Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 21

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[fontem recensere]

Unlike some Wikipedia editions, including English (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), Italian (Da Wikipedia, l'enciclopedia libera.) and Portuguese (Origem: Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre.), Vicipaedia doesn't have this short introduction in ordinary articles. Shouldn't Wikipaedia have "Ex Vicipaedia, libera encyclopaedia", or "Ex Vicipaedia, encyclopaedia libera"? Or is this unnecessary?- Ssolbergj (disputatio) 16:27, 10 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

You mean in the printable version of pages, not the normal display, yes? We just have "E Vicipaedia" without "libera encyclopaedia." There is variation -- French doesn't show anything at all -- but most other versions seem to have a credit line on printed pages (as we do) and to identify Wikipedia as the free encyclopedia (which we don't). This can be changed if we want to (presumably in our MediaWiki:Print.css? it's "#siteSub", isn't it, but I don't immediately see where that's defined). I don't have strong feelings one way or the other but perhaps it would be reasonable to say "libera encyclopaedia" as other versions do. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:59, 10 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
aha! See MediaWiki:Tagline. Depending on what skin you're using this may or may not show up on the ordinary display; it normally does show up on the print version. And this is where we'd change what it says -- e.g. "E Vicipaedia, maximo corpore verborum Latinorum totius orbis terrarum"? :-) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:16, 10 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thanks, though I actually meant the normal display. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 12:57, 14 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
The MediaWiki:Tagline formula controls this on both the normal display and the print form, as far as I can tell. Whether it shows up at all on the normal display depends on the skin you're using in your preferences (see Praeferentiae, then the Conspectus tab, then the choices under Aspectum). I use "Vector" so I don't see this on screens, though I do see it on printed pages. Take your pick! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:35, 16 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

On a different note: Is pagina menstrua, imago menstrua and sonus menstruus better titles than pagina mensis, imago mensis and sonus mensis? Should one generally prefer a specific adjective of this kind to the genitive form of the noun? - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 12:57, 14 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

Disputatio:Iemenia[fontem recensere]

An quis reperire potest aut fontem nominis "Iemenia", aut nomen aliud Latinum huius civitatis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:20, 11 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

Hoc scripsi antequam commentum Neandri legeram. Sed si quis alius opinionem addere vult, adde! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:12, 11 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

Eandem rem postulo de nomine Tadzikistaniae. Fontem re vera non habemus: situs enim a nobis ad paginam respectivam citatus est index nominum e Vicipaedia ipsa (nisi fallor) demptus. Verbum adiectivum "Tajikistanensis" semel in interrete reperio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:40, 13 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

Salve. Ebbe Vilborg Sueticum-Latinum dictionarium editionis recentissimae habet nomina de hac natione: "Tadzikistania" (f; tad-ziki-stania si difficiliter pronuntiare est) atque nominibus adiectivis "Tadzikistanicus" (tad-ziki-stani-cus) et "Tadzikistaniensis (tad-ziki-stani-ensis)". Addenda sunt? -- Donatello (disputatio) 16:24, 13 Septembris 2013 (UTC).
Adde, mi Donatello! Gratias ago! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 13 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

De formula nova[fontem recensere]

Salve. Nunc habemus formulam "Formula:Corbin Bleu" quae monstrat opera actoris Corbin Bleu, ab usore incognito in Corbin operibus inserta. Sunt alii actores in his pelliculis Corbin adest, etiam alii actores in aliis pelliculis. Itaque censeo formulam habere non graviter est. Eam delere oportemusne?

Donatello (disputatio) 13:22, 16 Septembris 2013 (UTC).

Et anonymus quidem hanc formulam heri creavit. Consentio: delenda est. Nunc tempus non habeo ad alias paginas corrigendas sed, nisi alius correxit, cras faciebo. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:38, 16 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
Actum est. Fortasse vellimus protegere formulas, ut anonymis non liceat creare? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:25, 17 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
Gratias ago. Rarissime est anonymi formulas non egendas creent. Violationes eventiores sunt. Usor cum nomine contra autem usor anonymus cum numeris IP nomine, simul usorem novisimus, fidelius esse potest. Ita cogitatio tua fortasse aut fortasse non. -- Donatello (disputatio) 00:32, 18 Septembris 2013 (UTC).

[fontem recensere]

"Exciting" in Latin[fontem recensere]

Greetings. Do we know what "exciting" is called in Latin? The "A Copious And Critical English Latin Lexicon" does not mention "exciting" in the list, and "Norstedts Swedish Latin Lexicon" (latest edition) seem to not really mention what it's called. It says "animum movens erigensque", and for a religious term "quod animum suspensum/erectum tenet". Maybe the Romans did not mention the "exact" word in their texts. I got to think what it's called in Italian and Spanish. In there might be a clue. Emozionante in Italian and emocionante in Spanish. Donatello (disputatio) 02:01, 26 Septembris 2013 (UTC).

Quō in sēnsū? Levine suggests excitāre, stimulāre, exardēscere, commovēre. These seem to cover a lot of the territory of the english word, positive and negative. --IāxCūpārius (disputatio) 03:32, 26 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
"Exciting" is a tough one to translate. Translations provided by dictionaries (e.g. "animum movens erigensque" [Vilborg], "novus idemque iucundus", "sensûs iucunde stimulans" [Morgan], "qui erectos, suspensos (exspectatione) tenet animos" [Cavallin]) are more or less contrived approximations that hardly even stem from classical authors. Besides, they're too cumbersome to be useful in a running text. Furthermore, English "exciting" is an multi-purpose adjective, the meaning of which depends very much on the context of situation. In order to have a decently good translation, you have to know who's speaking about what. Both a mountain climber and parents of a newborn baby may be said to "lead an exciting life", but it's advisable to use different expressions in Latin; maybe "oribates se miram et periculosam vitam agere dicit" and "parentes recens natae/nati se iucundam et admirabilem vitam agere dicunt". These sentences are supposed to bring forward the context-sensitivity of "exciting". Neander (disputatio) 19:41, 29 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
stimulans (gratias Neandere ) looks good. And exciting show might be visendus. Also commovens. I am excited might be Sum commotus. These are suggestions. They are indeed tough to translate.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:13, 30 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
Remember the present passive, mi Jondel. Stimulor or commoveor is what I say at the time, to the person (or other life form) that excites me; commotus sum is what I say long afterwards, over a glass of fine wine, to anyone who happens to be listening ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:12, 2 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

I confess I tend to confuse the passive first person form (e.g. commovor)with the 'long afterwards' past participle (e.g. commotus sum). Howver it feel like you can use commotus sum for right now with commotus as a 'state' of being. e.g. I am 'being' excited : commovor. I am in a state of excitement: commotus sum. I refer a lot to the similar forms in Spanish. When Spanish speakers fast say 'I understand' they tend to respond with 'Entendido'.

Rock of Cashel[fontem recensere]

Hello. Now that we know that we have a Latin name for the town of Cashel (Casella), I guess it's allowed to change to a Latin name to the castle Rock of Cashel. Am I right? I'm a little uncertain. -- Donatello (disputatio) 16:07, 2 Octobris 2013 (UTC).

I think you're right: it becomes a translatable name. What do we say? "Rupes Casellae"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:07, 2 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Aut arx Casellae, sicut Acropolis fuit arx Athenarum. Arx enim et montem et locum munitum significat, rupes autem quodlibet saxum naturale. Neander (disputatio) 20:23, 2 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-40[fontem recensere]

20:11, 2 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Urbium et communium Germaniae categoriae[fontem recensere]

Urbium et communium Germaniae categoriae mihi paulo confusae videntur. Nam urbes strictu sensu magnae habitationes tantum sunt. Itaque secundum meam sententiam "Urbes Germaniae" subcategoria categoriae communiae Germaniae sit (ut in Wikipedia Anglica municipalities in Germany et apud categoriam Communia Saxoniae Inferioris). Summa categoria itaque sit "Communia Germaniae" et subcategoriae sint communia singularum civitatum foederatarum. His in singulis categoriis sint Urbes (magnae) Badeniae Virtembergiae et aliorum civitatum. Praeterea sit subcategoria "urbes Germaniae" in categoria "communia Germaniae" et categoriae supra dictae urbium omnium civitatum foederalium sub categoria "urbes Germaniae". Haec res nunc maius momentum accipit, cum bene accidit, ut etiam multa communia Badenia-Virtembergiae ab Helvetico montano adderentur.--Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 11:29, 4 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Consentio. Iam disputavimus hic: Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 19#Categoria:Urbes Saxoniae Inferioris. --UV (disputatio) 12:34, 4 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Commentum addo praecipue de usu talium categoriarum de omnibus civitatibus orbis terrarum. De civitatibus singulis, e.g. Germania, editores qui de civitatibus respectivis laborant arborem categoriarum idoneum creent et teneant!
Per orbem terrarum (mihi dixi) loci habitati, e.g. urbes, a subdivisionibus administrativis differunt. Interdum loci habitati cum subdivisionibus congruunt; interdum non congruunt. Loci habitati (et praecipue urbes maiores) saepe historiam longam significationemque culturalem maximam habent, quae res subdivisionibus administrativis carent: politici enim limites subdivisionum administrativarum mutare solent, sed populos congregatos rarius movent!
Igitur de omnibus fere civitatibus orbis terrarum arbores duas creavi: videte Categoria:Loci habitati et Categoria:Subdivisiones per civitates digestae. Omnium civitatum provincias, districtus, municipia, communia, paroecias etc. etc. sub "Subdivisiones" collegi; omnium civitatum urbes, oppida, vici etc. sub "Loci habitati" collegi.
Municipia et communia (mihi dixi) sunt saepe eodem tempore loci habitati et subdivisiones (minimae) administrativae. Igitur, si categorias communium vel municipiorum singulae civitatis habemus, tales categorias et sub "Loci habitati" et sub "Subdivisiones" ordinavi.
Usque hunc annum multas categorias "urbium" habuimus (perpaucos "locorum habitorum"), sed iam in variis civitatibus multas paginas de locis parvis habitatis nunc creamus (in Italia fortasse 8000; in Francia fortasse 15000; in Germania ... nescio, sed multas). Utile erit lectoribus (mihi dixi) categoriam urbium praecipuarum civitatis singulae reperire: multi enim lectores, qui Massiliam urbem Franciae esse sciunt, et fortasse indicem urbium sub Categoria:Francia faciliter reperire volunt, Massiliam commune praefecturae Ostiorum Rhodani esse nesciunt. Igitur (mihi dixi) categoriam vel categorias simplices urbium cuiusque civitatis praecipuarum retinere pro certo utile erit. Igitur categorias urbium eodem tempore sub "locos habitatos" (e.g. sub Categoria:Loci habitati Franciae) et sub "civitate simplici" (e.g. sub Categoria:Francia) subordinavi.
Quibus rebus dictis, vobis qui re vera de urbibus et municipiis Germaniae intellegunt curam illarum categoriarum confideo!! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:27, 4 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Macte! Nonne nexum ad has explicationes tuas hic addimus? --UV (disputatio) 18:54, 4 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Notifications[fontem recensere]

Notifications inform you of new activity that affects you -- and let you take quick action.

(This message is in English, please translate as needed)

Greetings!

Notifications will inform users about new activity that affects them on this wiki in a unified way: for example, this new tool will let you know when you have new talk page messages, edit reverts, mentions or links -- and is designed to augment (rather than replace) the watchlist. The Wikimedia Foundation's editor engagement team developed this tool (code-named 'Echo') earlier this year, to help users contribute more productively to MediaWiki projects.

We're now getting ready to bring Notifications to almost all other Wikimedia sites, and are aiming for a 22 October deployment, as outlined in this release plan. It is important that notifications is translated for all of the languages we serve.

There are three major points of translation needed to be either done or checked:

Please let us know if you have any questions, suggestions or comments about this new tool. For more information, visit this project hub and this help page. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 4 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

(via the Global message delivery system) (wrong page? You can fix it.)
Textum in Quiritum sermonem converti. --Autokrator (disputatio) 01:18, 7 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Optime! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:48, 7 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Bot owners?[fontem recensere]

Please see my request at Disputatio Usoris:Helveticus montanus#Baden-Wurttemberg. Is this a possible task for a bot? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:48, 7 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Done! --UV (disputatio) 21:41, 7 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Speak up about the trademark registration of the Community logo.[fontem recensere]

Logo for reaching 100000 articles?[fontem recensere]

Should we have something like this? Vicipaedia logo 2013.png -Ssolbergj (disputatio) 13:20, 9 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Mihi placet! Lesgles (disputatio) 21:21, 9 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Mihi quoque! Gratulemur nos cum hoc τέλος attingamus -- quod mox adveniat! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 11:58, 10 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Assentio ! ThbdGrrd (disputatio) 13:19, 10 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Mehercle! --Xaverius 09:58, 11 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Optime!--Jondel (disputatio) 11:20, 11 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Nice art!! but in correct latin shouldn't it read "100 000 paginarum"?--118.160.24.192 11:07, 16 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's true (100  = centum milia / centena milia paginarum). If there are intervening numbers (e.g. 104 328) there is more uncertainty (see this discussion), but here only paginarum is correct. If there's no space for the longer word, I think just "100 000" would be fine too. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:09, 16 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. I changed it. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 20:43, 16 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Well done. It looks good Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:48, 16 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
We're going to need this any day now: exciting! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:45, 18 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
We do need it today!! --UV (disputatio) 21:17, 18 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Declinatio verbi "aedes" (ἀηδής)[fontem recensere]

De hoc in pagina Disputatio:Aedes aegypti scripsi, sed fortasse unus ex Hellenistis nostris hic respondebit. Quomodo aedes, Graece ἀηδής, declinari debet? Aedes, aedis? Opus est genetivo singulari et plurali in pagina Febris dengue. Lesgles (disputatio) 21:19, 9 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Responsum nunc apud Disputatio:Aedes aegypti scripsi! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:27, 10 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Horologium[fontem recensere]

Ave. Demiro si verbum "horologium" unde lingua latina antiqua sive lingua latina mediaevalis. Aliquis scientis? -- Donatello (disputatio) 22:25, 10 Octobris 2013 (UTC).

Iam in Latina antiqua (apud Plinium, Ciceronem, etc.) exstitit. Vide Lewis & Short. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:47, 10 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Gratias ago Lesgles. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 07:59, 11 Octobris 2013 (UTC).

Paginae speciales[fontem recensere]

Many of these are refreshed from a cache every few days, but that doesn't seem to be happening at present (similarly on en:wiki). Does anyone know if the interruption is temporary or permanent?

I regularly use the special page Specialis:Categoriae desideratae to keep categories in order. They tend to misbehave :) If the refreshing is not going to happen, can anyone think of another way I could get this information -- i.e. a list of non-existing categories that currently appear as redlinks on existing pages? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 12 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

The interruption should be (hopefully) temporary, the issue is tracked at bugzilla:53227.
Here is a temporary replacement (using the data from the 2013-09-29 dump). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:48, 12 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, UV, that was very useful! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:29, 15 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
You are most welcome! Here is a new version, using the data from the fresh dump (a few hours old). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:03, 15 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
A new version again. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:39, 30 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
The problem should be fixed now: As before, nearly all special pages should be refreshed at least about every five days or so. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:11, 11 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Cronus[fontem recensere]

Ave. In commentatione Croni, casus accusativus nominis ad "Cronon" videbam. Nomen "Cronus" latine sonat, tum ad "Cronum" diclinatur oportetne? Veteres romani "Cronus" in hoc modo graeco declinabant? -- Donatello (disputatio) 15:31, 12 Octobris 2013 (UTC).

Recte dicis, Donatello. Non est, cur "Cronon" scribatur. Quoniam titulus declinationem Latinam (Cronus) profert, quin consequentiae causá etiam Cronum accusativum scribamus. Mutare licet. Neander (disputatio) 20:58, 12 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Quo vadis, VUB?[fontem recensere]

Vrije Universiteit Bruxellensis, cuius sententiola Latina "Scientia vincere tenebras" est, consilium cepit linguae Latinae abolendae. Quod, si factum erit, certe tenebras non vincet sed potius densabit. Itaque in notitiam nostram misi petitionem cuius inscriptionem interretialem per Google reperies (quaere: "quo-vadis-vub-zonder-latijn"), si quis velit suam opinionem proferre de hoc consilio turpissimo. Neander (disputatio) 16:16, 15 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Indignum facinus! Libellum subscripsi. Gratias de petitione efferenda, Neander. Lesgles (disputatio) 23:10, 17 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

semi-protected pages[fontem recensere]

I am curious about {{semi-protecta}} as applied to Alphabetum Latinum and Alphabetum Graecum. It appears that un-registered users (people not logged in, identified only by their IP addresses) can edit those pages, and in particular have been removing this template from the page. What's up with that? Neither the documentation at MediaWiki.org nor the source of our template nor that of the parallel ones in :en has enlightened me. (Not sure I care whether these particular pages are protected right now -- but I'd like to know how this works for cases where we actually do care.) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:00, 15 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

This template in itself does not confer any protection. It just serves to indicate that a page is protected (and this indication can be wrong – as the template was indeed present on an unprotected page, before you reprotected it). --UV (disputatio) 19:20, 15 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
OK, then, what does make the page protected? When I clicked on "protegere" in the do-stuff-to-pages menu, as far as I can tell all it did was add the template to the page. Clearly it did something else as well, but not on the page itself: where is the magic hiding? :-) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:36, 15 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
In fact it didn't add the template to the page. That (I see from the history) was done, independently of you, by an anonymous user who cheekily copied your recent "summarium". Clicking on "protegere" brings you up a page which requires details of how long, at what level, and why. Fill all that in, and the system obeys: certain classes of users will not be able to edit during the period you specify.
Whether the template could, theoretically, be linked with the actual existence of protection, I don't know. It might be a good idea, because (as UV points out) we are currently sometimes left with an unprotected page that says it is protected! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:17, 15 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Expressing "from the northwest", "to the northwest" etc. in Latin[fontem recensere]

CalRis25 (disputatio) 13:25, 16 Octobris 2013 (UTC): How does one express spatial relationships and directions for the less common directions northeast, southeast, southwest, and northwest (it is sufficiently clear for the more prominent compass directions as there are plenty of examples in the literature). There are adjectives like septentrionalis-orientalis, but how do you says something like: The army advanced from the northeast. To the southwest of France lies Spain. He hastened towards the north-west. What approach does la.Wikipedia use generally in this matter? CalRis.

There's a long discussion here, if you're up for wading through it, but I don't think there's a set rule on Vicipaedia. Basically you can use a compound adjective (like yours or "septentrio-orientalis") or a phrase (inter septentriones et orientem). There are other variations on these, including borealis and australis, which are to be preferred in the southern hemisphere. If you want to use them as nouns, you can add the word plaga (or leave it understood). Here's my attempt at translating your sentences: "Exercitus progressus est a plaga septentrio-orientali. Ad meridio-occidentalem plagam Franciae iacet Hispania. Ad septentrio-occidentalem plagam properavit." Lesgles (disputatio) 20:54, 16 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Lesgles, for pointing to that discussion ... which I don't remember ever reading, though I was around at that time. I shall have to give up my "meridiorientalis" (as in Imperia in Asia Meridiorientali Europaea and go with the consensus, now that I know there is a consensus.
... although, now that I check, the word "meridiorientalis" does occur in one zoological name, viz. Stenophylax meridiorientalis Malicky, 1982; there is also one botanical name Lupinus austrorientalis C.P. Sm. So possibly I don't have to move that page, and possibly we are allowed to build compounds on this pattern -- just a tiny bit easier to pronounce than "austro-orientalis". Any other views on that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 17 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Andrew, I wouldn't recommend vowel elisions for dvandva compounds such as austr-orientalis (after all, we don't say lexicon Latinanglicum). A conceivable counterexample would be magnanimus which, however, is a bahuvrīhi, involving a tighter syntactic connexion. Neander (disputatio) 12:16, 17 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
So be it, Neander! The botanists and zoologists who followed this road are indeed vanishingly few. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 17 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for your help. CalRis25 (disputatio) 06:30, 18 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

roga[fontem recensere]

Sodales, quaeso mi dicatis: Estne vocabulum in Latinitate mediaevali roga significans mercem, stipendium, ἐλεημοσύνην/eleemosynen (i. e. theodisce Almosen)? - 11:31, 17 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Est. Vide Roga (1) apud Du Cange, et perge, amice! quia Roga (2), Roga (3) et Roga (4) etiam tibi intersunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 17 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Multas tibi dico gratias! - Bavarese (disputatio) 12:20, 19 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Astronavis[fontem recensere]

Ave. Aliquis mihi dicat si pars "astro-" in verbo "astronavis" lingua Graeca antiqua unde sive Latine est? -- Donatello (disputatio) 08:43, 18 Octobris 2013 (UTC).

Astro- est stirps declinabilis verbi Graeci ἄστρον (astron) 'stella, constellatio'. Neander (disputatio) 16:41, 18 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Video. Gratias ago. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 18:37, 18 Octobris 2013 (UTC).
Sorry for getting slightly of topic, but all the compounds in Lewis and Short with astro- are from the first to the last letter Greek (loans) (except for changing the ending), while the compounds with astri- are words in which the second part of the compound is Latin (e.g. astrifer, astriger, astriloquus, astrisonus). Maybe someone could answer my question, why this form contains a (Greek) o as connecting vowel instead of the (Latin) i? An o in Latin as connecting vowel seems to be used in dvandva compounds in Neolatin by some, but astronavis does not seems to be a dvandva compound. By the way, the classical dvandva compounds that I am aware of, e.g. suovetaurilia, diespiter and a third one (ehm....), do not contain an o as connecting vowel (although it is almost impossible to find some kind of regularity based on three attested cases). Thank you very much, with kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 19:46, 18 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
My guess is: it contains an -o- because, to the person who first coined it, it was mentally assimilated to astronauta, a modern international term. One might have increased the Graecitas and said astronaus, but why say that when -navis offers itself? I suspect that might have been the semi-conscious motivation.
This is, as you show, against the general "rule" for astr- compounds: on the other hand, analogy (such as the analogy I suggest here) often guides linguistic innovation. Astronavis continues to feel OK to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 19 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Dear Andrew, thank you for your response. I thought of the same linguistic innovation, but wondered whether other processes might be at stake, e.g. Latinization of astronaus or use of the Greek connecting vowel -o due to a similar case/example in Greek (as navis resembles Greek naus a lot). With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 20:19, 21 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-42[fontem recensere]

09:28, 21 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

De capitulo "vide etiam" longissimo et rubro[fontem recensere]

Si quis commentum addere vult ad Disputatio:Ethologia, adde! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 22 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Joint expedition[fontem recensere]

Greetings. I am not sure what "joint expedition" means in English. Could it be a "united expedition", or something else? And what would it be then in Latin? -- Donatello (disputatio) 20:09, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC).

It would usually mean an expedition organized by more than one government or more than one society. Your translation would probably depend on which of these things it is. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:24, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

On grammatical specifics[fontem recensere]

Most of our entries (lemmata) are given without information on declension and gender (not to speak of pronunciation and accentuation). There are a few articles, though, which contain such information + reference to a dictionary. A case in point is sceletus. Now, let me first give those principles which I myself tend to follow:

  1. if the declension and gender of a lemma is normal (predictable), no info is needed (e.g., servus), because the declension can be deduced from the most general rules (by default) of Latin morphology;
  2. if the declension and gender deviate in some respects from the normal (e.g. lacus [declension!], dialectos [gender!], lac [stem!] ), grammatical info may be needed, depending on what kind of grammatical knowledge we generally presuppose of our readers;
  3. in any case, grammatical info is common knowledge that needs not be sourced;
  4. instructions on pronunciation must not be given, because there are quite a few nationally based styles of pronunciation (cf. Disputatio:Pronuntiatus Latinus). Accentuation is predictable if you know the vowel length of the penultimate open syllable. But it'd be pedantic to indicate vowel lengths.

It seems to me that most of us are following these principles (at least implicitly) in actual practice. Now, I think that sceletus belongs to category 1. But if we are to consider those pieces of info as given 16:08 26 Oct. 2013 as exemplary of commendable practice, then we'd be enjoined, for reasons of consistency, to do the same elsewhere in the Vicipaedia, which means that we'd have a lot of tedious work to do. And the result would certainly affect the readability of our articles. What do you think? I'm writing this in order to stop what might turn out to be the beginning of an edit war. Neander (disputatio) 20:32, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Neander. After reading this I might agree more than before. :) We don't show any grammatical instructions of words in other language editions of Wikipedia, but Latin is a language "nobody" speaks nor possess. So I'm not really sure how it should be. But what you said upover; is it a rule in the Latin Wikipedia, or just a recommended rule with order in an article (order in the sense of not having a "chaos like" style in an article)?
Donatello (disputatio) 20:46, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC).
I think this is an important issue to settle. There is a temptation to crowd information into the first sentence (I know! I do it myself too). The first sentence needs to be clear and easy to read.
I follow Donatello's point that Latin is no one's first language, so our readers may need some of this information more than readers in other languages might need it ... but, after all, many readers of all the Wikipedias are not fluent speakers of the language concerned. They usually have to look in a dictionary for details about the grammar of the headwords, and I think our readers should usually do this too.
I think it can be helpful to indicate when a word has an unexpected declension or an unexpected gender: I would prefer not to remove this information. It might even be a useful reminder to editors sometimes!
I agree strongly about pronunciation guides to Latin words, for exactly the reason Neander gives. I already remove this information if I find it. (But I haven't, up to now, removed indications of vowel length in headwords.)
In general, I agree with Neander. This is not the right kind of information for an encyclopedia: it belongs in a dictionary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:23, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
One further point is that since "sceletus" (for example) is undoubtedly a classical Latin word, its occurrence in an ordinary bilingual dictionary (such as Norstedt, Pitkärantä, Cassell's, ...) is not interesting. Of course it's there; a reader can look in any such dictionary and find it. We don't need to trouble them with that information. Those dictionaries are useful to us if they propose a Latin translation for a purely modern concept (and if their suggestion is a good one :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:48, 27 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with Neander's points, though I wouldn't mind the occasional macron or accent mark in the lemmata. For instance, I was reading about Agrippina and didn't know the quantity of the penultimate i (until I found it in L&S). My point of comparison is the Russian Wikipedia, which usually provides accent marks on proper names and sometimes other words (stress not being predictable in Russian). But I agree that giving IPA transcriptions for Latin words is silly (except in articles specifically about pronunciation). Lesgles (disputatio) 04:08, 28 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
I agree that vowel quantities belong in the dictionary, and for most words so does morphological class information; anyone who can read our articles has at least some idea that lupus, corpus, and exercitus are not all declined the same way. But I don't have strong feelings about clearing this kind of thing out of existing articles, partly because Victionario/Wiktionary is still rather scanty in its coverage of Latin. We could point people to other on-line dictionaries if there's some easy global place to do that. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:05, 29 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Returning to the pronunciation question, I suppose there are in fact two questions ...
  1. Since classical Latin spelling is phonemically unambiguous with few exceptions, should we allow ourselves to give help with the exceptions? That is the vowel-length issue; also that is the reason why we sometimes put a diaeresis on a vowel to show that it is not part of a diphthong. I think we may allow ourselves to give this help with headwords, to the extent that the phonemics of the word become perfectly clear. Once those few ambiguities are out of the way, a student who has been taught Latin knows confidently how to pronounce it.
  2. Should we indicate pronunciation beyond that? I say definitely not. Modern Latin pronunciation differs quite widely, and if we favour one pronunciation we are essentially telling most of the students in the world "Your teacher is wrong". We don't mean to do that, and it wouldn't be our job anyway. Just to take an example, Norstedt apparently indicates an "accent". That no doubt means something specific to a Swedish reader; it would mean something different to an English reader; it would be meaningless to a French reader. Why should we put this Swedish rule before all our readers? No reason at all. That's what I think :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:32, 29 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
In classical Latin, vowel length is distinctive (i.e. utilised to distinguish meanings), but the normal writing system is inadequate to bring out this important fact. I have no strong feelings about writing macrons, when they may be helpful. If I see a macron in a text, I forbear editing them away. ¶ The word-accent (stress) is fully predictable if we know the length of the vowel in the penultimate open syllable. The latter point is important only if the reader is supposed to read the text aloud (something that I never do, but that's my personal predilection). ¶ Vilborg (Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok) indicates the accent only when it falls on the antepenultimate. About other aspects of pronunciation, he has nothing to say. Neander (disputatio) 16:28, 29 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see: and just occasionally he misprints it, as I remember from here.
The misprint is not to be found in Vilborg's dictionary (writes penicillus [s.v. pensel], indicating that the word is to be stressed as /peni'cillus/, not /pe'nicillus/). Neander (disputatio) 17:33, 29 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
So the earlier conversation, to which I linked, had no real basis! Ah, well, there are more destructive ways for human beings to waste their time ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:07, 29 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Anne that Victionarium is scanty, but personally I would never trust an "open" dictionary anyway. We could in general recommend Lewis & Short at Perseus (and for medieval words Du Cange at the Sorbonne): those are the best online dictionaries I know.
I don't think there's much disagreement among us ... Would you go along with this consensus, Donatello? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:08, 29 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
There was something I wondered upover, of the first entry of Neander: is it a rule in the Latin Wikipedia, or just a recommended rule with order in an article (order in the sense of not having a "chaos like" style in an article)? -- Donatello (disputatio) 20:42, 29 Octobris 2013 (UTC).
Sorry, I don't know what "a recommended rule with order" is. But I think Neander wrote clearly: he was stating the principles that he follows, and asked for confirmation that others agree with them and follow them too. It might, as I think you are suggesting, be a good idea to state some of this in Vicipaedia:Structura paginarum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 30 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

It may be helpful for others, as it was for me, to look at en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Major differences. (That English page develops a policy laid down by Jimmy Wales, I think.) The first example under that heading -- how "octopus" is to be dealt with by Wikipedia and by Wiktionary -- is exactly what we are talking about here. We don't have to follow the English Wikipedia's guidelines, but when we don't, it's a good idea to agree why we are choosing to differ! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 30 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Paginae mensium[fontem recensere]

Ite, amici, ad paginam Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis paginasque proponite!! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:52, 28 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-43[fontem recensere]

09:57, 28 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Something a bit wrong[fontem recensere]

I was redesigning some of the warning formulae (e.g. Formula:Pessima), to match the formula we now see at top of this Taberna page. If others don't like the redesign, it is easy to revert. But if others do like it, can anyone help with Formula:Non latine? It is more complicated than the others. It is the "#default" state of this formula that I wanted to redesign. The text I intended is now in place, and can be compared with Formula:Pessima, but some little thing is wrong. Can anyone see what it is?

Seems fixed now. Some of the pipe | characters confused the {{#switch and had to be masked using {{!}}. --UV (disputatio) 21:03, 30 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

In these redesigns I used the colour red to mean "leave alone please" (see Formula:In progressu), green to mean "come on and help" (see Formula:Succurre, Formula:Pagina non annexa).

Also, if the Latin is faulty anywhere, please correct it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:25, 30 Octobris 2013 (UTC)

Ssolbergj has been working on these designs too. I added two more: {{Contribuenda}} and {{Movenda}}. I used an orange band (somewhere between red and green) to mean "we need to talk about this". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 3 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, I added an English translation to these formulae, where they didn't already have it, for a practical reason: many editors who start a page here in unsuitable form, or under a badly-chosen title, do it because they don't really understand Latin very well. I added English because I speak it! But of course other languages can be added too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 3 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

"To update" in Latin[fontem recensere]

Hello. I cannot find "to update" in Latin. Please help. The "to update" I mean, is the typical meaning, i.e. the term of computerized stuff, like to update e.g. virus and spyware definitions in computer protection programs, and to update an article.

Donatello (disputatio) 00:17, 2 Novembris 2013 (UTC).

Maybe "renovare"? For upgrade (not just updating but improving) you might try "meliorare"? Others will have other ideas, I'm sure ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:36, 2 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
A wordier but slightly more precise option is "ad diem perducere", "to bring through to the day", in this canon law ("ad diem perducta") (see also this explanation, "The Latin phrase "ad diem perducere" renders the modern concept of aggiornamento or updating."). Lesgles (disputatio) 16:33, 2 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I like that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:04, 2 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Optimum inventum! Neander (disputatio) 17:26, 2 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

De formulis Anglicis celatis[fontem recensere]

Legete s.v.p. id quod nuper apud paginam disputationis IacobiAmoris scripsi. An dissentitis? Oportet ibi sententias vestras addere. Si erravisse monstrabor, valde gaudebo!

Si exempla quaeritis talium formularum Anglicarum, inspicite e.g. textum celatum ad caput harum paginarum: Americani, Colonia Sinus Massachusettensium, Coemeterium Montis Alburni, Nationale Librorum Praemium, Henricus Wadsworth Longfellow. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 2 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Generatim illas capsas non multum amo; in casis finitis sunt utiles (paginis de animalibus, civitatibus, elementis, etc.), sed saepe (e.g. in biographiis) informationem utilem non dant. In Vicipaediis barbaris coeperunt commentationem sine capsa imperfectam credere, sed nos in eundem errorem cadere non requirimus. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:54, 2 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Quaestio curiosa. Hoc etiam ab eo dependet, quibus de formularum generibus loquamur. Hoc maxime ad id, quod ad infocapsas , seu infoboxes spectat, animadverti, quod valde ob penuriam talium formularum irritabar - ad hodiernum diem. Nonnullis abhinc annis, ubi me ad Vicipaediam Latinam adiunxi, illo tempore mos fuit laicorum paginas creantium non formulas (sicut et meus) addere, sed ipsam codicem tabulae, ut in paginis Savariae et Regni Hungariae aliisque paginis olim faciebam. Et ego gaudeam, si formulas et Latine redditas faciamus. Paulisper autem irritor ob velocissimas (superfluasque, ut opinor) Vicipaediae Anglicae mutationes.

Alioquin gaudeo, quod forma recentissima nostrae Vicipaediae tam bene, ad hodiernorum Vicipaediarum effigiem aptata est renovata.--Martinus Vester (disputatio) 09:18, 4 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

De "infocapsas" vide etiam disputationem veterem: Disputatio Formulae:Capsa hominis/draft#About this template. --UV (disputatio) 21:42, 4 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

iterum: quaestio ad rogam pertinens[fontem recensere]

Vestrumne, sodales, alicui notum est testimonium vocabuli rogulae, i. e. verbum deminutivum rogula tractum de roga (n. b. significante mercem, stipendium et similia), e cuiusvis saeculi Latinitate? - Bavarese (disputatio) 13:25, 3 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

De usu indicativi imperfecti temporis[fontem recensere]

Martinus omnibus quibuscumque sodalibus spd.

Quum Latino sermoni iamdudum sex annos studens paene omnia linguae singula didicissem, sodales, quando autem imperfecto tempore uti me oportuisset, mihi semper amibigebatur. Numquam mihi una mente liquet, si praeterita exprimenda sunt, perfectumne imperfecto anteponatur necne. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 14:34, 3 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Mihi. Libri semper docent uti “cum” (et alia ) ut dicere quando ('when'). Nam, si perspicias hispanicam at alia linguas romanicas(loquerisne francogallice?), imperfecta adhibitur. e.g. Me appellavisti cum ego edebam. ('I was eating when you called.')(Bene, opus est mihi grammaticam an recte an non nescio.Opus est mihi exquirere rursum librum meum. :( )--Jondel (disputatio) 13:48, 5 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Etiam, hispanice, imperfecta est cum nesciatur an actio iam confecta('completed') sit an non.(Quo eodem fieri in latine debet.) --Jondel (disputatio) 13:59, 5 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Gratias ago pro explicatione. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 09:18, 11 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Oblectamen meum est.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:29, 13 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Utinam scias , imperfectus significat 'non est confectus' e.g. fortase iam confectus est, fortase nunc adhunc actio continuans manet sed tunc tempore continuabat.

Tech News: 2013-44[fontem recensere]

10:47, 4 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Introducting Beta Features[fontem recensere]

(Apologies for writing in English. Please translate if necessary)

We would like to let you know about Beta Features, a new program from the Wikimedia Foundation that lets you try out new features before they are released for everyone.

Think of it as a digital laboratory where community members can preview upcoming software and give feedback to help improve them. This special preference page lets designers and engineers experiment with new features on a broad scale, but in a way that's not disruptive.

Beta Features is now ready for testing on MediaWiki.org. It will also be released on Wikimedia Commons and MetaWiki this Thursday, 7 November. Based on test results, the plan is to release it on all wikis worldwide on 21 November, 2013.

Here are the first features you can test this week:

Would you like to try out Beta Features now? After you log in on MediaWiki.org, a small 'Beta' link will appear next to your 'Preferences'. Click on it to see features you can test, check the ones you want, then click 'Save'. Learn more on the Beta Features page.

After you've tested Beta Features, please let the developers know what you think on this discussion page -- or report any bugs here on Bugzilla. You're also welcome to join this IRC office hours chat on Friday, 8 November at 18:30 UTC.

Beta Features was developed by the Wikimedia Foundation's Design, Multimedia and VisualEditor teams. Along with other developers, they will be adding new features to this experimental program every few weeks. They are very grateful to all the community members who helped create this project — and look forward to many more productive collaborations in the future.

Enjoy, and don't forget to let developers know what you think! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 5 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery (wrong page? Correct it here), 20:15, 5 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Nuntii 6 Novembris - Iasser Arafat[fontem recensere]

... interfectus fuisse? An accusativus necesse?--Malabon (disputatio) 14:47, 9 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Ita necesse; emendavi. Gratias ago tibi! Lesgles (disputatio) 15:01, 9 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

The usage of homo/homines[fontem recensere]

Hello. During my time in the Latin Wikipedia, I've discovered that in Latin we say homo/homines when explaining some stuff that one can use, while other languages use e.g. "person(s)", "people", and "folk(s)", and maybe also "creature(s)" and "being(s)". An example in English is: "A train is a vehicle which people use to travel with". I guess that in Latin the sentence would use homines. I know that we don't use persona in contexts like this example because it means "roll" and "mask". It also means "person", but we don't use it normally for "person". I also think on that another intelligent lifeforms from another planets (which is not proved yet) can also use our vehicles, and their own. Then Latin's homo/homines wouldn't work anymore. The word persona doesn't only have to cover the meaning of humans; it can also be used for et's, wether they have a human like body or not. And when humans discover intelligent lifeforms, and know about their cultures, this usage of homo/homines will change. Note also that the usage of homo/homines is not ego like. It is just a language culture.

How do you think? Do you also think another words are okey to use?

Donatello (disputatio) 03:54, 11 Novembris 2013 (UTC).

Donatelle, si de subjecto generali loqueris, id verbo simpliciter non scripto, eg. passivi verbi genere exprimere potes: A train is a vehicle which people use to travel with. - Tramen vehiculum est quod ad vehendum adhibetur. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 09:16, 11 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Persona can refer to a person in general, but there usually seems to be some connotation of a person playing a part, or of an important personage. See Lewis & Short, sense 2. As for aliens, I think we have to deal with that on a case by case basis, maybe using homo or persona but maybe also creatura, bestia, anima, entitas, etc. The problem of how to refer to extraterrestrial beings is not unique to Latin. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:20, 12 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-45[fontem recensere]

13:18, 11 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Petrus Calungsod[fontem recensere]

Could I ask your help to improve this article ? Thanks in advance! I made some improvements and would like to ask if there are more improvements needed. If none, I would like to remove the Latinatis noticias. Jondel (disputatio) 12:45, 12 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Gratias vobis ago Neander et Lesgles. Interdum caecus sum errores meos.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:44, 13 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Disputatio:Escaria instrumenta[fontem recensere]

Ave. Haec disputatio infeliciter oblita est. Ut cor disputationis dicit, quid censetur vobis de ordine verborum "escaria instrumenta"? -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:19, 17 Novembris 2013 (UTC).

Ordo verborum liber est in lingua Latina. Itaque in oratione prosa et instrumenta escaria et escaria instrumenta dici potest, prout processus dictionis requirit. Sed in generali linguarum typologia, Latina inter "linguas SOV" numeratur. Quae cum ita sint, ordo neutralis, in titulis et indicibus commendabilis, "N + Adi" (instrumenta escaria) est. Neander (disputatio) 15:51, 17 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Gratias vobis verbis vestris. Tum moveo nomen. -- Donatello (disputatio) 16:46, 20 Novembris 2013 (UTC).

Disputatio:Clavuli conedendi[fontem recensere]

Nunc solvi "escariorum instrumentorum", quid censetur vobis de hoc nomine? Et oportentne partes escariorum instrumentorum esse? Re vera sunt instrumenta ad cibum edendum. -- Donatello (disputatio) 17:19, 20 Novembris 2013 (UTC).

Jalil Zandi[fontem recensere]

Hi. I'm active at Wikipedia: Persian, German, English, Simple English and French and I'm learning Latin too. I have a request. Can somebody translate the article Jalil Zandi from Wikipedia:Simple English to latin language, so that I can use it as a sample? It's very short and it has only 4 lines.Diako1971 (disputatio) 08:56, 18 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Salve, Diako. Translationem feci; spero eam utilem esse (I did the translation; I hope it is useful). Lesgles (disputatio) 18:57, 18 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Gratiam tibi habeo, Lesgles. Thank you verey much Lesgles. Diako1971 (disputatio) 20:29, 18 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-46[fontem recensere]

08:58, 18 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Disputatio:Ludus Catacumbarum et Catobleparum[fontem recensere]

Ave, sorry for write in english but my latin skills are almost inexistent. The title of this page is an original research, a fabrication of a Wikipedia user, as can be seen in the disputatio page, and should be quickly changed. I don't know the policies of this site and if the name should be the original english version or translated to latin, but for sure it can't be an invention like now. --Phyrexian ɸ 12:44, 18 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Lacking an authoritative translation of the name of the game (as far as I know!) the title of the page as it stands now is a loose translation, which should be acceptable if the {{convertimus}} template were to be added. Although another solution would be to have '''''Dungeons and Dragons''''' vel '''Ludus Catacumbarum et Catobleparum'''{{convertimus}} est ludus personarum.... Anyway, any translation of D&D into Latin would require to have the word "ludus" to make (Latin) sense.--Xaverius 13:39, 18 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Well, maybe I need to be a little more specific. The problem is not if the title is translated or not, I'm not aware about the guidelines of this wiki and I can't tell if it should be translated or not and how this should be done. The problem is the actual translation is wrong! It's a fabrication of Iustinus as you can read in the disputatio page. Catoblepas shouldn't be in the title of this article. --Phyrexian ɸ 21:37, 18 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there's something in that, I think; and I notice other wikipedias don't normally have a translated pagename for this topic. Maybe we should, as Xaverius suggests, add a Latin translation to help the reader (other wikipedias do that) but use "Dungeons and Dragons" as our pagename. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:05, 18 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
It was an interesting idea of Iustinus's to replicate the alliteration in Latin, and I see that the catoblepas is indeed a creature in D&D, but it is somewhat misleading. I think using English here would be more in line with our current habits, though I'd be fine with "Ludus Carcerum Draconumque" or "Ludus Carcerum et Draconum" too. Lesgles (disputatio) 05:05, 19 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

I've long used this coinage myself, but there are very good arguments againt it: it hasn't occurred in any published source, possibly not even my livejournal, and it's a trademarked name. But if we don't use it, I would recommend we just use the English name, in italics. In any case, I didn't pick catacumbarum just for the alliteration: in Dungeons & Dragons terms a "dungeon" is not a prison, but a set of underground passages full of monsters and treasure: definitely more of a catacumba than a carcer. --Iustinus (disputatio) 21:39, 19 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, mi Iustine! But the fact that the English name is trademarked (and used unchanged in many languages) does mean, by our usual guideline, that we should accept it as our pagename. I think we're all pretty much agreed there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:46, 19 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, just remember that for the purposes of the Latin gloss on the name. I woul be very disappointed to see it translated carceres, without any further explanation. --Iustinus (disputatio) 22:05, 19 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Good point on carceres. I went ahead and moved the page, adding a note about the translation, which interested people might want to check for errors. Now get to publishing so we can use your coinage! Lesgles (disputatio) 22:47, 19 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your help, I think this is the best solution. But I have to insist that "catobleparum" needs to be removed also from the notae. Don't get me wrong, I think the adaptation Catacumbarum et Catobleparum by Iustinus is brilliant and I really like it, but we must not made an adaptation of the game in latin language, we just have to describe the game in latin. So we cannot report adaptations that we consider brilliant, but that don't already exist. It's out of the scope of Wikipedia. So the phrase Si allitteratio desideratur, alia versio possibilis est 'Ludus Catacumbrarum et Catobleparum' should be removed. --Phyrexian ɸ 04:53, 20 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

(I must say I'm not familiar with the game.)
On the translation of "dungeons", Iustinus's point is critical to the general theory and practice of translation. You can never totally rely on dictionary equivalents: this is maybe the main reason why machines currently can't translate, though they keep trying :=) You have to judge what the original writer/speaker wanted to say. A comparable example known to me is Roald Dahl's book The Witches. The people described in it are not witches by the usual definition, and you would not always succeed in getting his intended meaning across by taking the dictionary equivalent of "witch" in all foreign languages. (Incidentally, this is not a Wikipedia-refuses-original-research issue. All translation is original research, but Wikipedians, by long-established Wikipedia logic, do permit themselves to translate.) So, given that "dungeons" to Gary Gigax in this game do not meet the standard definition of dungeons, we have to find an expression that somehow corresponds to what was in Gary Gigax's mind. Catacumba sounds pretty close to me.
As to "dragons", I feel that Phyrexian is right. A translator employed to produce a Latin version and Latin title (as happens with foreign versions of books and films, for example) might well come up with "Ludus Catacumbarum et Catobleparum", privileging the alliteration. Our job has to be merely to translate the intended meaning as best we can. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:32, 20 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

<-- As I understand it, Phyrexian is OK with catacumbae but not catoblepae. I had included the latter in the note as a suggestion rather than an official translation, but it is original research sensu stricto, so I have removed the problematic sentence. Lesgles (disputatio) 23:05, 20 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Thank you Lesgles, now it's fine for me. :-) --Phyrexian ɸ 01:17, 21 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Call for comments on draft trademark policy[fontem recensere]

Insula Norfolk(ia)[fontem recensere]

An quis verificare potest, apud Eggeri Lexicon nominum locorum (aut alibi), nomina Latina insulae: "Insula Norfolcia seu Norfolkia". Id enim nomen apud nos insertum est ab anonymo, qui alia nomina sine vera auctoritate eodem fere tempore mutavit. Gratias ago. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:13, 22 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Lexicon Eggeri non habeo, sed alium fontem inveni. Lesgles (disputatio) 00:52, 24 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Gratias tibi ago! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 25 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Habeo. Dicit:
Norfolk (insula)
Norfokia, ae, f.
Est insula Oceaniae.
Norfolkienses, ium; Norfolkiensis, e. --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 17:52, 29 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Et tibi gratias ago, Roberte! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:23, 29 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

99 000[fontem recensere]

Nunc super 99 000 commentationes adsunt. Bene facte ad omnes. :) Fortasse mire sed vere, Vicipaedia Latina primum est in indice vicipaediarum, et ne locuta quidem. Sit boni despectus linguae latinae in futuro. -- Donatello (disputatio) 01:33, 23 Novembris 2013 (UTC).

Movere volo ...[fontem recensere]

Movere volo paginas de civitatibus quae nomina verbosiora habent ut facilius orthographiam praedicere possumus.

et simili modo alia nomina pauca. Si enim de hac re disputare vis, oportet nunc ... disputare :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:01, 23 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Separatio verborum res publica mihi placet, sed quaestio de litteris maiusculis fortasse disputationem ampliorem meret. Theoretice si "Res publica popularis Sinarum" scribimus, debemus etiam scribere "Civitates foederatae Americae", "Britanniarum regnum", etc. Opinionem fortem non habeo, sed constantia expetibilis est. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:15, 23 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Probo nomina litteras maiusculas continere, itaque nomina sunt; "Speculator Qui Me Amabat" (The Spy Who Loved Me; pellicula Iacobi Bond), "Periculose Carus" (Dangerously in Love; album musicum Beyoncé Knowles), "Imus Ad Oram" (Vamos a la playa; carmen Righeira), "Civitates Foederatae Americae", Britanniarum Regnum", et cetera. Sed id est sola cultura scriptionis. Atque facilius est intellegere nomen est contra autem sententia Donatello (disputatio) 01:32, 24 Novembris 2013 (UTC).
Sunt permultae linguae quibus sciptio Anglica aliena est. Itaque The Spy Who Loved Me, quamvis nomen sit, Francogallice L'Espion qui m'aimait, Hispanice La espía que me amó, Italiane La spia che mi amava, Danice Spionen der elskede mig, Suecice Älskade spion scribitur. Donatello, unde scis linguam Latinam eodem modo esse scribendam ac linguam Anglicam? Mihi quidem videtur nobis sequendum esse, non mores Anglo-Americanos, sed potius mores philologorum, qui textùs auctorum antiquorum ederunt. (Pst, ceterum, non speculator sed speculatrix ....) Neander (disputatio) 07:50, 24 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Cum Lesgles consentio: "constantia expetibilis est". Nunc autem constantiam non habemus: si verba e.g. "respublica" aut "res publica" in capsa quaestionis inserimus, variationem fere infinitam videmus! Censeo maiorem partem Latinitatis recentioris scriptorum litteris maiusculis rarius uti in talibus locutionibus. Ob hanc rationem paginas paucas movere volui, fidem in constantia futura reponens ... De Civitatibus Foederatis sine dubio recte mones, Lesgles, sed eam mutationem possumus cras, non hodie, efficere!! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:52, 24 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Fidens igitur in constantia futura propositioni tuae suffragor. Lesgles (disputatio) 04:54, 25 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor coming to this Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

Hello. Please excuse my use of English. I would be grateful if you would translate this message into Latin, or any other language that more users will be able to read.

VisualEditor is coming to this Wikipedia, probably sometime in January 2014. VisualEditor is new software to allow people to edit pages without needing to learn wikitext syntax (like typing [[ and ]] to link to another page). It is already available and in use on some Wikipedia projects. Please see mw:Help:VisualEditor/FAQ for more information.

When this software arrives, you will have the option to use it or to use the current wikitext editor. When you press “Edit”, you will get the new VisualEditor software. To use the wikitext editor, you can press “Edit source”. For more information about how to use VisualEditor, see mw:Help:VisualEditor/User guide.

It is important that editors on this wiki test the new editor before it is deployed. This would let us know about any serious issues specific to this Wikipedia before the rollout. To enable VisualEditor now, go to your “Preferences”, select “Editing” and select “Enable VisualEditor”. Please let us know if you find any problems. If you're willing and able, please report the issue in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product. Alternatively, please explain the issue you found on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org. If you notice major issues affecting your project, we would appreciate it if you could let us know directly. Please leave a note on my talk page or, if it’s an emergency (like an unexpected bug causing widespread problems), please e-mail James Forrester, the Product Manager, at jforrester@wikimedia.org for immediate attention.

We would also appreciate help with translation with the pages about VisualEditor here and on MediaWiki.org, and its user interface. See VisualEditor TranslationCentral for general information. To translate the user interface, start by creating an account at TranslateWiki. Once your account request is approved, all you need to do is select your language from this list. This will give you a list of individual lines and paragraphs. The English original will be on one side, with the option to “edit” on the other. Pressing “edit” will open an edit window where you can work.

The User Guide is another important document. To translate this, simply go to the MediaWiki.org page, and select “translate this page”. Your language should be available from the drop-down menu on the right. If you want to help with translations and would like to talk about how, please leave a message for me on my talk page or leave a note at VisualEditor TranslationCentral.

Thank you, and happy editing! --Whatamidoing (WMF) (disputatio) 04:40, 24 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor office hours[fontem recensere]

Hello. I apologize again for posting this in English. Please help translate this message so that others in your community can read it. :)

The WMF Engineering Department is hosting two more office hours on IRC (Internet Relay Chat) to discuss Vicipaedia:VisualEditor. The first will be held on Monday, 2 December, at 1900 UTC. The second will be held on Tuesday, 3 December, at 0100 UTC. Please join Product Manager James Forrester to discuss VisualEditor and upcoming plans. Logs will be posted at meta:IRC office hours#Office hour logs afterwards. (If office hours are heavily attended, it can be difficult to get to all questions, but if you want to ask a question and cannot attend or do not speak English, please let me know your question at my talk page soon, and I will send your question to James F.)

Thanks! Whatamidoing (WMF) (disputatio) 00:49, 26 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Ut moveantur propono .....[fontem recensere]

Ut moveantur propono categorias "Loci thermales" in "Loci thermales per civitates digestae"; "Thermae Germaniae" in "Loci thermales Germaniae"; "Balnea Romana" in "Thermae Romanae", quo plus aequabilitatis in categoriis nominandis efficiatur. Commentationes categoriis proprias eodem iam inserui. Si quis de hac re disputare velit, oportet nunc ... disputare (ut iterum verbis supradictis utar).--Utilo (disputatio) 21:55, 24 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Nescio si aliis haec est vera res, sed nobis archaeologis thermae non sunt eadem quam balnea. Balneum nominamus edificiis aut privatis aut publicis parvis, dum thermae sunt illa magna aedificia imperialia Treverorum, Romae, Carthaginis aut Constantinipolitana. Tum dum Pompeiis sunt thermae Stabianae, Romae habemus thermas Antoninianas (por ejemplo...)--Xaverius 10:40, 25 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Discrimen, care Xaveri, quod postulas, in commentatione Thermarum invenies. At vero ne Romani quidem thermas, balineas, balnea, lavacra distincte inter se distinxerunt, nedum posteri. Plane duas categorias facere possumus, usque adhuc autem commentationes in categoria "Balnea Romana" posita magis thermis (sensu archaeologorum) propriae esse videntur.--Utilo (disputatio) 14:13, 25 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
PS: Vide etiam Thermae (discretiva)--Utilo (disputatio) 14:17, 25 Novembris 2013 (UTC)
Verum dicis, mi Utilo!--Xaverius 15:34, 26 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-47[fontem recensere]

06:56, 25 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

99.000[fontem recensere]

Iam nonaginta et novem milliarum paginarum habemus! Amici cari, dies auspiciata centum miliarum appripinquatur!--Xaverius 15:32, 26 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis[fontem recensere]

An oportet Litteras Civitatum Foederatarum pro mense Decembri laureare? Sententias tuas, s.v.p., exprimete! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 28 Novembris 2013 (UTC)

Categoria:Scriptores Afroamericani[fontem recensere]

Greetings. We have "Categoria:Scriptores Afroamericani" which was recently created. I'm against nationality of beings, like of humans, but I don't have to explain my wisdom here. But the people in USA are "Americans", whether they come from Europe or Africa. The "Americans" consist of the European and African humans, so shouldn't it be instead "Categoria:Scriptores Americani"?

Yes, at a higher level on the category tree, that's exactly what they should be! (Or, rather, scriptores Civitatum Foederatarum, avoiding the ambiguity of American.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:54, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

The African humans in USA call themselves "Afroamericans".

Not (much) any more; see below. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:54, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Note that they live in USA, so they should also be called "Americans" like the ones from Europe. I'm against having countries as well, but even USA is the Afroamericans'.-- Donatello (disputatio) 17:34, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC).

Explore the subcategories of American people by ethnic or national origin and prepare to be amazed! Don't miss American people of African descent. ¶ Many millions of Americans are well aware of their ancestors' places of origin and will be happy to tell you about them. ;) In part, this situation may have come about because (a) the immigration has been recent (not more than about five hundred years for all non-Native Americans, and maybe not more than about two hundred years for perhaps the bulk of "Americans"), and (b) fanatically careful birth, marriage, and death records were kept by many of the immigrant cultures from the start, particularly those of New England; also (c) most of those records have survived. The ancestors of someone you know, for example, are probably, in descending order of genetic effect: English, Scottish, Dutch, French, Swiss-German-Palatinate, Irish, Welsh, and American Indian (of New England). That's probably a typical mix—but given all the known migration around the world over the past few millennia, what does it mean to celebrate such ancestry? The further back you go in time, the less genetic (and social) effect the antecedents will have. For example, one of your correspondent's English forebears was Sir Walter Blount (one of Shakespeare's minor characters), but Sir Walter's wife was a Spanish lady, whose family includes Pero López de Ayala and might bring Basques into the picture, not to mention the imperial family in Constantinople, through the counts of Toledo. This reminds us that everyone's a mongrel, and specifying that someone is an X-American can be a gross generalization. It can even be deceptive: Colin Powell, for example, is demonstrably a Jamaican-American, but if you probe a little, you find he's a Scottish-African-American—and then what does Scottish mean? Any Vikings in the mix? And African ? Whereabouts?! ¶ In America, self-identification by ethnic or national heritage can have economic & political consequences; see en:Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. ¶ The more pertinent question is what the category should be called. In English, Afroamerican (or Afro-American), the standard term for a couple of decades, has gone out of style, in favor of African-American (the hyphen often being omitted by people who say it demeans them), but Latin doesn't always like two adjectives in a row. English African and its Latin ancestor seem to have two suffixes, with the word being made up of a root af(e)r + the suffix -icus- (now an infix) + the suffix -anus ; so we have Afer 'the district around Carthage', Africus 'characteristic of that place (and by extension its continent)', and Africanus 'belonging to Africa'. So Afro- would be a combining form based on the root, but Africo- and Africano- may also be possible. Given all this, the compound Afroamericanus seemed the best to deploy, but in view of all the other possible ethnic mixtures (see the subcategories of American people by ethnic or national origin again!), it could well be changed so as to set up a pattern compatible with the others. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:54, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
For the category, the pattern would appear to be "(Homines) Americani originis Africanae" or something like that, with subcategories of an identical structure. For another set in this pattern, one that will warm the cockles of Donatello's heart, see American people of European descent. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:44, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Just as a minor comment, Donatello, our general term is Categoria:Scriptores Civitatum Foederatarum (because "Categoria:Scriptores Americani" would be ambiguous -- it might refer to the whole continent).
On the general point that you raise, I think simple geographical categories like "Categoria:Scriptores Civitatum Foederatarum" are handy, but on the subject of ethnic categories I agree with you. Perhaps Iacobus, who created the category, will comment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:35, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
We had a lengthy discussion on whether to categorize people by ethnic origin here: Disputatio Categoriae:Actores Civitatum Foederatarum origine ethnica digesti#Should we get into this? --UV (disputatio) 21:05, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Quite true; and Iacobus's arguments above, about the endless complexity and subjectivity of these classifications, strongly support the conclusion we reached (or so it seems to me). And yet, if it weren't a question of running along far behind en:wiki, but of encouraging the development right here of an area we very much need -- Cultura Civitatum Foederatarum -- I would be for giving it a trial. I see what Iacobus means. There's surely something in it. Vicipaedia often works best when people who are enthusiastic about a subject area can get on with it. Could you do it, Iacobe? No need for redlink categories bleeding around the edges, no need for creeping English in hidden text: focus on the areas you know; write the pages; develop categories, within our general structure, that group those pages usefully.
As to the naming of this particular category, I think "Scriptores Afroamericani" is pretty good. (See also Disputatio Categoriae:Cultura Africana-Americana, a category name that probably needs to change, and by all means add comments there.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:12, 2 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Disputatio Categoriae:Cultura Afroamericana. --UV (disputatio) 17:06, 4 Octobris 2014 (UTC)

imago mensis: Carta marina[fontem recensere]

Aliquis cartae marinae descriptionem mutet: Carta marina a Olaus Magnus picta anno 1539 > Carta marina ab Olao Magno picta anno 1539.--Utilo (disputatio) 20:52, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Recte mones. Mutavi hic: Vicipaedia:Imago mensis/Decembris 2013. Vale! --UV (disputatio) 21:09, 1 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Ensis luminaris[fontem recensere]

Salve. Quid censetur vobis de nomine "ensis luminaris"? Quod fortasse scitis, verbum "ensis" est plus intus poesia, et "gladius" est verbum in norma armis. -- Donatello (disputatio) 00:08, 4 Decembris 2013 (UTC).

Mihi placet: ut dicis, "ensis" vox nobilius sonat. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 13:14, 4 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Help translate from English[fontem recensere]

Hello. I am Xaris333 from Cyprus. I speak Greek and English. Can you help me translate 2 paragraphs from English to your language, about a football team? Pls answer at my talk page. Xaris333 (disputatio) 01:53, 6 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-49[fontem recensere]

08:38, 9 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

De paginis descritivis[fontem recensere]

Salve. Demiro paginarum discretivarum indicibus videre oportent. Plurimi indices paginarum discretivarum indices numerorum (cum signo # scriptos) habent, dum minores indices punctorum (cum signo * scriptos). Habemusne lex firmus sive liber de aspectu indicum? -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:22, 11 Decembris 2013 (UTC).

Nescio si hanc normam habemus, sed igitur eam suade!--Xaverius 19:13, 11 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Latitudo tabularum consulatuum[fontem recensere]

Ad paginas de consulibus Romanis tabulas consulatuum addo. Sed hae sunt diversae latitudinis ita, ut aspectus paginae iucundus non sit, ut exempli gratia in pagina de Honorio imperatore. Quis haec emendare potest? Gratias iam nunc vobis ago--Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 08:22, 14 Decembris 2013 (UTC).

Tech News: 2013-50[fontem recensere]

08:32, 16 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

De Solis nomine[fontem recensere]

Salve. In pluribus commentationibus vidi ubi Solem dicitur, numquam scriptum est cum littera maiuscula incipio. Fortasse lapsus calami multorum hominum est, sive lex scriptionis nescio. Num sit, "Sol" est re vera nomen, et nomina pro aliis rebus cum litteras maiusculas incipio scribetur, sicut exempli gratiae aliis stellis ut Procyon et Bellatrix, planetae Tellus et Mars, urbes Capua et Thessalonica, nomina creaturis ut Caesar et Nicolaus, et nomina diis ut Hephaestus et Thorus. Quomodo sit Soli?

Donatello (disputatio) 18:30, 18 Decembris 2013 (UTC).

Nomen re vera est "Sol", mi amice. Duas rationes pono:
  1. Romani fere omnes Latine loquentes solem et stellas res differentes esse putabant. Solem unum tantum recognoverunt.
  2. Auctores mythistoriarum scientificarum, Anglice aut aliis linguis scribentes, saepe res astronomicas Latine appellant. Quando id faciunt, hanc stellam nostram nomine "Sol" nuncupant! ... Exempla nunc quaero ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:10, 20 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

100 000[fontem recensere]

100 000

The counter showed 100 004 as of 20:09, 18 Decembris 2013 (UTC)!

  • As the Latin dialect in my part of the world would have it, Mazal tov!
  • Figure has been updated on the home pages of simple and yi

StevenJ81 (disputatio) 20:33, 18 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Macte virtute estote omnes! In other words, C! Do we have some way of figuring out what the 100,000th article was? Lesgles (disputatio) 20:58, 18 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Usor:Helveticus montanus contributed the 100,000th article, possibly Iosephus Škoda, an 18th century scholar and professor at the University of Vienna. --UV (disputatio) 21:22, 18 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Usor:Dcljr reported the milestone at m:Wikimedia News StevenJ81 (disputatio) 21:35, 18 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
You should create a commemorative logo because of the 100 000 articles, like this one, from the Armenian edition:

Hywiki100000.png Anonymous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.131.14.54 (disputatio) at 06:01, 19 Decembris 2013‎ (UTC)

Congratulationes omnibus scriptoribus Latinis ! --Rafael Garcia — Preceding comment added by 220.136.114.249 (disputatio) at 05:44, 19 Decembris 2013‎‎ (UTC)
desiderat centum millia voces.--79.22.182.100 22:04, 19 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Complimenti!--Limonadis (disputatio) 22:17, 19 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Congratulazioni! -- Yiyi (disputatio) 22:53, 19 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Ad maiora! --Horcrux92 (disputatio) 23:13, 19 Decembris 2013
поздравляю Rago (disputatio) 07:34, 20 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Congratulazioni! Very well done my friends, go on, and see you at the millionth article! You see you have a strong support from it.wiki! ;-) --Phyrexian ɸ 08:31, 20 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Audaces fortuna iuvat. Ad maiora! --Spinoziano (disputatio) 13:54, 20 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
magno cum gaudio didici, toto corde mitto congratulationes :-) --Gianfranco (disputatio) 01:36, 21 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Complimenti e congratulazioni da un utente di it.wiki, (in italiano, causa latino arrugginito da anni di inutilizzo), e speriamo che questo progetto cresca ancora con future e numerose collaborazioni con le scuole!--84.223.247.63 12:47, 21 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Per angusta ad augusta! Macte virtute esto! - εΔω 01:41, 24 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Complimenti! --Erik1991 (disputatio) 08:52, 24 Decembris 2013 (UTC)
Gaudeamus omnes :)--Xaverius 12:56, 24 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: VisualEditor is coming to this wiki on 2014-01-13[fontem recensere]

Hello, everyone. Please excuse my use of English. I would be very grateful if you would translate this message so everyone can read it.

VisualEditor is coming to this project on Monday, 13 January 2014, probably around 1900 UTC. VisualEditor is software in development to allow people to edit pages in MediaWiki without needing to learn wikitext syntax (like typing [[ and ]] to link to another page). It is already in use on more than 100 Wikipedia projects. Please see mw:Help:VisualEditor/FAQ for more information.

On January 13th, you will have a choice between using VisualEditor or the current wikitext editor. When you press "Edit", you will get the new VisualEditor software. To use the wikitext editor, you can press "Edit source". For more information about how to use VisualEditor, see mw:Help:VisualEditor/User guide.

We hope that this software will be useful to people in your community, and we really need your help to make it better! If you have time, please test VisualEditor now and let us know about any serious issues specific to this Wikipedia before the rollout. To test VisualEditor now, go to Specialis:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and select "VisualEditor". If you're willing and able, please report the issue in Bugzilla in the "VisualEditor" product. Alternatively, please explain the issue you found on the central feedback page on MediaWiki.org. If you notice major issues affecting this Wikipedia, please let us know directly. Please leave a note on my talk page or, if it’s an emergency, like an unexpected bug causing widespread issues, reach out to James Forrester, the Product Manager, at jforrester@wikimedia.org for immediate attention.

We also need help with translation, both of the pages about VisualEditor and of the user interface. See VisualEditor TranslationCentral for information on what needs to be translated.

  • To translate the user interface, you need an approved account at TranslateWiki. Then select your language from this list. This will give you a list of individual lines and paragraphs. The English original will be on one side, with the option to "edit" on the other. Pressing "edit" will open an edit window where you can work. According to the current statistics, the interface is currently 2% translated.
  • To translate the user guide, simply go to the MediaWiki.org page, and select "translate this page". Your normal Wikipedia username and password will work there. Your language should be available from the drop-down menu on the right. If you want to help with translations and need help with it, please leave a message for me on my talk page. According to the current statistics, translation of the user guide has not been started. The translated (or partly translated) user guide also needs to be copied over here, so editors here can find it.

Thank you for your help, and happy editing! Whatamidoing (WMF) (disputatio) 19:19, 20 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Office hours 2014-01-15 + 2014-01-22[fontem recensere]

Salve!

The Wikimedia Foudation's engineering department has planned office hours in January to discuss VisualEditor. The first one will be held on 15 January 2014 at 2300 UTC; the second will be held a week later, on 22 January at 2300 UTC. Please join as Product Manager James Forrester discusses VisualEditor and upcoming plans. Logs will be posted on Meta after each office hour completes.

If you want to ask a question and cannot attend or do not speak English, please let me know your question by leaving a message on my user talk page or sending me an e-mail message, and I'll pass it along.

I’ll post a reminder close to the date as well. Gratias vobis ago, Whatamidoing (WMF) (disputatio) 22:41, 27 Decembris 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-51[fontem recensere]

08:27, 23 Decembris 2013 (UTC)