E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Haec est taberna Vicipaediae ubi potes si dubia habes, explanationes quaerere, nuntia ad nos mittere et cetera.
Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide tabernae acta priora.
Quaestio nova
Hic colloqui possumus.

Magistratura[fontem recensere]

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

Grapheocratae[fontem recensere]

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

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

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

(Creata est.)

De capsibus urbium communitatumque[fontem recensere]

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

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the city mayor) has not been updated since the article was created, and therefore these infoboxes today partly contain outdated information.

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

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

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

ZEIT de quaestione utilitatis linguae latinae[fontem recensere]

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

Stela Rök[fontem recensere]

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

De grapheocratis iterum[fontem recensere]

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

De anonymo Aragonensi[fontem recensere]

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

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

Mutationes[fontem recensere]

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

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

German administrative units[fontem recensere]

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

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

Some explanations:

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

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

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

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

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