recensere]

Videte supra. Paginam "Vicipaedia:Feminae 3000" (sic) incipio. Ibi potestis, si vultis, nomina mulierum celebrium et celebrandarum inscribere. Ne timeatis! ex indice longiori possumus breviorem conficere. Andrew Dalby 21:15, 2 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Paginae "custoditae", categoriae "proxima", emendatio "novissimus"[recensere]

Titulus "Paginae custoditae" mihi inadaequatus videtur. Ego (sicut et alii) non sum "custos" aliquarum paginarum, sed observator nonnullarum paginarum. Motionem ergo huius tituli ad "Paginae observatae" propono sicut et interruptoris (?) "Paginam custodire" in "Paginam observare". Qualis est vestra opinio?Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 17:05, 8 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Novissime animadverti formas inadaequatas in linea ima paginarum categoriarum ("proxima" - forma correcta esset "proximae" sc. categoriae) sicut et in lineis supremis et infimis historiarum paginarum ("Conferre emendationes selectas / novissimus - veterrimus" - formae correctae essent "novissima" et "veterrima". Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 10:58, 14 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

"Paginae custoditae" iam in "Paginas observatas" a quodam mutatae sunt. De aliis corrigendis tuis consentio, sed quomodo efficere nescio. UV fortasse ... Andrew Dalby 21:27, 28 Martii 2015 (UTC)
Ego nexum in angulo paginae mutavi, sed nomen "paginae custoditae" manet in ipsa pagina Specialis:Paginae_custoditae manet. Subtilitates TranslateWiki nondum intellexi. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:26, 28 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Verba latina in lingua scientifica et in usu veterum[recensere]

Cum paginas de medicina scriptas lego et emendare conor, mihi exstitit quaestio sequens: Utrum in Vicipaedia verba latina secundum usum in lingua Latina classica an secundum definitiones scientificas hodiernas definiamus (cf. e. g. umerus, axilla)? Puto decisionem principalem necessariam esse. Possibile etiam esset, quod unam definitionem primo loco, alteram secundo loco facimus. Fortasse haec decisio iam ab annis facta, sed mihi ignota est. Quis me adiuvabit? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 10:36, 14 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

... et nemo respondit! Quia re vera haec res difficilis est, Bis-Taurine. Nos apud Vicipaediam linguá per duo milia annorum ab eruditis aliisque usitatá utimur. Nos, sicut maiores fere omnes, linguá classicá scribere conamur, sed illos, qui hác nostrá linguá etiam hodie in nomenclaturas suas adhibentur, contemnere haud decet. Illis enim, inter alios, encyclopaedia nostra utilis esse vult.
Si de re nova scribimus (de dioecesi Catholica, de universitate Africae Australis, de specie nova biologica, de cratere lunari, de re anatomica vel pathologica antiquis haud nota), facile est. Linguá classicá utimur, sed nomina, ab eis statuta, accipimus. Quis disputabit?
Sed si de re antiquis iam notá et in taxinomiis hodiernis enumeratá, deis omnibus gratias agimus qui redirectiones infinitas nobis postulantibus creant. Oportet nomen antiquum nomenque scientificum hodiernum in primá sententiá comprehendere, fontibus citatis. Quid nomen prioritatem habebit? Ego editori, qui de hoc rerum genere paginas aut creare aut augere velit, libertatem dare suadeo. Monumentum aëneum sed non immutabile creamus. Andrew Dalby 19:35, 16 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Salve Andreas, gratias tibi dico ob responsum tuum spienten, quod solvit dubium meum. Praeterea illud Horatii "Exegi monumentum aere perennius." per me in Vicipaedia scribentem non petiam. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 20:17, 16 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Athenae[recensere]

Pluralis vel singularis numerus? In Athenae modo numerus singularis modo pluralis in usu est. --Alex1011 (disputatio) 21:15, 16 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

  • "Athenae" semper numero plurali tractandae sunt. Alter usus in pagina "Athena" falsus et corrigendus est. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:22, 16 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Recte dicis, sed oportet curiosius legere; si e.g. "urbs" verbum regit, singularis est, ut scimus! De quibus sententiis Alex quaerit, nescio. Andrew Dalby 09:33, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Sententiae interea a Bis-Taurino correctae sunt. --Alex1011 (disputatio) 10:07, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Alia sententia quae corrigenda est: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/athenae-delenda-est/?_r=0 --Alex1011 (disputatio) 10:09, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Ita est : Athena dea est, Athenae urbs. Non tamen semper ita simplex est quia linguae antiquae concordantias "ad sensum" vel cum proximo nomine recipere solent. Itaque mea quidem opinione tam recte Athenae caput Graeciae est quam Athenae caput Graeciae sunt scribere licet. Qua de causa in definitione pluralium tantum nominum semper me piget singulari numero praedicati quia sententia tunc mihi claudicare videtur Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 10:23, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

De inundatione nexuum[recensere]

Num vere usus utilis est paene omne verbum textorum paginarum in nexum mutare, verba etiam trivialia sicut mons, aqua, homo et similia? Credo, quod in hac re alicubi est finis, post quem lectores paginarum plus impedimus quam adiuvamus et ideo usus fit abusus. Quis vestrum similiter mei sentit, quis dissentit? Respondete, quaero! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 01:21, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Haec inundatio inutilis est. Primi Vicipaediani hoc fecerunt, magnitudinem Vicipaediae futurae nondum praevidentes. Hoc iam diu in Taberna diximus (sed ubi? nescio). Quando paginam recenses, Bis-Taurine, oportet (sicut in aliis Vicipaediis) nexus ad rem principalem pertinentes retinere (et addere si necesse sit), alios sine metu removere. (NB: Apud Vicipaediam Anglicam nexus annorum et dierum fere omnes nuper remoti sunt; tales hic retinere licet, dico ego, quia utiles sunt ad paginas calendarias augendas.) An alii consentiunt? Andrew Dalby 09:22, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Consentio atque ita iamdudum sentiebam ut in verbis deus, poeta etc. Nisi ad tironum utilitatem scribimus qui linguam Latinam nesciunt. Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 10:00, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Omnia quidem in mundo perfecto suos nexus desiderabunt verba, etiam esse non excepto; nonnulli autem lectores ut videtur colores oderunt. Remedium manifesto est quoddam gadget excogitare, quod totos textus in monitoriis singulis nigros imprimet, lectoribus volentibus. Oderint, dum litteras solum nigras videant! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:25, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
In mundo perfecto, fortasse. Sub hoc caelo, lectores encyclopaediarum res notabiliores, citationes pertinentes et nexus utiliores desiderant: scriptoribus igitur deligere oportet. Andrew Dalby 13:25, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Consentio et ego, et gaudeo, quod mentio huius rei denuo facta est. Non solum colores turbant, sed etiam eorundem nexuum inanium in eadem commentatione repetitiones non placent. Neander (disputatio) 14:13, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Commentario de mentione carente, melius nexus ad mentionem vel mentionem fortasse erit. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:32, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Ego "usor nexuum" in itwiki sum et secundum rationem et experientiam haec inundatio inutilis est. delenda sunt.--Alexmar983 (disputatio) 19:54, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Cum Andrea consentio. Non necesse est Anglophonos in omnibus sequi, sed exemplar en:WP:OVERLINK, nonnullis regulis exceptis, mihi utile videtur. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:44, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Partes vacuae[recensere]

Quam ob rem debet Vicipaedia vacuas commentariorum partes ostendere? Quas partes in Caravatum, exempli gratia, deleveramus, sed auctor hodie restituit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:04, 18 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Nisi pagina "in progressu" rubricatur, bene erit res supervacaneas delere et in formam paginae encyclopaedicae cogere. Andrew Dalby 14:23, 18 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Per automaton fieri potest in (ut videtur) nonnullis milibus paginarum Nuadanarum? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:32, 18 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Salve optime IacobusAmor et optime Andrew. Ego existimo necessarias partes vacuae ac ostendere ipsas. Hoc adiuvat scripturam ac expletamentum partium--Nuada (disputatio) 12:37, 4 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Quaestio de transducendo[recensere]

Hi, could someone tell me where to find a source for Latin mathematic lexicon? I've sought around the net, but I found nothing. Thanks!--Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 17:29, 22 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

I don't know of a specific dictionary, but for mathematical concepts that existed before the 19th century, you can usually find a primary source on Wikisource, Google Books, or a similar site (e.g. Newton's Principia Mathematica, Euler's Introductio in analysin infinitorum). It can take a while to find the right term though. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:26, 23 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, it might be useful the same ;) --Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 21:56, 23 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

paerum?[recensere]

Legens de vita atque operibus Iosephi Myslivecek, illius compositoris Bohemici et coaetanei Wolfgangi Mozart, in angustias incidi. Nam in numeris missarum ab eodem factarum (anno 1772) invenio certam nomine paerum elegans. Poteritisne, o sodales, mihi explanare, quis aut quid sit istud paerum'? Per aliquot ambages adveneram ad cycnum (avem) vel Cycnum (regem in avem mutatum); sed quid ille pertineat ad missam liturgicam (vel vice versa)? --Bavarese (disputatio) 17:00, 24 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Paginam de:Josef Mysliveček legis? Fortasse parum intellegitur? Mentionem huius missae non invenio in Grove Dictionary, fonte plerumque completo, in quo de missis eius tantum dicitur: "2 masses, lost, mentioned in DlabacžKL; other works; attrib. Mysliveček, doubtful". Lesgles (disputatio) 19:50, 24 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Sententia[recensere]

Wikipedia Anglica dicit Anglicum motto in Latinum conversum esse muttum, a grunniendo (vide L&S), non sententia. Re vera? Cur ergo scribimus sententiam et sententiolam? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:03, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Cassell's: motto = sententia, dictum, praeceptum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:04, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Ainsworth's: motto = symbolum, emblema. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:06, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
Ego recentissime, nullis lexicis bilinguibus perlectis, verbum motto vertens "praeceptum" dixi (inter parametra apud Formula:Capsa civitatis Vicidata). Ergo cum Cassell's volens nolens consentio. Andrew Dalby 18:37, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)
"Derived from" non semper significat "should be translated as". Muttum in lingua post-classica "mutter, grunt" significat, in lingua mediaevali "word", e.g. "ne muttum quidem audet dicere".[2] Sed "muttum urbis" etc. mea sententia non rectum sit. Lesgles (disputatio) 23:42, 28 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Game of Thrones[recensere]

Personas e Game of Thrones multas, singulis paginis brevibus laureatas, Iacobus sub rubrica "non stipula" misit. Recte fecit. Nisi quis illas paginas augere velit, ego in paginam singulam, i.e. indicem personarum, convertere propono. Quid dicitis? Andrew Dalby 19:41, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

Consentio ego! Lesgles (disputatio) 23:30, 28 Februarii 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjects?[recensere]

Does Vicipaedia have WikiProjects (or rather, the Latin equivalent) like those that are used on other Wikipedias? If so where can they be found. If not, would they it a good idea to start using them? Seltaeb Eht (disputatio) 20:04, 1 Martii 2015 (UTC)

There have been some efforts at doing opera communia: Opus:Lovecraft, Opus:Politica Franciae, Opus:Tolkien, but I don't think any of them are active now. There are few enough active editors here that some joint work happens organically, but if you want to try to organize efforts around a certain subject, feel free! Lesgles (disputatio) 20:17, 1 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Communia Francica[recensere]

Dear Andrew,

if you explain me:

  • 1) why had all wikipedias used in the past (but also now) the pages on the French Communes to enhance their quantity of articles. Most of these wikis have shorter and worse articles than the ones I created;
  • 2) are you sure that in the future with bots we could not add new external sources or change the pages of the no more existing communes (other wikis has already pages on old communes)?
  • 3) if nobody adds new articles, how can we increase this Wikipedia (last week I was practily one of the few who created new articles);
  • 4) some years ago I saw in a library a Larousse of the '70. The articles were shorter and less informative than ours;
  • 5) from my point of view it doesn't make sense to change the name of a commune in the index with his Latin name without any reference. Not knowing the reference, when I had to create the page I had to change again the name otherwise somebody would have add sine fontes. In the past I have do it myself without critizing anybody because I believe that here all are doing their best to ameliorate vicipaedia;
  • 6) I do not understand why add a non stipula to articles relating e.g to Czeck towns (not done by me) when in 30 seconds you can add an external link, an image and update the number of inhabitants;
  • 7) there are new interesting new pages (nuntii) but they're also new chores. Therefore we should update them regulary. There's no worse for our image than find on February 15th as news a piece of news of February 1st;
  • 8) I would do with pleasure other less dull and boring work therefore I will stop here with la.wikipedia.org.

Best regards

Massimo

I replied to some of these points -- well or badly -- on Massimo's talk page. As to no. 5 above, Massimo is quite right that when moving a page (unless merely to correct an error) we should always cite a reference for the new name. As to no. 6, I wouldn't criticise anyone for adding a "Non stipula" tag because this in itself may encourage someone else, who knows the subject well, to make improvements. But it is also a good thing, as Massimo says, to make the improvement instead of adding "Non stipula", and I think we all often do this. Andrew Dalby 13:53, 2 Martii 2015 (UTC)
On #6: "when in 30 seconds you can add an external link": we don't always have 30 seconds; that's why, quite often when improving an article, one leaves errors standing: one has noticed them, but, as people say, we "have bigger fish to fry." Of course, when time is perceived to be abundant, one might be observed angling for the minutest of fish. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:45, 2 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Non iam stipulae[recensere]

Paginis pluribus antiquioribus formulá "Non stipula" rubricatis, quarum multas non delere sed augere oportebit, verba formulae Non stipula emendavi: loco "inter 7 dies" scripsi "inter 6 menses". An recte feci?

Qui tales paginas augere volunt categoriam Non stipula perlegere possunt. Andrew Dalby 12:44, 4 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Utile ergo erit programma quod commentarios ordine temporale impositionis huius formulae perscribat. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:53, 4 Martii 2015 (UTC)
Consentio, sed quomodo facere nescio! Alius quis fortasse potest? Andrew Dalby 16:12, 4 Martii 2015 (UTC)
Non difficile est, si re vera licet automatis paginas delere. Nonne malumus homines discernere utrum paginae retinendae an delendae sint? (I can see exactly how to write this: it's just the same as any other bot routine that walks through a category. You check the date, you delete if it's too old. Probably takes half an hour to write and debug, 15 minutes to run through the category and sweep away the debris. But I'm very squeamish about deleting pages without human intervention.) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:12, 5 Martii 2015 (UTC)
Nescio an Iacobus idem rem atque ego dicere voluit, sed ego deletionem talium paginarum automaticam non (ter non) suadeo. Absit omen! Volui in formulam "Non stipula" additionem automaticam mensis (et fortasse diei) quo formula ad paginam respectivam addita sit. An id effici potest, nescio. Andrew Dalby 15:43, 5 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Videte quaeso Usor:Amahoney/Non stipula ubi chartulam invenietis omnium talium paginarum, per diem ultimae modificationis digestas. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:47, 12 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago! Perutilis haec pagina erit. Andrew Dalby 18:10, 12 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Pagina mensualis mensis Martii[recensere]

In texto de Universitate Viennense scripto verbum inveni, quod est emendandum: "antiquate" --> "antiquitate". Rogo, ut aliquis magistratuum emendationem faciat. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 08:33, 8 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Salve Bis-Taurine! Feci. Sed et ipse facere potuisses (?)--Utilo (disputatio) 09:08, 8 Martii 2015 (UTC)
Gratias ambobus vobis! Correxi et in Formula:PaginaMensis/Martii 2015 (haec formula, quam omnibus usoribus recensere licet, in pagina prima monstratur, cf. Vicipaedia:Pagina mensis). --UV (disputatio) 09:44, 8 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Hey there![recensere]

As a bit of a budding Latinist, thanks so much to the Vicipædia community for this website. My Latin isn't that good (I read it better than I write it) but I didn't like just to lurk, so I made an account, and named it in honour of my favourite food in the world, the vas muliebre. Hope it's not considered offensive; I love the taste of woman, and, as a proud heterosexual male, I wanted my user name to reflect this. --Landica (disputatio) 22:20, 17 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Welcome! Well, I would suggest that you choose a different username, since our current policy prohibits the use of profane language for usernames, see Vicipaedia:Nomina usorum (in Latin) or Vicipaedia:Nomina usorum/en (in English). --UV (disputatio) 22:28, 17 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Centrum et Vallis Ligeris[recensere]

Quod est rectum nomen Latinum regionis Centrum et Vallis Ligeris ? Centrum mihi haud Latine sonat--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 09:03, 19 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Centrum, "pes fixus circini" aut "punctum medium circuli", reperitur apud Vitruvium et Plinium. Translatio ad punctum medium Franciae hexagonicae non mala mihi videtur. Sed fortasse Medium et Vallis Ligeris est melius? Lesgles (disputatio) 19:04, 20 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Gratias agere[recensere]

Quando historiam paginarum aut differentias inspicimus, possumus gratias editori agere propter mutationem utilem nuper factam. Hodie autem, si id facere volo, quaestio mihi Anglice ponitur "Send public thanks for this edit?" Quomodo "public"? Nonne possumus, sicut antea, gratias privatas agere? Andrew Dalby 09:43, 23 Martii 2015 (UTC)

After raising a question at the English Wiki I now understand: someone changed the MediaWiki message, probably because of a current debate on the German Wiki. So we need to replace the MediaWiki message with Latin text. I have just tried to do this at MediaWiki:Thanks-confirmation2, but I am not sure if I have succeeded. Andrew Dalby 13:31, 23 Martii 2015 (UTC)
Ecce. Gratias tibi misimus. OK? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:39, 23 Martii 2015 (UTC)
Gratias tuas recepi! OK! Andrew Dalby 13:48, 23 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Auxilium ad categoriam movendam[recensere]

Video Garumna superior in Garunna Superior emendata est, qui mihi auxilium dat Categoria:Communia Praefecturae Garumnae Superioris ad Categoria:Communia praefecturae Garunnae Superioris movere. Gratias iam ago--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 10:24, 29 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Petitionem tuam in pagina Vicipaedia:Automata/Petitiones de categoriis movendis inscripsi, mi Helvetice. Andrew Dalby 11:50, 29 Martii 2015 (UTC)

Partes vacuae[recensere]

Quid de partibus vacuis? Exempli gratia, vide historiam huius commentarii. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:17, 1 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Similiter de imaginibus bis datis, ut in eodem commentario. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:21, 1 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Utile est habere istos titulos, licet orbos, tanquam structuram quandam. Dum vero nihil sequitur, eos legere plurimum taedet. Mea sententia isti tituli sint quidem in fonte nec appareant in pagina. Quod facillime fit, cum inter <!-- et --> ponuntur. Laurentianus (disputatio) 09:52, 4 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Alii aliter; regulam usque hodie non habemus, nisi fallor.
Ossa commentarii non iam scripti in usum aliorum Vicipaedianorum relinquere deprecor ego, quia liberi sumus! Nonne commentariorum quodam modo a Neandro, alio modo a Iacobo, alio etiam a M. T. Bibliophilo, etc. etc. scriptorum repertu et lecturá fruimur? Hac ratione verba celata, quae ego ipse olim interdum in paginis a me creatis reliqui, hodie fere omnia deleo aliisque delere suadeo. Eadem ratione rubricas vacuas delere soleo.
NB: si modo classico recensemus aut categorias mutamus, verba celata videmus. Si "editoris visualis" ope recensemus aut "HotCat" ope categorias mutamus, ea verba nobis celantur. Hodiernis igitur temporibus verba celata utilitatis etiam minoris sunt (dico ego).
Exemplum a Iacobo delatum de oppido Italico agit. Ibi systema a Nuada inceptum et in omnibus talibus paginis applicatum utilissimum fuit ad hoc opus, sine ullo dubio, sed ad naturam encyclopaediae futurae non omnino convenit: alii igitur mutabuntur. Ego eisdem recensionibus, quibus talem paginam augeo, systema illud legibilitatis causá muto (e.g. Verona, Augusta Taurinorum; eandem rem mox in Sicilia faciam). Andrew Dalby 12:04, 4 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Andrea, quam optime posuisti insignia ista in symbolis Veronam et Augustam Taurinorum tractantibus. Exemplum dignum, quod et ab aliis observetur! Iacobo assentior imaginum duplicationem questo. Neander (disputatio) 12:44, 4 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Salve optime IacobusAmor et optime Andrew. Ego existimo necessarias partes vacuae ac ostendere ipsas. Hoc adiuvat scripturam ac expletamentum partium--Nuada (disputatio) 12:37, 4 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Ego cum Andrea et Iacobo consentio. Mea quidem sententia talibus titulis nihil continentibus species est aspera et non "professionalis". Si pagina vere elaboratur, partes vacuae sunt fortasse utiles (formula igitur "in progressu" ponatur), sed maior pars paginarum iam plures menses annosve "carne" carent. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:50, 6 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Why do links to other languages do not work for..[recensere]

...Cynthia Lennon. Of course also the Capsa hominis Vicidata does not work. Could please somebody help me?--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 07:09, 5 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

I m fixing this. I just go the English wiki and click at the Edit links, bottom left, click edit then add la plus the article name.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:34, 5 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
I see you did it, Jondel. That's great. Andrew Dalby 08:37, 5 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 09:06, 5 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Vertere lingua germanica in linguam latinam[recensere]

Salvete!

Volo vertere scriptorem in linguam latinam examini (BLL Besondere Lernleistung). Vertiti multe et dedi id magistro, sed dixit scriptorem valde germanice audire. Habetis consilium vertendo?

Gratias agite!

Hallo Ich möchte gerne einen Text ins Lateinische übersetzen für mein Examen (BLL). Ich hab schon viel übersetzt und gab diesen (den Text) einem Lehrer, aber der sagte, dass der Text sich zu "Deutsch" anhört. Habt ihr Tipps für das Übersetzen (dativus commodi). Vielen Dank (habt dank) --84.128.168.119 11:07, 11 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Salve tu quoque! Si verba temporalia in finem enuntiatorum ponis, hae enuntiata statim melius sonabunt. Germanice (et anglice), verba in secunda positione stant -- latine autem prope finem. Dic ergo: "Multos textus verti, quos magistro dedi, sed scripturas valde germanice sonare dixit." A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:17, 13 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Sanctae femininae[recensere]

Recensens Paginam Bernadetta Lapurdensis animadverti, quod in capsa Sanctorum formae femininae monstrari non possunt. Scitne aliquis aliquam solutionem?Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 21:59, 14 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

De verbis Natus etc curas? Iam me soluisse reor. Tamen investiga si tibi placeas. Posse te soluere in Formula:Capsa sanctorum credo.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:05, 15 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Gratia ad UV faciliore pacto.--Jondel (disputatio) 11:19, 16 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

De translitteratione linguae Coreanae[recensere]

Mihi videtur paginas nostras de hominibus Coreanis neque translitteratione sibi cohaerenti, neque forma communi uti; vide e.g. Pak Zionghi (apud Anglos Park Chung-hee), Yi Syngman (apud Anglos Syngman Rhee), Ban Gi-mun (apud Anglos Ban Ki-moon). Translitteratio antiqua McCune-Reischauer dat Pak Chŏnghŭi, Yi Sŭngman, Pan Kimun.

Nulla translitteratio apud omnes approbatur. Ego suadeo "romanizationem revisam" (Revised Romanization) apud nos praeferendam quia (a) litteris simplicibus sine diacriticis exprimitur (b) hodie in Corea Meridiana in diariis aliisque editionibus recipitur. Dat e.g. Bak Jeonghui, I Seungman, Ban Gimun. Quid dicunt alii? Andrew Dalby 18:15, 16 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Egomet paene nihil novi de hac lingua eiusque orthographia, at translitterationes quae in documentis Latinis iam adhibitae sunt naturaliter faveam. Translitterationes enim quae ab incolis illorum populorum creatae sunt, uso Latino non sunt conformatae; quare nos occidentales non scimus qualis sit appellatio verborum orientalium optima. — Anedia (disputatio) 18:21, 22 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago propter responsum. Ego etiam pauca de hac re scio ... sed volui paginas de politicis Coreanis leviter augere. Scio romanizationem recensam a multis laudatam, sed non ab omnibus adhibitam! Igitur illam romanizationem (haud multo a translitteratione anteriori nostra differentem) in nomina paginarum accepi, sed sub illa, in capsa navigationis praesidum, "Anglicizationem" quo saepe diaria internationalia utuntur litteris italicis addidi, sicut hic videbis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:48, 22 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)
Usui hoc rationali, haud barbaro, aperto, non obstem. — Anedia (disputatio) 20:12, 22 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)

Pharnavaz I of Iberia[recensere]

Dear Friends I have been asked to create a page for en:Pharnavaz I of Iberia, do you believe that Parnaos I is the right Latin translation of this king's name? Somebody will help me to create Abecedarium Georgianum et Calligrahia Georgiana. Ciao--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 15:32, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)

Pharnabazus quidam a Cornelio Nepote ac Curtio Rufo saepe memoratur. Eadem forma nominis esse videtur. De homine nescio. Vale, Neander (disputatio) 15:45, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)
Here is a source giving Pharnabazus for the Georgian king. The names are probably from the same Persian root. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:15, 2 Maii 2015 (UTC)

Code {{Civitates foederalis}}[recensere]

Is this phrase grammatical? For an example of it, see the code of Virginia. (Yes, the nom. pl. of adjectives of two endings in early (preclassical) Latin was sometimes -īs, but we're not early Latin, are we?) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:13, 8 Maii 2015 (UTC)

It should be {{Civitates foederales}}? Is this form ok ?--Jondel (disputatio) 16:44, 9 Maii 2015 (UTC)
It isn't code. It's a long-abandoned name of the template that is now called Formula:Civitates Foederatae. There is a redirect, but anyone who cares to change surviving examples of the string {{Civitates foederalis}} to {{Civitates Foederatae}} can do so. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:26, 9 Maii 2015 (UTC)

Attributio per partes[recensere]

Quomodo facere? Fortasse "(partim)"? Vide Disputatio:Commentarii de Inepto Puero. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:05, 9 Maii 2015 (UTC)

Id quod dicere vis, verbis simplicibus sine formula dicere potes. Sed mihi videtur eandem rem de omnibus paginis Vicipaedicis, quae e versione ortae sunt, dicendam esse: omnes enim tali modo augere et corrigere necesse est. Vicipaedia (tam Anglica quam Latina) est opus nunquam perfectum, semper perficiendum (Wikipedia is a work in progress).
Scio autem me olim promisisse introductionem verbi "partim" in formulam ipsam si utile sit. Hodie ergo rem promissam perficere conabor! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:30, 9 Maii 2015 (UTC)
Feci. Post nomen paginae Anglicae oportet "||partim}}" addere, e.g.: {{Attributio|en|Diary of a Wimpy Kid||partim}}. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:12, 10 Maii 2015 (UTC)

De nominibus propriis: auxilii indigeo![recensere]

Salvete! In harenariis meis paginas de libris scribo, sed non scio quomodo aliqua nomina scribenda sint... nomina personarum librorum utenda inscriptione vulgari suntne anne vertenda (nomine latino pari) anne latine accomodanda? Loquor de praenominibus, quod gentilicia nomina vulgari scriptione utar, ut in pagina legi... haec nomina interdum finguntur, quod facendum est?--Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 19:32, 3 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Anglice scribam... meus latine scribendi mos fortasse bonus non est... Hi! I'm writing in my sandboxes some pages about books, but I don't know how to set some names... character names are to be left unchanged, to be translated (with an equivalent Latin name), or to be Latinized? I'm talking about names, because I'm going to leave unchanged surnames, as I've read in dedicated page... these names are sometimes invented, they don't exist in that language, so what should I do? --Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 19:32, 3 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I think you must leave surnames unchanged, if doesn't exist the latin conformity. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 18:28, 4 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
I did so :) but... what about PROPER names? With no Latin equivalent? Most book character names are coined, so you can't translate them. What should I do? If possible, tell me a way not to use indeclinable nouns... --Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 18:39, 4 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
In general, I think fictional names follow the rules for real names. First names are translated if there is a known Latin equivalent; last names (surnames) are translated if there is good evidence of a Latin name referring to that particular person, e.g. Ioannes Iacobus Russavius. In the case of fiction, the usual source would be a Latin translation (e.g. Harrius Potter), but this of course is not always available. Using indeclinable nouns is not so bad; it is the usual practice of the Vulgate version of the Bible, for instance. Sometimes adding in declinable adjectives or demonstratives can help make things clearer. Lesgles (disputatio) 20:02, 4 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
... yes, exactly, or maybe a noun in apposition. Or repeat the forename if it is declinable. This is what Latin writers do when referring to indeclinable names. If you want the genitive, you say "professoris Smith" or "iuvenis Smith" or "Ioannis Smith" [or "illius Smith"], or whatever noun or adjective comes to hand, rather than just "Smith".
If this doesn't seem to help, give us a couple of examples. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:24, 4 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
I find it a good solution, instead: I'll do so! Thanks everyone :) --Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 20:38, 4 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
As a curiosity, having just added the example "illius Smith", I realised that this is what you would do in modern Romanian also. You probably would not force a declension on the word, *"Smithului"; you would say "lui Smith". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:31, 5 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
Oh well, I'll do so however :) just I prefer to avoid them when I can :/--Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 18:25, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Pywikibot compat will no longer be supported - Please migrate to pywikibot core[recensere]

Sorry for English, I hope someone translates this.
Pywikibot (then "Pywikipediabot") was started back in 2002. In 2007 a new branch (formerly known as "rewrite", now called "core") was started from scratch using the MediaWiki API. The developers of Pywikibot have decided to stop supporting the compat version of Pywikibot due to bad performance and architectural errors that make it hard to update, compared to core. If you are using pywikibot compat it is likely your code will break due to upcoming MediaWiki API changes (e.g. T101524). It is highly recommended you migrate to the core framework. There is a migration guide, and please contact us if you have any problem.

There is an upcoming MediaWiki API breaking change that compat will not be updated for. If your bot's name is in this list, your bot will most likely break.

Thank you,
The Pywikibot development team, 19:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Boso Higgsianus[recensere]

De bosone Higgsiano (Higg's boson) stipulam feci (mirum est paginam illam nondum fuisse!). Si quis est rerum physicarum peritior, amplifices, amabo! Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 16:50, 7 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Auxilium[recensere]

May someone help me in this discussion. I know that Latin is official language of the Vatican City but someone says no. I am finding some references. --Ilario (disputatio) 09:22, 8 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Peto auxilium in hac disputatione. Scio lingua latina in Civitate Vaticanae officialis est sed alicuius negat. --Ilario (disputatio) 09:22, 8 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-24[recensere]

15:21, 8 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Galicia 20 - 20 Challenge[recensere]

Mapa de Galiza con bandeira.svg

Wikipedia:Galicia 20 - 20 Challenge is a public writing competition which will improve and translate this list of 20 really important articles into as many languages as possible. Everybody can help in any language to collaborate on writing and/or translating articles related to Galicia. To participate you just need to sign up here. Thank you very much.--Breogan2008 (disputatio) 10:16, 9 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

De lineis vacuis[recensere]

Notavi in nonnullis paginis nationes aut civitates tractantibus sub titulo esse lineam vacuam, quin etiam duas lineas, ut puta in paginis de Canada, Finnia, Alasca. Nullis in aliis Vicipaediis me talia vidisse memini. Estne aliquis ratio in his lineis, an possuntne removeri? Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 10:47, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Errata esse putamus. Alascam iam refecimus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:13, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
Removeri possunt. --UV (disputatio) 21:51, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #3—2015[recensere]

10:44, 13 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-25[recensere]

15:04, 15 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Indicetur hoc anno Certamen Vaticanum?[recensere]

Salvete, docti. Estne qui scit utrum Certamen Vaticanum (in orationibus vel prosis vel astrictis componendis) hoc anno celebrabitur? Pagina illius (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_certamen-vaticanum_lt.html ) pertinet ad MMXIV. Gratias! Jack Mitchell (disputatio) 22:38, 15 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

De ISBN[recensere]

An quis vult de scriptura numerorum ISBN hic commentum scribere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 16 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

I do read bibliographies, and I prefer to see ISBNs with their hyphens (or, better, en-dashes, right?). But I admit I'm often guilty of including block numbers, since I'm much more likely to copy them in from a library catalog or bookseller page. And it seems to me that publishers often group the digits differently: I have here a book from Oxford grouped as 123-1-12-123456-1, one from Wiley Blackwell as 123-1-1234-1234-1, and one from Focus as 123-1-12345-123-1 -- so there's no convenient automated way to put the grouping information back if it's not already in the article. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:19, 18 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
Reading the last digit is meaningless unless you can do modulo 11 in your head. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:31, 18 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
Credit cards have sixteen hyphenless digits, which one sometimes has to type online. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:31, 18 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
"Hyphenless" is true, but not the whole truth :) I have a couple of those. On mine, the number is a little easier for my brain to deal with because it is punctuated with spaces. I find the same with telephone numbers. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:50, 18 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
Mod-11 is easy, actually -- starting from the last digit, alternately add and subtract. So given 12345, calculate +5 - 4 + 3 - 2 + 1 = 3: this number is congruent to 3 mod 11. Which is right, because 12342 = 11 × 1122. Works much like casting out 9s and for much the same reasons. (OK, very geeky side note, I admit) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 15:57, 18 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
LOL. :) ¶ On a more practical note, ISBN hyphens can indeed be restored, and we know this because we've seen a bot do it; its stated purpose was to remove unnecessary interwiki links, but it made other changes quietly on the side, including the insertion of those hyphens. (Its name is elusive today.) That being the case, why not invent a gadget that restores ISBN hyphens to the screens of people who like them and suppresses those hyphens on the screens of people who don't? Then it wouldn't matter whether the hyphens were in the code or not. This gadget would work like those that turn "ae" into "æ" and uppercase–lowercase text into all caps. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:11, 18 Iunii 2015 (UTC)
The reason why the numbers are divided differently is because the publisher numbers -- the first group after the country number -- are of variable length. In a general way the more productive publishers (in the 1960s) had been given shorter publisher numbers (in the ancestral SBN system), leaving each of them a bigger range of title numbers. So Anne's observation above does not mean that individual publishers do it differently: it means that OUP has a shorter publisher number (19) than any of the ones that Wiley Blackwell has inherited (probably beginning with 3, 4 or 5), while Focus's publisher number (probably beginning with 7 or 8) is longer still. Long ago I published 3 books, and was given a 6-digit publisher number beginning with 9.
I raised this issue because I create a lot of bibliographies, often copy in the ISBNs, usually find them hyphenated (but not always), and find them easier to deal with mentally if they retain their hyphens. Indeed, I have a feeling that the hyphens are put there for people like me! I would suggest that removing them from our bibliographies is unhelpful. Of course, if the gadget Iacobus suggests is devised, and if there is a consensus that the choice is worth offering, a bot could then take all the hyphens out in a trice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:33, 18 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Hebrew Months[recensere]

Several of us, including @Iustinius and @Lesgles, have been discussing how to transcribe names of the Hebrew months, so that I can complete a Hebrew month calendar template and perhaps work on the article Calendarium Hebraicum. We're pretty near the end now, I think, but if those users or anyone else would like to weigh in further, please do so at Disputatio usoris:StevenJ81#Calendarium Hebraicum II. Thank you. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:36, 17 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today!

Today The Wikipedia Library announces signups for more 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:

  • Taylor & Francis — academic publisher of journals. The pilot includes two subject collections: Arts & Humanities and Biological, Environment & Earth Sciences. (30 accounts)
  • World Bank eLibrary — digital platform containing all books, working papers, and journal articles published by the World Bank from the 1990s to the present. (100 accounts)
  • AAAS — general interest science publisher, who publishes the journal Science among other sources (50 accounts)

New French-Language Branch!

  • Érudit (en Francais) — Érudit is a French-Canadian scholarly aggregator primarily, humanities and social sciences, and contains sources in both English and French. Signups on both English and French Wikipedia (50 accounts).
  • Cairn.info (en Francais) — Cairn.info is a Switzerland based online web portal of scholarly materials in the humanities and social sciences. Most sources are in French, but some also in English. Signups on both English and French Wikipedia (100 accounts).
  • L'Harmattan — French language publisher across a wide range of non-fiction and fiction, with a strong selection of francophone African materials (1000 accounts).

Many other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page, including an expansion of accounts for Royal Society journals and remaining accounts on Project MUSE, JSTOR, DeGruyter, Highbeam Newspapers.com and British Newspaper Archive. If you have suggestions for journals or databases we should seek access to make a request! Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 22:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We need your help! Help coordinate Wikipedia Library's account distribution and global development! 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

De coordinatis/coordinatoribus[recensere]

Tria verba pro en:coordinate in hac vicipaedia inveni: coordinata, coordinatum, et coordinator. Eulerus et Jacobi coordinata utebantur (vide hic et hic). Quis fontem pro ceteris verbis novit? Bavo C. Jozef (disputatio) 18:36, 18 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

HTTPS[recensere]

22:00, 19 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-26[recensere]

15:23, 22 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Omania[recensere]

Si nomen Latinum huius civitatis reperire potestis, s.v.p., fontem in illa pagina citate! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:21, 23 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Fontem in Lexico hodiernae Latinitatis Finno-Latino-Finnico inveni et addidi. Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 16:36, 24 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Paginae desideratae[recensere]

In indice desideratissimarum paginarum ab UV nostro gesto, iam non sunt paginae cui sunt plus ducenti nexus, sed manent aliquae sexaginta cui plus centum sunt. Si astronomia, Roma antiqua, etc. te delectant, vide Vicipaedia:Dump/Paginae desideratae et Usor:Lesgles/Paginae desideratae non astronomicae! Lesgles (disputatio) 18:26, 27 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-27[recensere]

15:56, 29 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Content Translation, the new article creation tool is now available as a beta-feature[recensere]

Tool icon
How to use Content Translation - a short video (English)

Hello, Content Translation has now been enabled as an opt-in beta feature on the Latin Wikipedia. To start translating:

  1. Please enable the Beta feature in your preferences by checking the box for Content Translation.
  2. Visit the page Special:ContentTranslation or to your contributions page to open the tool.
  3. Click on the button to create a new translation.
  4. In the displayed dialog select the language of the original article and the article name, and the language you would like to translate to. Also add the title of the new article (or the original title will be inserted) and click on to begin. Your language preferences will be remembered for the next time.
  5. You will see a screen consisting of three columns. The first column contains the text of the source language and the middle column is for the translated text. Using the third column you can perform several actions such as insert source text, remove the inserted text source text, add or remove links etc.
  6. After you translate the article, you can publish it directly as a new page on the Latin Wikipedia by using the publish button that appears. In case the article gets created by another user while you were translating, you will see an option to save the newly published translation under your user namespace.
  7. The number of published pages can be seen on the Content Translation stats page.

Since this is the first time we have installed the tool on this Wikipedia, there are chances that there may be some problems or service disruptions which we are not yet aware of. We will be monitoring the usage to check for any failures or issues, but please do let us know on the Content Translation talk page or through Phabricator if you spot any problems. For more information, please read the information available in the User Guide. Our announcement is written only in English, and we would really appreciate if this message can be translated to reach more users of this Wikipedia. Thank you. On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation's Language Engineering Team:--Runa Bhattacharjee (disputatio) 17:11, 30 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Pagina mensis[recensere]

Iohannem Hus in paginam mensis promovi. Proposita est quia abhinc secentos annos Hus Constantiae combustus est. An recte fecisti? Pagina enim bibliographiam satis bonam, imagines nonnullas, sed textum brevissimum habet. Si quis textum augere velit, optime! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:25, 30 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-28[recensere]

15:13, 6 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

De brevibus praenominibus vulgaribus[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)

Tech News: 2015-29[recensere]

15:06, 13 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-30[recensere]

03:05, 21 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

New user-space templates[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[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[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[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[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[recensere]

15:05, 27 Iulii 2015 (UTC)

Otto? Otho?[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?[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?[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[recensere]


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

De Lucipoli vel "Hollisteria"[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[recensere]

15:51, 3 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

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

14:57, 10 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Correction of my profile in Latin[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[recensere]

CXXCXXMMMCDLVI[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[recensere]

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

Tech News: 2015-34[recensere]

16:17, 17 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

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

13:02, 24 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Campfire in Latin[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[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[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[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[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[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[recensere]

21:36, 31 Augusti 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the Wikimedia public policy site[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)