Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 3

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Index

Template for missing interwiki links[fontem recensere]

Vide Disputatio Vicipaediae:Nexus carentes. --Roland2 07:42, 23 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Now most of the articles with missing interwiki links are tagged with {{Nexus carentes}}. Using the CatScan tool someone can find the articles in a specific category which do not have interwiki links. See the examples on Vicipaedia:Nexus carentes. --Roland2 09:07, 23 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject[fontem recensere]

Are there any Wikiprojects in Vikipaedia? If it is not, i think wikiproject:lingua latina deserves to be the first. even if it exists wikiprojects, the topic is worthy of a project. We should provide a broad, precise source to latin. We ought to be the best. I will do my best to contribute. What do you say? Ehjort 16:26, 3 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

While part of me certainly agrees with you, the other part wonders which among us are qualified for this project. I certainly know a great deal about grammar in general, and about latin grammar specifically, but you say we should "be the best"; this might require a few more pieces of paper hanging up on my wall before I can with any amount of certainty claim my grammatical wisdom to be superlative by any means. To answer your question, there are a few projects apud vici, but with so few actively contributing members, it can be hard, in my experience, to actually get any where with a project. One that interests me a great deal is a theoria musicae project. All this being said, I would be happy and interested to work on a lingua latina project. Tell me what I can do to be useful.--Ioshus Rocchio 16:31, 4 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Btw, new posts should go at the bottom of the page.--Ioshus Rocchio 16:33, 4 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
I am not a very qualified person myself, as I have only learnt latin for a year. However, this is a great way of learning. And, I am sure, we could cover latin grammar pretty good in cooperation. Of course "the best" is very far away, but we should aim for covering all issues on grammar, all conjugations, declinations, cases, tenses, structures, etc in an easily accessible, well arranged and educating manner. If we managed this, it would really be something to be proud of. I do not expect you or any other to possess this knowledge all alone, but in the vicipaedian spirit it should be possible. As far as I remember, grammar and music are two of the essential artes. I will sketch up a plan and present it here as soon as possible. Ehjort 18:48, 4 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Wasn't really sure cuz it got no responses. Glad to hear from you :) Ehjort 18:48, 4 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Do you know http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Latin ? --Roland2 19:00, 4 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Thank you! That's a nice one. Though it seemed a little lacking when it comes to the different ablatives. I'll erad better tomorrow. Ehjort 20:09, 4 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

One thing I would like to make sure we do, is include both classical and archaic latin forms, quoi for cui, ducier instead of duceri or duci, indicative in indirect questions, etc. I don't so much care (or even know, for that matter) about medieval/neolatin grammar, but perhaps we should address that as well. Like you said, aim high, if aim at all.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:41, 5 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

then Classic and archaic it is - Sine ira et sudio. i currently trying to figure out a structure for our work. One thing we should do is to decipe upon one verb of each conugation and one noun of each declination to serve as a standard examples. I propose the verbs amare(a), monere(e), ducere(3rd), facere(3rd) and audire(4th). In addition esse should be used. Irregular verbs should be listed in all tenses. For nouns I propose villa, servus, bellum, consul, nomen and fructus, dies. You get the idea. Next all cases must be covered, and all other parts of speech, lingvistics and syntax. But first: do we need a project page to coordinate our efforts? A page that also should be used to develop a standard for the articles.Ehjort 16:06, 5 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)


I definitely am against servus and bellum as paradigm nouns. Slave and war are not the mental images I want in any student's head when they are trying to remember the second declension. Probably out to include a deponent verb or two, and fieri.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:17, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
OK. Was just using the examples that I've learnt to use. AFter all that's an important part of roman history. But; let's find some other examples. I'd be happy if you decided on the deponent verbs. And fieri. Ehjort 05:37, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

I will spend my easter holidays terribly offline. Where I live, this means I will not be back until 17 April. That will be the start of this little project, to speak for myself. If you want something to do you could write articles on the different tenses and conjugations. Or something compeltely different. Ehjort 19:04, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

How about amicus and donum for our 2nd declension? Loqui would be a good deponent, especially since apud vici it is so often misused.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:19, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ehjort 23:07, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Is there an accepted translation of Wikiproject? If not, may I humbly suggest Collaboratio Vicipaediae (or similar) and offer my services on the project? I'm in the middle of learning Latin at school (just finishing my third year of it) so I'm right in the middle of all the grammar. Dbmag9 18:30, 24 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Behold, it has arrived! Vicipaedia:Vicicollaboratio Lingua Latina is the new page. There is lots of work to be done! Daniel () 17:56, 29 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
You ought to know that this makes me happy. Well done! Ehjort 22:32, 29 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Yay, I made someone happy! Daniel () 18:32, 30 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Lucky you.Ehjort 20:28, 30 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

formulam novam feci[fontem recensere]

Salvete! Formula urbibus mundi feci : Velim aliquem formulam legere ut corrigatur. Formula est Formula:Urbs Mundi cum Provincia. Formulam legere potestis in rebus his: Hispalis aut Toletum. Nesciebam quo modo monstrarem me velle auxilium in ipsa pagina ut hoc scribam.

Howdy! I wrote a formula for cities of the world (with provinces) and would like it if someone could read it for correctness. The formula is Formula:Urbs Mundi cum Provincia. You can see the formula in these articles: Hispalis and Toletum. I didn't know how to show that I needed help with the formula on its own page, so I wrote here. Sinister Petrus 15:50, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)


Ut in pagina ipsa opem vel auxilium quaesas, {{reddenda}}, aut si opem permaxime dandam sit <nowiki>{{maxcorrigenda}}, scribe ad summum articuli.</nowiki> Hoc monstrat:


{{reddenda}}
{{maxcorrigenda}}
--Ioshus Rocchio 23:23, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Salve Sinister Petre ; Dicam " tempus regionis" vice " regio temporis". Correxi etiam tuam sententiam latine. --Marc mage 23:28, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Multas gratias tibi ago. Sinister Petrus 02:15, 7 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Parvas emendationes formulae feci. Incertus de nomine recte "Time zone", at regio temporis...vix meo animo licet. Sed dic mi, necesse est rescribere "provincia nationis" si super scripseris nomen nationis?--Ioshus Rocchio 23:31, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Hem, video ut regio temporis non mihi solo displacet =].--Ioshus Rocchio 23:34, 6 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
1. Heu! "Regio temporis" in formula e Urbibus Americae dicitur ut corrigenda illuc etiam requirantur. Quo modo melius dicere nescio (anglice for a second, I really don't much care what it is called, but I thought "regio temporis" ((region of time)) sounded more latine than "zona horaria" ((hour zone)) even though I didn't make either one up). Quod scio, usus sum, quamquam illam formulam quoque feceram. In animo vero, in re de Sancto Iacobo prime visi. Zonane horaria melius sit quam "regio temporis"? 2. Si provincia est, volo lectores scire provinciam esse. Si non provincia est, aliam formulam faciam. An tuam quaestionam non intellego? Sinister Petrus 02:15, 7 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Category vs. categoria[fontem recensere]

I think, the term "Category" in the footer of the pages in the article namespace should be translated. I would prefer "Categoriae". The user namespace says "Categoriae paginarum" ... shouldn't it be "Categoriae paginae" (or just "Categoriae")? --Roland2 09:09, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

[[Categoria:MyCategory]] works as well. The pages that still say: <nowiki>[[Category:XYZ]] can just be switched to read Categoria</nowiki>. (I think I understood the question.) --Tbook 15:48, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Now I see what you are talking about. Articles that only belong to one category, like Isidorus Hispalensis say Category: at the bottom. If they have more than one, it says: Categoriae paginarum. Also the titles on the category pages themselves aren't translated. --Tbook 15:54, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I did not realize that this effect depends on the number of categories. (I thought it depends on the namespace.) - Yes, the configuration files should be translated, not the content of the articles. --Roland2 17:54, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

{{Delenda}}[fontem recensere]

It seems like no one has gone through Categoria:Deletiones propositae to delete pages for a long time. Is anyone interested in doing that? --Tbook 16:33, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that only admins could delete, or I'd have gone through them a while ago.--Ioshus Rocchio 16:49, 9 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)


Translatio nominum propriorum[fontem recensere]

I have created a draft policy on how to handle the translation of proper names. It is only my not-very-set opinion at the moment—I would appreciate if others could look at it, offer criticism, and help build a policy out of it. —Myces Tiberinus 15:40, 15 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question, and for the most part I do agree with you completely. There is one special problem with German "von"; this used to denote the place of origin of a person´s ancestor (e.g. Götz von Berlichingen), but in later times was often a sign of "nobility" bestowed upon ordinary people (cf. the German Chancellor´s name von Müller), which etymologically makes no sense at all.

Generally, I think, we´ll often have to use ad hoc solutions in such cases.

--328cia 07:31, 13 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Marcus Magus respondit Myci Tiberino.[fontem recensere]

Salve

  • Oblitus es acronymatum. ( eg ONU, USA)
  • Mea opinione,si nomen proprium posse videtur capere casum latinum, addendus est, e.g Georgus Bushus.
  • Quod attinet ad nomina quae non possunt capere casus latinos, oportet addere appositionem ut certiores res fiant.
  • e.g Urbs Roissy est pulcherrima.

--Marc mage 19:35, 18 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Dissentio. Ad nomina non romantica, suffices latini non opportet nobis addere. Multum Georgius Bush meliorst quam Bushus.--Ioshus Rocchio 03:37, 19 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
  1. Vero, de acronymis non scripsi. Ut mihi videtur, melius est nova acronyma notasque non creare. Si iam acronymum interlingue sit, id possumus uti, sed alioqui...
  2. Etiam dissentio. Fortasse si extra Vicipaedia scribas—aut ita scribam—sed non hic, ubi melius est non nomina creare (non ‘verifiabilia’ sunt).
  3. Iam ‘urbs Roissy’ est quomodo nomen non redditum tractandum est, nisi fallor, secundum linguae normas. —Myces Tiberinus 22:08, 24 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

nexus in aliis linguis[fontem recensere]

Si quis sciat quomodo cito addere nexus in versionibus aliarum linguarum, benignus sit si dicat. --Marc mage 19:35, 18 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Latina/English?[fontem recensere]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place. What is the policy here on talk page languages? I suppose that Latin is the prefered (to enable contributors who know Latin in addition to something other than English) but should conversations be in Latin at all? Should they be in both? I should like to know the consensus on what is appropriate. Dbmag9 18:19, 24 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Presumably any language is fine; the only question is exactly how widely you plan on being understood :p English is probably the most likely to be written and understood; writing messages in Latin, depending on the skills of the reader (and in many cases the writer as well), may be gambling on being understood, but certainly isn't discouraged. —Myces Tiberinus 21:52, 24 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Penso che anche l'italiano vada bene e in generale qualsiasi lingua di origine latina. L'importante è capirci. Dario de Judicibus
To this end, Roland and I put together a template for your babel box...if you prefer latin messages on your user talk page, type {{Nuntii latine placent}}, which will display
She-wolf suckles Romulus and Remus.jpg Huic usori maxime placent nuntia Latine scripta in pagina sua disputationis.
Cf my or Roland's talk page.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:25, 25 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Where is a good email group or forum about Latin?[fontem recensere]

I looked in the Yahoo groups and there I tried http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LATIN_101/ , but it seems to get next to no messages.
If I merely make a general text web search for "Latin", I drown in references to Latin America.
Is there a good email group or forum about Ancient Greek? (not Modern Greek) Anthony Appleyard 17:57, 25 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of interesting discussions on Google Groups (formerly Usenet) (here). Any specific questions or thoughts you have will be answered on my Talk page, although I can't guarantee anything more than my thoughts on the matter. Dbmag9 18:08, 25 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

I looked there and I found nothing useful. Please could someone tell me directly a good email group or forum for Latin language, and a good email group or forum for Ancient Greek. Anthony Appleyard 11:39, 26 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. If you do find something, please post it up here. A useful tip on Google is to put a hyphen "-" before a word to remove it from the results. Try searching "latin -america language group" or "ancient classical greek group" for more specific results. Dbmag9 19:01, 26 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Słupsk and Koszalin[fontem recensere]

Can someone, please, write here articles about en:Koszalin and en:Słupsk? Some information is on fr.wiki, es.wiki, ro.wiki, en.wiki and pl.wiki. Thanks a lot! Michał 18:31, 26 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

I will make stubs, but I must confess not to have a terrible lot of interest in these articles, not being Polish, and finding geographical articles boring and no fun to translate. Kozsalin, Slupsk.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:17, 26 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Koszalin is "Scurgum" ([1]; Hofmann. Lexicon Universale: "SCURGUM Germaniae urbs Ptolom. Schmeben Villanovano, in Pomerania."). Słupsk (Kashubian/Pomeranian: Stolpsk; German: Stolp), a city in Middle Pomerania, is possibly "Stolpe" (Hofmann. Lexicon Universale: "STOLPE oppid. Pomeraniae ulterioris Metell. in Wandalia tractus, iuris Brandeburgens. ad Stolpam fluv. 3. leuc. supra eius oftia in Merid. 7. a Leoburgo in Occasum, Colbergam versus 13.") -- Alexander Gerascenco 07:11, 27 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Gratias Alexandro convertendo. Stipulae factae sunt.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:25, 27 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
  • Słupsk and Koszalin did not exist in Roman times and we may as well use the modern names to avoid confusing people: Słupsk quid Germanice erat Stolp, Koszalin quid Germanice erat Köslin. Anthony Appleyard 06:54, 1 Maii 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, Varsovia (Warszawa), Resovia (Rzeszow) and many other cities didn't exist in Roman times either - but still are called here by their latinised names, not real Polish ones, despite it can also cause confusing people. I think in the case discussed we might use modern non-latinised placenames only to make redirects from them, or - only if is considered to be necessary - form new latinisations (e.g. Slupscum and Cosalin), more similar to the modern names. -- Alexander Gerascenco 08:31, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I was born in Koszalin and have lived here since. I sincerely doubt that Koszalin (Cussalin) and Scurgum are the same places (even the geographical location on the map and list of latin geographical names are different). I suggest we stop spreading utter lies about it.

Here's the best place to make this remark? Watch your tone, too, we only created scrugum because we were asked to. If you have better information, please say so, and in the appropriate spot.--Ioshus (disp) 13:38, 17 Februarii 2007 (UTC)--Ioshus (disp) 13:38, 17 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Contractio?[fontem recensere]

Non habemus contractionem Vicipaediae, ut facile ad paginas perveniamus. In Vicipaedia Anglice, est 'WP' pro 'Wikipedia'Cur non 'VP' pro 'Vicipaedia' habeamus? Me paenitet si adhuc est, et linguae Latinae terribilis. Daniel () 21:19, 28 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

Non, nondum compendia habemus. Potes ea facere, si vis. —Myces Tiberinus 01:48, 30 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Completus! VP:T est prima compendia pro Vicipaedia Latina. Daniel () 19:31, 30 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)
Facere posses compendiam per paginam facens qui forma VP:Compendia habeat. Diende addide formula {{Compendium|xxx}}paginae. Daniel () 19:36, 30 Aprilis 2006 (UTC)

System Messages[fontem recensere]

There are quite a few system messages here (ie things in the MediaWiki namespace) that still need translating. I will keep a record of the ones that I find. Who are the admins on this Wikipedia? Daniel () 12:01, 1 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I think Usor:Myces, Usor:Tbook, Usor:Roland2, and Usor:Iustinus are the admins here.--Ioshus Rocchio 12:53, 5 Maii 2006 (UTC)
No I am not an admin, this is the list: Vicipaedia:Magistratus. --Roland2 15:03, 5 Maii 2006 (UTC)
If you find a particular message or few (not the whole list please!) that needs (re-)translated let me know which and where it is used and I'll look into it. —Myces Tiberinus 15:32, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Number 1: #Category_vs._categoria (see above) :-) --Roland2 15:41, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Done. (The 'categoriae paginarum' seems to have been a remnant of how the 'categories' message is also used by the software as the title of Specialis:Categories.) —Myces Tiberinus 17:12, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)
A small list (added as I find them) is at Usor:Dbmag9/Works-in-Progress/System Text. Daniel () 11:44, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)

New articles - Novae res[fontem recensere]

... can be made only indirectly via a link. Or am I wrong?

...non fieri possunt nisi via indirecta per nexus. An erro?

Alex1011 19:56, 5 Maii 2006 (UTC)

It can be made by several ways, e. g. via page Nova pagina, however, the recommended way is to find an appropriate parent page and create a "red link" there and then click on that red link which opens the edit window for the new article. Articles with no parent pages are listed on Specialis:Lonelypages ;-) --Roland2 22:52, 5 Maii 2006 (UTC)
I type the title into the URL ie http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_article.

Id est: Ego digito titolus in URL sicut http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_res. Daniel () 10:27, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup: Neither categories nor interwiki links (20 articles)[fontem recensere]

These pages have neither categories nor interwiki links: [2]. Can you help with some of those 20 articles? --Roland2 14:25, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

... or those 74 articles in Categoria:Dubcat? --Roland2 14:43, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Whoah, Rol...20 is a lot better than 74! =] I'm starting with the 20 first. Catana et Sanctus Dominicus facti sunt ad tempus hoc scribendi.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:45, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Ok, to be precise:
  • About 20 articles are tagged with {{dubcat}} and {{Nexus carentes}}.
  • About 74 articles are tagged just with {{dubcat}}.
  • There are many articles with {{stipula}} which have no category but "stipula"
  • There might be some other articles which need some work too ... ;-)
Ok, Roland and I have done some work, we are down to these 10 pages which still are dubcat. 
I'm at a loss for some of them, some of them are reddenda, some are move ad victionarium:

Articles in category "Dubcat" There are 10 articles in this category.

Help if you can. --Ioshus

--Ioshus Rocchio 03:45, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Wow. :-) --Roland2 06:17, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)



I think, the work does not need to be done systematically, however, if the one or the other thinks, that the one or the other article could be easily cleaned up, this would help on the long run. :-) --Roland2 15:05, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Nota Homogeneitas, et Homogeneus materias victionario esse, ita non categorias seu nexus addidi.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:01, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

See my remarks above. Maybe some of these articles should be just deleted or merged with other articles. --Roland2 15:05, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

You asked ... habemusne formulam pro suggerendo movere articulum ad victionarium? - I think we do not have such a template and so I like this idea very much! --Roland2 15:11, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Ok...now all that are both in dubcat and nexus carentes are Lexicon Nominum Locorum and Poesis lyrica. Both are reddenda, and are largely indecipherable, and more urgently I don't know how to categorize. The nominum locorum thing should be delenda in my opinion. Outisde sources will be much more researched than we will be. As for the victionarium template, I will work on that myself.--Ioshus Rocchio 05:05, 7 Maii 2006 (UTC)


Ok, we now have Formula:Move ad victionarium, which is {{move ad victionarium}} or

Wiktionary-logo-la.png
Suademus haec pagina moveatur ad Victionarium.
Sententiam tuam profer in pagina disputationis.

. Feel free to change color or text.--Ioshus Rocchio 02:37, 8 Maii 2006 (UTC)

More Admins?[fontem recensere]

Perhaps we could use some more admins to keep up with deleting pages, fixing system messages, etc? On the Vicipaedia:Magistratus page, only four active ones are listed, and I only see two of them around here very often. Perhaps Usor:Roland2 or Usor:Ioshus Rocchio might be interested? --Tbook 16:40, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I think, my knowledge of Latin is too poor for this job. I'd vote for Usor:Ioshus Rocchio. --Roland2 16:57, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)
So would I. Daniel () 17:21, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Gratias multas amicis. I would certainly accept a nomination. But I would also revote for Roland. His latin is much better than he credits himself, and his knowledge of the technical side of things certainly supercedes mine. Also his ethic is impeccable, and we could trust him with deletions/management. On a wiki as small as this, obviously utter fluency in the language is not a requisite skill for any contributor.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:26, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Many thanks to the current admins, especially Usor:Mycēs & Usor:Iustinus for all their good work! --Tbook 20:27, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Without question, I've certainly taken a bunch of guidance from all three of you, and the prior research you guys have done, ie fontes nominum locorum, the translatio nominum propriorum, etc has made the paths to useful scholarship much more quickly traversable.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:10, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Wait, so Tbook isn't an admin either? I was always under the impression that he was.--Ioshus Rocchio 12:55, 10 Maii 2006 (UTC)
oh, well, enough with this byzantinism... It looks like a polite "pavane" (Josh knows what I mean) of reciprocal appraisal. What are we waiting? I'm afraid I'll have to start candidations out myself (poor lurker coming only once in a while)... as far as I'm concerned your dedication to the project is a guarantee. Is Latin language the problem? I think that communication between users in case of doubt is the real problem, and in your case it's a false problem. Oh well, let's get this party started!! εΔω 15:11, 12 Maii 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if Latin is the problem... if noone is around to help drop me a line as an extrema ratio, I'm all but "wikiwiki" and very busy in it.wiki and it.source, but I like classical languages too much to refuse an answer.

New Formula[fontem recensere]

I felt that I should notify all about a new formula. {{fnp}} is the same as {{fn}} but it enables you to put another parameter in, so {{fnp|Vicilibri|Latina}} would appear as {{Vicilibri|Latina}}. For more than one parameter just use the <nowiki> tags. Daniel () 17:21, 6 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, I have added a new parameter as well, so you mmay put in the name of the matter in the ablative case. ie
Vicilibri Lege de Lingua Latina in Vicilibris.

...--Ioshus (disp) 08:48, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

Roman numerals/numeri romani[fontem recensere]

Moved to Disputatio Vicipaediae:Numeri Romani. --Roland2 01:09, 4 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

85.156.137.66 ... vandalism?[fontem recensere]

[3] ... vandalism? --Roland2 18:00, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I mean, while I will grant him the point, merda does advenit ex culo, it certainly seems to be vandalism. Blockable, for sure.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:54, 9 Maii 2006 (UTC)

The users' edits have been reverted. --Roland2 18:36, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Link on template "delenda"[fontem recensere]

On template {{delenda}} the link Vicipaedia:Cito Delenda is a REDIRECT to Disputatio Usoris:Nickshanks. This might be confusing. I propose to write some information on page Vicipaedia:Cito Delenda. Maybe, that the user shall visit the Vicipaedia:Taberna. --Roland2 21:32, 15 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Sardegna[fontem recensere]

Per favore, qualcuno può dirmi come si chiamano in latino i giudicati sardi? Grazie. IzTrsta da slo:wiki

Prego. Giudicare è da la parola latina "iudicare" quindi "iudicator" o "iudicatores". Sardegna è "Sardinia", così giudicati sardi sara "iudicatores Sardiniae".--Ioshus Rocchio 13:52, 16 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, ma purtroppo è un po' più difficile: leggendo it:Giudicati sardi sono definiti
entità statuali autonome che ebbero potere in Sardegna fra il IX ed il XV secolo
governate da "giudici". In latino si potrebbero descrivere iudicata Sarda, parva regna Sardiniam insulam administrantia inter IX et XV saeculum, quorum rex "su judike" nuncupabatur. Altre notizie su it:Storia della Sardegna dei Giudicati - εΔω 16:42, 16 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Grazie a tutti e due. IzTrsta da slo.wiki (I miei precedenti ringraziamenti sono stati erroneamente rollbackati.)

216.36.138.14 should be blocked first ...[fontem recensere]

... and then his contributions should be checked. Disputatio Usoris:216.36.138.14 --Roland2 18:56, 17 Maii 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be the users provider:

OrgName:    Westman Communications Group 
OrgID:      WMAN
Address:    1906 Park Ave.
City:       Brandon
StateProv:  MB
PostalCode: R7B-0R9
Country:    CA

OrgAbuseHandle: WCGAB-ARIN
OrgAbuseName:   WCG Abuse 
OrgAbusePhone:  +1-204-571-7307
OrgAbuseEmail:  abuse@westmancom.com

--Roland2 19:06, 17 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Permaxime consentio. Is podex est perfectus.--Ioshus Rocchio 23:53, 17 Maii 2006 (UTC)

All the user's edits have been reverted. --Roland2 18:46, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

dirty dirty work needed[fontem recensere]

Dear commensales,

I noticed that more admins are really needed here since Categoria:Deletiones propositae has fifty-five pages chock full of crap, errors, test writing, et cetera, presumably forgotten by our super busy elsewhere current admins (I understand, since I'm very busy myself on multiple projects, so I mean no offence on them). I didn't check the subcategories, this single number speaks by itself. Another path can be followed clicking on Specialis:whatlinkshere/Formula:delenda... is it better understood if written down in Latin? Briefly:

Magistratus opus sunt, ut multas veteres delendas paginas extinguantur.

I hope not to seem rude. If I don't know the actual situation that originated this forgive my impudent ignorance. - εΔω 17:09, 18 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Actually I had been clearing out Categoria:Deletiones propositae not much more than a week or two before this note was posted. It's just that this wiki is ‘chock full of crap, errors, test writing,’ etc. and people had been shy of populating it further earlier, because it was still full and neglected-looking. The subcategories don't indicate their articles need deleted, BTW, just that the category description itself is to be deleted. Er, and what error are you referring to in labda ? —Myces Tiberinus 19:07, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Umm, I think the error there is that it is supposed to be laMbda--Ioshus Rocchio 19:12, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)
In English maybe. It seems not in Latin or Ancient Greek. This was already brought up on Disputatio Formulae:Abecedarium Graecum and is stated on Abecedarium. —Myces Tiberinus 12:18, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Entries from the Victionarium[fontem recensere]

You can find a list of Victionarium entries there: Usor:Roland2/temp2. --Roland2 18:12, 19 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Is this a list of all Victionarium entries? Is it a list of those that need moving here? What does it tell us? Also, quite a lot of the entries are just gibberish which do not (rightly) have an article anywhere. Daniel () 20:05, 19 Maii 2006 (UTC)
It's a list of all titles they have. See http://download.wikipedia.org/lawiki/latest/lawiki-latest-all-titles-in-ns0.gz It seems they are mixing up several languages. The link in brackets points to the target page in the Victionarium, the title (= the word before the brackets) is blue, when there exists such a page in the Vicipaedia. The list shall not tell anything, however, I think it's interesting. --Roland2 20:19, 19 Maii 2006 (UTC)
If it works anything like Wiktionary, the inclusion of words from multiple languages is no accident. The idea is that the words are in all languages and the definitions are in, in this case, Latin... --Alynna Kasmira 00:23, 20 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Tabula Rasa[fontem recensere]

At VP:PC there is a Tabula Rasa. What is it? It is not doing anyone any good. I added an edit-this-page link, but it really should have some content. Might I self-promotingly add some kind of notice about VP:VLL? Daniel () 18:15, 20 Maii 2006 (UTC)

66.162.225.66 is a vandal[fontem recensere]

See http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Specialis:Contributions&target=66.162.225.66 --Roland2 16:10, 23 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted several of his vandalistic efforts. I wish we could block his IP, if an administrator took note of this.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:12, 23 Maii 2006 (UTC)

The user's edits have been reverted. --Roland2 18:49, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Popular pages in the English Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mostrevisions

25 May 2006

  1. George W. Bush ‎(30,026 revisions) Georgius W. Bush
  2. Wikipedia ‎(16,544 revisions) Vicipaedia
  3. Jesus ‎(13,627 revisions) Iesus
  4. United States ‎(12,596 revisions)
  5. Adolf Hitler ‎(11,825 revisions)
  6. Hurricane Katrina ‎(10,779 revisions) ** Missing in Vicipaedia Latina **
  7. World War II ‎(10,547 revisions)
  8. RuneScape ‎(10,041 revisions) ** Missing in Vicipaedia Latina **
  9. Michael Jackson ‎(9,235 revisions) ** Missing in Vicipaedia Latina **
  10. John Kerry ‎(8,291 revisions)
  11. Canada ‎(8,284 revisions)
  12. Islam ‎(8,235 revisions)
  13. Britney Spears ‎(8,049 revisions) ** Missing in Vicipaedia Latina **
  14. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake ‎(8,002 revisions)
  15. Anarchism ‎(7,995 revisions)
  16. Bill Clinton ‎(7,800 revisions)
  17. September 11, 2001 attacks ‎(7,404 revisions)
  18. Christianity ‎(7,339 revisions)
  19. Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy ‎(7,185 revisions)
  20. Pope Benedict XVI ‎(7,153 revisions)
  21. September 2005 ‎(7,133 revisions)
  22. 2005 Atlantic hurricane season ‎(7,046 revisions)
  23. Terri Schiavo ‎(6,830 revisions)
  24. List of ethnic slurs ‎(6,788 revisions)
  25. Scientology ‎(6,687 revisions)
  26. Wiki ‎(6,671 revisions)
  27. India ‎(6,632 revisions)
  28. Homosexuality ‎(6,497 revisions)
  29. Wii ‎(6,373 revisions)
  30. Fidel Castro ‎(6,341 revisions)

--Roland2 18:24, 25 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Oh damn, we should IMMEDIATELY start the page for Britney Spears =].--Ioshus Rocchio 18:43, 25 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Noli me temptare! Sinister Petrus 21:12, 25 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Though, now that I think about it, how would one even say Kevin in Latin? I thought about that, and couldn't think of a ready source at home or where on the internet to look. Hem. Sinister Petrus 14:33, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Kevin is Coemgenus. (Blame the Irish for that.) —Myces Tiberinus 16:07, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I never would have guessed that...--Ioshus Rocchio 17:49, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Haha yeah. That's what divergent evolution will get you... —Myces Tiberinus 18:57, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Me neither. Perhaps an article about C-fed (my very own tabloid favorite) is also in the works. Sinister Petrus 03:40, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)
I've put the information above into page Vicipaedia:Plurimum mutata. Although it might not be that interesting to write pages about several pop stars, I think we should have at least a stub where the Latinization of popular terms could be discussed. Where else, if not here? It's not the content, it's the title, we should have. --Roland2 15:05, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, I agree Rol, just laughing about the idea "Britania Spears, musica, mater, meretrix..."--Ioshus Rocchio 15:37, 26 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Talking about laughs? Si "Spears" nobis vertendum erit, Quid reddetur? Britannia pilum? aut Britannia telum? Aut secundum evangelia Britannia lancea? Argh! I'll never go that far with Latin! - εΔω 11:12, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Redirectio[fontem recensere]

Please have a look at Vicipaedia:Redirectio and the discussion there. --Roland2 13:48, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Formula:MaximaeUrbesAmericanae[fontem recensere]

Formulam novam feci. Hic est. Sed miror. Suntne nomina urbium correcta? Nomina in vicipaedia et aliis locis videram ut correcta nomina haberem. Sed usque miror. Si scis nomina meliora quam nomina invenita, scire volo. (Anglice: Seriously, if you have more correct names for the cites listed, I'd appreciate it. The corresponding English template is at en:Template:USLargestCities.) Sinister Petrus 18:43, 27 Maii 2006 (UTC)

"Sanctus Iacobus" ... that would be Santiago, wouldn't it? San Diego would be Sanctus Didacus—or better, Didacopolis as Traupmann (who also has Franciscopolis for San Francisco) has it, or at least Sancti Didaci, as the city is not Saint Diego, but Saint Diego's, and the same for all the other 'Sanctus ____' in the list). For 'Dallas' Traupmann has "Dallasium", for 'Austin,' "Austinopolis" (urgh!), for 'Oklahoma City' actually "Oclahoma Urbs", "Miamia" for Miami, and that's all the suggestions I have to hand from this book before I leave for work. —Myces Tiberinus 11:22, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree with the Saint Xxxx places, since both Traupman and the Catholic Church do list them as Xxxx-opolis. But for the most part, I did go by the city names (especially those in California) as listed as they exist here already, which is not to say that they cannot be changed. Now as far as say, Cansianopolis and Oclahomopolis, I did crib those directly from the Catholic Church's diocesan web list. Again, none of this is to say that I'm all the way right. I'm merely reporting where I got which names. I will be correcting Dallas, since I forgot to find that in Traupman (vae mihi!). Sinister Petrus 15:15, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Ask and you shall receive. No? Myces, thanks for moving Sanctus Iacobus to Didacopolis. I'll tinker with the formula as articles get created and moved to the right place. Sinister Petrus 02:08, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Re Honolulum: In Polynesian languages, that final u is exceedingly important, and to regard it merely as part of a Latin suffix (to disappear in most cases) does deep damage to local phonetics. Unless Honolulum is really really well established, I'd suggest Honolulu, -us, fourth declension. (To Polynesian speakers, the locative Honolului should sound better than Honoluli.) Either that, or keep the u and add another one: Honolulu, -ui, second declension. Likewise the country Nauru, -us. I may eventually have comments on other Oceanic placenames. Is a Latin list (outside Vicipaedia) available on the internet? IacobusAmor

Deleting unused redirects like 197. dec.[fontem recensere]

Shall we delete unused redirects like "197. dec." (= of the form /^\d+\.\sdec\.$/)?

  1. Pro --Roland2 13:59, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)
  2. Pro, but make sure that they're really unused first. Daniel () 14:52, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)
  3. Pro Cum Danihele concurro. Quamquam nullos usatos nexus constamus. (Spero correcte scripsisse) Sinister Petrus 15:31, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)
  4. Pro, like Daniel said. (Some of you may have guessed ;-) ) --UV 23:58, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)
  5. Pro, sorry for being late =].--Ioshus Rocchio 21:44, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Deprotecting Chilia[fontem recensere]

Should we try to deprotect page Chilia? If yes, I suggest a template, saying something like "Due to repeated vandalismus this page shall be edited only by registered users. Anonymous users please add your comments to the talk page. If you want to become a registered user, see {{invitatio}}, please. Thank you!" Maybe this will work ... --Roland2 16:43, 28 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I think we could try deprotecting it, only takes a click to reprotect it again.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:45, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Deprotecting with or without leaving a message? --Roland2 21:44, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps with a message first,s ee if anyone beats down the new membership door to try and vandalize it.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:51, 2 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Vicipaedia Debates[fontem recensere]

We seem to have a whole new lot of Vicipaedia namespace pages that are simply debates. I'm not against this at all, but we ought to have a page recording these, or perhaps just a category for them. Perhaps Vicipaedia:Controversia would be appropriate. It could have a list of ongoing dicussions, as well as detail for conduct and methods of discussion. Daniel () 18:29, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a growing pain, so to speak. We've been getting new members rapidly, and much more work is being done per day than has been historically the case, so we are getting into points where evolution needs to take a decisive, undivided, and unfactioned step forward. Compromises will have to be reached, and everyone's mind needs to be open to change when presented with scenarios. I'm blabbing now But yes, you're right we should probably have a locus disputandi where we keep track of such debates, maybe summarizing the cruces of the various arguments and listing a decision when one is reached. Kind of funny, though, to make another vicipaedia namespace page for our congressional purposes =]. Good suggestion.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:08, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we use the Disputatio Vicipaediae namespace for discussions, and the Vicipaedia namespace for established (or nearly established) rules? --UV 21:06, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, sorry for not being clear above. What I think Daniel was suggesting was just having a page to keep track of all the "rules" which are, ad tempus, being formed. We should definitely have the format be like Vicipaedia:Redirectio where the vici page just shows what the debate is and where to go to say what to whom, while the debate goes on in the disputatio vicipaediae.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:43, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)
Support to all of these ideas. Maybe Vicipaedia:Disputatio instead of Vicipaedia:Controversia? There should be also a template/category for not answered questions. There are so many questions, spreaded over so many talk pages ... --Roland2 22:46, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of the word controversia, just simply for aesthetic, the mind is easily tricked when reading "Vicipaedia:Disputatio" to the much more common "Disputatio Vicipaedia:", especially for users like me, who might imsonmomaniaclly (like that neologism?) making edits at ghastly hours, perhaps after a pint or two (who me? =]). Semantically though, controversia might be a bit much, it often has the sense of animosity between the controverseurs and often connotes the debate of a trivial pedantic matter, a hue a little too heavy for our purpose. Whatever we decide, it should be plural; Vicipaedia:Disceptationes I might, suggest. We might also add a bit of info on this page from en:Wikipedia:Discussion though probably we do not need to be nearly as thorough. On second thought, that might want to be it's own page, there is a page somewhere around here which lists wikipedia namespace policy pages that we should translate, not sure where. If we decide this is a good idea, it would make sense to cleverly name the currently proposed hub for ongoing debates so that we will avoid confusing it with the name of the subsequent english policy page translation. We might therefore want to save Vidipaedia:Disputationes for the policy page, and have something maybe a little longer like Vicipaedia:Regulae quae ad tempus disputantur. Thoughts?--Ioshus Rocchio 23:06, 29 Maii 2006 (UTC)

Latin–Portuguese?[fontem recensere]

What do you think of the following bunch of pages? Delete? Move to Vicipaedia namespace in order to help portuguese-speaking contributors write articles? Move to wikibooks? Shut eyes and hope no one will ever come across these? ;-)

Similarly for Plattdeutsch:

Similarly for english:

Greetings, --UV 00:53, 30 Maii 2006 (UTC)

I am in most cases against deleting ... in most cases moving is better:

  • it fullfills the requirements as well ("the thing is away") and
  • it does not destroy information

I think we should

  1. see the several projects as a whole: vicipaedia, victionarium, vicifons, vicilibri, ... and
  2. give the user a good entrypoint to all of the information

So we should:

  1. maybe move some information to Victionarium and keep a reference here
  2. maybe move some information to Vicifons and keep a reference here
  3. maybe move some information to Vicilibri and keep a reference here

The reference needs not always to be an article of its own, however, it should be simple to find it, if you are looking for it. So maybe we need some new articles here, to keep these references, e. g. something like "Travelling", "Lists of words", etc. I think wikibooks could be a good container for some sort of information:

  • language courses for several languages
  • the Latin grammar in details (we should have at least the entrypoints here) ... Daniel, what do you think?

But we should not move these pages before we have a target where to move them. If we cannot wait such long, we should move it to the Vicipaedia namespace and put them additionally - by using a template - into a special category, maybe "waiting for being moved". --Roland2 21:38, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

I'm half and half, as I always seem to be in discussions between us 3 =]. The various numeri pages, I think would be cool to contribuendize. Numeri in Linguis Romanticis or something of the sort, where we can show the similarites between several different languages, maybe with a history of representation of Numeri Arabici. This should probably be deleted: Verba Principalia Basic Words, and this Tempus Et Diem Ascribere Time And Dates might go in the translator's guide.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:54, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Or even maybe put them over in Wikibooks (though I am somewhat mystified as to why there is a Latin Wikibooks. I get the Vicipaedia and the Victionariium and the Vicifons, but Vicilibri?) Whatever the case, some of the basic words could be moved there as kind of a FL primer for Latin. Mei nummi duo. Sinister Petrus 14:30, 4 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from b:Wikibooks:Porta Communis#Make useful Content:
Vicilibri and Vicifons are two very different things. Vicilibri is for textbook-style content that you have made yourself, while Vicifons is for public source material that is notable for some reason. They are both important and useful, but they are very different.
In my view, the pages listed above would fit quite well for Vicilibri. Greetings, --UV 15:47, 4 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
As I seem to be the official Vicilibri spokesperson, I suppose that I should say something. The pages above seem good for moving to Vicilibri, so I'm happy with that. They really ought to have some kind of textbook-style framework (Latin guide to learning English or suchlike) but at the moment we (Vicilibri) need content so much that it doesn't really matter. Additionally, if anyone here is in any way inclined, I would be extremely grateful if they were to come to Vicilibri and help out there. Thank you! Daniel () 19:23, 4 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I can buy that rationale. Sinister Petrus 04:54, 5 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
With the help of b:Usor:The Doc, moved those pages to Vicilibri. --UV 00:11, 6 Novembris 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for having done this work. --Rolandus 00:23, 6 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

Vicilibri Latina[fontem recensere]

If this shouldn't be here, please delete it.

I've been made administrator at Vicilibri Latina. The whole place is a shambles, and I don't know where to start. I'm translating the interface into Latin (using here as an example) but what the place really needs is content. I think there are around 16 'books', all of which need to be moved to Vicifons. There are about 2 users, one of whom isn't really around. If anyone from here wants to help out, please go and sign up there! Leave me a message at b:la:Usor:Dbmag9. Daniel () 10:59, 30 Maii 2006 (UTC)

This shall be here, I think. Since Vicipaedia has the biggest community of the several projects (vicipaedia, victionarium, vicilibri, ...) I think it is reasonably, to use Vicipaedia as the platform for project crossing affairs. --Roland2 21:43, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, see no reason this is a bad palce for your post.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:45, 1 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Renominatio[fontem recensere]

Velim quemdam "bureaucratum" (quid..?) me renominare in "Steinbach", quia hoc jam est meum nomen in pluribus Vicipaediis. Valde difficile est habere plures quam unum nomen usoris; male me recognoverunt et fortasse "developers" "single login" introducturi sunt. Caesario 14:25, 30 Maii 2006 (UTC) Sorry for my bad Latin, I haven't practiced it for over four years, sed spero vos mihi intellexisse.

(I'm not one, but BTW, bureaucrat apparently = grapheocrates, from Greek γραφειοκράτης.) —Myces Tiberinus 11:13, 31 Maii 2006 (UTC)

victionarium[fontem recensere]

Quomodo nexus fit exempli gratia "lapis" in vicipaedia cum "lapis" in victionario? Alex1011 20:15, 3 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Melius est uti formulam Formula:Victionarium: scribe {{Victionarium|Lapis}}.
Etiam possibilis est scribere wikt:Lapis.
Salve! --UV 22:09, 3 Iunii 2006 (UTC)


Theodisca vel Germanica?[fontem recensere]

Both are used rather freely here. I have had people change when I have written lingua germanica somewhere, and also when I have written lingua theodisca. What is the "correct" or "official" policy? Theodisca sounds to my ears a bit antique, but the change would be easy to make.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:01, 4 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Ego quoque. I'm curious as to what German Latin-wikipedians would say. One would think they would know, though us American Latin-wikipedians have a difficult time agreeing on what our country is called (hint: CFA abbreviatio eius est). Heus! Germani! Estisne Germani an Theodisci? Sinister Petrus 20:12, 5 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Responsum datis, quaesemus!--Ioshus Rocchio 04:30, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

De hac re non facile est iudicandum. Ut sciamus, quid scribendum sit, ad auctores saeculi sexti decimi spectare oportere censeo, inter quos tamen ipsos certa ratio populi Germanorum hodierni designandi non conveniebatur. Quamobrem equidem reor linguae et Theodiscae inusitata et Germanicae et Teutonicae solita voce uti posse Vicipaedianos, dummodo ad eundem nexum omnes referant.--Irenaeus 06:48, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, I think, that in the English language (and may be in some other languages) no difference is made between "Germans" and "Germans", whereas in the German language there are "Germanen" and "Deutsche". Therefore, Germans, I think, tend to use "Theodisci" for "Deutsche" (which comes from Theodisci) and "Germani" for "Germanen". (For me it looks, for instance, somewhat strange to read in an English history book "In 250 the Germans invaded Rome" and "In 1940 the Germans invaded France", as if these two were exactly the same people.) "Lingua theodisca" might be also a clearer designation for modern German language, whereas lingua Germanica could mean all kind of different languages ever spoken by all kind of different Germanic tribes. (On the other side, Theodisci might sound a little bit more "national" than "Germani", but so does "Teutoni".) Alex1011 08:44, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Non tecum, Alex1011, consentio. Nobis, quid placeat, minime videndum est, sed cum rebus ipsis, tum latinitati optimae studere debemus, si hanc Vicipaediam alicuius pretii esse volumus. Percontemur igitur opera auctorum litteris renatis qui scripserunt, ut eorum exemplum sequamur. Ut maiores nostros antiquos a civibus hodiernis separemus, de Germanis veteribus recentioribusve loqui possumus. Maximi mihi momenti esse videtur, ut omnia, quibus utantur Vicipaediani, verba ad Germanos aut Germaniam significandam ad hos duos nexus, Germani dico et Germania, referantur. Quod si fit, Teutonesne an Germanos an Theodiscos dicas, nihil ad rem. Moneo autem, ne Alamannorum aut Alamanniae voce utaris, cum Alamanni vel Suebi etiamnunc tribus Germanorum sint, quorum dialectus Alamannicus nominatur. --Irenaeus 13:43, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Disputatio:Chilia[fontem recensere]

We should do something with Disputatio:Chilia ... This page is heavily edited and some users even remove information from there. Maybe this is because page Chilia is protected, see above, and they see this talk page as a content page, where removing of content is appropriate. However, I think the problem will not be solved when we unprotect Chilia. My suggestion: There should be several pages, covering different aspects of Chilia, like Geographia Chiliae, Nomen Chiliae, Praesidentes Chiliae et cetera. The idea behind it is to find out, what topics are the problematically ones (regarding vandalism) and split them up again, until the disputed aspects are on single pages where the dispuation does not affect the main page Chilia. Then, when there is no more reason to edit Chilia, because all content is on referred pages, we can protect it or watch for vandalismus. Any change to Chilia will then be either vandalismus or just the adding of a new topic, which can be moved to a page of its own again. However, it will need some work to cleanup the content of Disputatio:Chilia and eventually revert some deletions which should not have been done. — Please could someone create some pages with proper Latin titles (see examples above)? Then we can move the content ... --Roland2 10:10, 5 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we do something ...? See e. g. [4] ff ... --Roland2 05:12, 22 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Hm ...? [5] --Roland2 18:51, 24 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Nuntii Latini[fontem recensere]

The Nuntii Latini here seems to have dried out. However, you may be interested in Nuntii Latini, which looks very good. Daniel () 18:53, 9 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

It is good, but usually slow in updating. The latin is quite readable though, good for all levels, I'd say.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:07, 9 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Oh well, Josh targeted the spot: Vicinuntii would be faster (wikiwiki) and less exposed to POV, but until we don't have a community or at least an enthusiast contributor (with a readable Neolatin fluency, which is not that common), our Finnish journalists are unsurpassed.I'd suggest to use that link for a more useful address (like this Vicipaedia:Taberna). Admins.. what about it? Usor:OrbiliusMagister

Aeneis[fontem recensere]

Heu! Nonnullas formulas faciebam. Navigatio esse tam facile hoc loco quam Vicipaedia anclica debet. Nos plurime de litteris latinis cognoscimus.

Si vobis placet, spectetis hic. Dicite mihi quas res videre vultis. Formulae faciendae mihi placet. Ponite sententias vestras in disputatione mea, non in arena mea.

I think our stuff about ancient Rome should look the best and be easiest to navigate. This is after all the heart of the project, is it not? I'm thinking about making formulae for consuls, but haven't thought up anything I like yet. Same for emperors. What works of literature might deserve formulae? Certainly the Aeneid. What about Cicero's works? Or maybe the Latin League? or the Delian League? We could make some killer stuff to make navigating through classical antiquity easer and more attractive. I think so anyway.Sinister Petrus 21:19, 11 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Mirabilia! You have the hand of a painter and the vision of a sysop! I was trying to simulate with tables the rightmost part of a PC keyboard to write about greek letters input, but I had to give up before puonding my head against the wall... so let me say: "Congratulations".
As for templates, you are quite right. I'd like to distinguish between necessary templates and accessory templates: I think that categories accomplish their duty
  • when we don't have to keep a chronological trail (for example kings, popes, etc.) which can be kept with proper templates and can't be kept by a category.
  • when we don't have to create a category for two or three articles (Character in the Aeneid similar...)
  • when a category lets you got through many articles in a single click. A navigational template lets you choose among articles of different categories.
That's my humble opinion. I didn't write about graphics and glitters that make templates far more attractive than categories, but I'm trying to be rational... - εΔω 07:07, 13 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Gratias ob sententiam tuam tibi. Meae sententiae: Categoria and formulae are different from each other in several ways (as I see it). Categoria is an in depth look at the article that allows a serious user to find related topics. Formulae allow for impulse browsing or better presentation of information. That said:
  • The Aeneid should have some sort of navigational box. It is the gem of Roman epic. Certainly the category listing will help, but since the Aeneid is an epic, by nature it isn't very suitable to chronological orders and other linear things. So a box would be good.
Maybe there are other works deserving. Nothing is coming to mind just yet.
  • Popes, presidents, kings and their kind can be pretty easily taken care of with the succession boxes when they are historical (vide aut Ronaldus Reagan aut Iacobus Carter), but perhaps there is need for some sort of box when they are somewhat mythical and we cannot pin down the dates (vide Romulus). I think the pope navigation template at the English wikipedia is perhaps too much.
  • Certainly Roman imperial provinces merit a formula. Not linear, in many separated categories. Anything else like this? Maybe the Delian League (mostly because I think it would be funny to do that.)
I think a pleasing appearance will enhance a user's enjoyment of the wikipedia. Latin can be intimidating to some beginning students who want to read outside of class. Or overwhelming to someone who took some Latin in school many years ago. At least with a more user friendly look, these users will get more out of our hard work. Mei duo nummi. Sinister Petrus 16:47, 13 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Vae mihi! Iam formula Provinciis Romanis est! But it's not complete, so that will need to be fixed. Fortasse ego nocte formulam refaciet. Sinister Petrus 19:22, 13 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Again about USOR[fontem recensere]

Hello you all! I'm quite new on it.wiki (username: Luccaro), and I was surprised to see that the latin babel template uses the word usor. I looked for some discussion page about it on it.wiki, and I found nothing. Here, on la.wiki, I found this one, even if it isn't very complete. I think usor is not a latin word and it sounds very strange that in the template saying "this user knows latin" there is a not-latin word! In my humble opinion, I suggest to use utens, which is a real latin word and can well translate the word user. Luccaro - 14 june 2006 - 09.04

I've just found this list of technical words, where user is translated with utens, -entis!!! Luccaro 10:55, 14 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
I definitely disagree with utens, as it mean something more like using than user. Usor seems fine with me. It is usefully similar to the English, and it does mean user as far as I know. However, my Latin is not good enough to follow the discussion at that link, and so I am not at all qualified to give judgement. Daniel () 17:47, 14 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Careful, Daniel, as a substantive, the active participle "utens" certainly could be interpreted as a noun "user" some one who is using is a user, after all. But Luccaro, I have to take issue with your statement. Usor is fine latin, well formed, and attested... Daniel, if you want a translation of the conversation at the link, let me know.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:28, 14 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
If you say that usor is fine and attested, I believe you. But it was impossible to me to find it in my dictionaries, that's all. And when I tried to translate-back the word user (italian: utente) into latin, I found utens (looking on vatican "Lexicon recentis latinitatis", on Bacci's "Lexicon Eorum Vocabulorum Quae Difficilius Latine Redduntur" and on Mir-Calvano's latin dictionary). Luccaro 08:29, 15 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Commons vs. Communia[fontem recensere]

I've copied the small variant of the Commons template from the German Wikipedia. {{Communia}} is - from the parameters - compatible to {{Commons}}, however, fits well into the "Nexus externus" section. It has the advantage of making less formatting problems. It looks like this:

Commons-logo.svg Vicimedia Communia plura habent quae ad Taberna spectant.

See the articles:

Especially when the text is very short, like in L. L. Zamenhof, the small template looks nicer. --Roland2 23:46, 16 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Great job! I agree that this template, while conveying relevant information, is much less obtrusive than the big box. Thanks for your efforts to replace it all over the article namespace! --UV 17:25, 17 Iunii 2006 (UTC)


Pulchre facta! Yeah, this is much better since it's smaller. Though I've found that you need to say something like "brackets" Communia|Res|Re "close brackets" to make the name of the article match up with the "in." But that detracts from the overall goodness of what you've done. Sinister Petrus 05:10, 18 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Bad news: The 2nd parameter belongs to the Latinists. It is the ablative of the title. ;-) Good news: I've created a template {{vicicitatio}} & {{vicifons}} as well. --Roland2 11:55, 18 Iunii 2006 (UTC)


Specialis:Allmessages et vultus Vicipaediae[fontem recensere]

Nuper interpritare incepi omnia nuntia systematis vicipaediae Latine, ut spem, recte. Hic est labor magnus, et probabiliter errores faciam quod tam celerrime tempto eum finire. Quaeso valde ut vos omnes quae scripsi inspecturi ullaque sub spatium nominis MediaVici mala correcturi sitis. Si nota aliquid non Latine scriptum circumstare, dicite mi, ut corrigam. Etiam gnarum me facite cuius malum inveniatis de vultu Vicipaediae aut eius paginarum. Gratias, amici.

Recently I have started to translate all the system message into latin, this is a large project and I am apt to make mistakes, just because I am trying to ge through it as quickly as possible. Please review what I have done under the MediaWiki namespace and indicate in the discussion page anything you see wrong. If you see anything else around here not in Latin, tell me so I can fix it. Also let me know anything about the aspect, or appearance of vici or its pages you don't like. Thanks, yall.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:21, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Addam, potestis imprimiendo nexus superstantes videre quod nuntium est delictum Anglice. Pax vobis.
I should add, yall can see what the default message is supposed to be in english by clicking on any of the three links above. Peace.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:28, 20 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Mentula ?[fontem recensere]

I can't find this one in my dictionary, but I can take a guess what it means... Vandalism? --BradKittenbrink 01:43, 23 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Google has something ... I have added a link. Not vandalism but a funny person. ;-) --Roland2 05:57, 23 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

See [6] ... --Roland2 06:06, 23 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Well done. I definitely always thought it was funny. Guess I should Assume Good Faith a little more. --BradKittenbrink 15:59, 23 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Kiel(ia)[fontem recensere]

Pro Kiel simlicissimum nomen Kielia elegi loco Chilioni, Kieloni (paululum sicut Klingonum sonat) et alorium nominum. Sed si causis gravibus alium nomen elegendum sit, pagina moveri potest. Alex1011 13:02, 23 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Articles_with_few_text[fontem recensere]

Please have a look at Vicipaedia:Imago#Articles_with_few_text. --Roland2 10:23, 24 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Content was moved to Vicipaedia:Pagina brevis. --UV 20:11, 24 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Common misspellings[fontem recensere]

What about a template for common misspellings instead of a simple redirect? See e. g. de:Francois Mitterand. --Roland2 15:28, 24 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Categoria:Homines[fontem recensere]

Can we make a cleanup of this category? --Roland2 17:09, 24 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

   * Aegyptii ------> Gentes/Populi?
   * Babylonii ------> Gentes/Populi?
   * Beati ---------> Religiosi?
   * Biographia ------------------> ???
   * Brasilienses ------> Gentes/Populi?
   * Cambri ------> Gentes/Populi?
   * Familia Imperialis Iaponiae
   * Gentes ------> Gentes/Populi?
   * Homines secundum annum natalem ----------> ?
   * Homines secundum annum ultimum vitae ----> ?
   * Islandici ------> Gentes/Populi?
   * Itali ------> Gentes/Populi?
   * Iudaei ------> Gentes/Populi?
   * Legis latores ---------> Munera???
   * Lusitani ------> Gentes/Populi?
   * Messiae dicti ---------> Religiosi?
   * Munera
   * Norvegi ------> Gentes/Populi?
   * Oratores ---------> Munera???
   * Papae ---------> Religiosi?
   * Personae Biblicae --------------> ???
   * Populi Gentes/Populi?
   * Protestantes ---------> Religiosi?
   * Religiosi
   * Romani Antiqui ------> Gentes/Populi?
   * Sancti ---------> Religiosi?
   * Viri militares ---------> Munera???
   * Viri publici ---------> Munera???
Good idea to make a cleanup! I would propose that Gentes/Populi only contain articles that describe populations, not individual persons. I would therefore propose to move Aegyptii, Babylonii, Brasilienses, etc. to a category Homines secundum nationem. --UV 20:09, 24 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

English stub for Auctores neolatini[fontem recensere]

I think, we should start a stub for Auctores neolatini in the English Wikipedia. What would be a good English title? --Roland2 11:18, 25 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Vide etiam Vicipaedia:Pagina#Paginae_Latinae_quas_Anglica_Vicipaedia_habeat. --Roland2 13:32, 25 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Ipse dicam "Neo-Latin authors", lice censoribus apud Wikipediam nomen mutare, si sit necesse. Quippe recte dicis, Rolande, quispiam paginam incipiat.--Ioshus Rocchio 02:07, 26 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Specialis:Lonelypages ... now 184[fontem recensere]

I'd like to draw your attention to Vicipaedia:Census#Specialis:Lonelypages. These are pages which are not referenced by other pages. At the moment we have 184 of them.

If you want to help a lonely page, just link to it from any other page. --Roland2 19:20, 26 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Please do not link to it from any other page. Choose a related page, please … ;-) --UV 19:30, 26 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
I've fussed with some of these in the past. They can be tricky if you don't know much about the subject. Nexus carentes sunt faciliores, sed facendum est. Paucas conabor res. Sinister Petrus 04:14, 29 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Disputatio Formulae:Move ad victionarium[fontem recensere]

Please have a look ... --Roland2 20:22, 26 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Starting a (new) article[fontem recensere]

How do I START an article in Vicipaedia? The obvious click sends users to the English-language Wikipedia.

The best way, in my opinion, is to find an article that suggests another. The way that Italy suggests Rome. Then, find a likely place to put the reference to your article. Like putting a reference to Rome near the spot where the capital of Italy is mentioned. You may have to add your item to a list of bulleted items (vide Hispaniam), or into the body of the text (vide Theoriam Chordarum. Then put two left-brackets (with no spaces) [ [ like that on one side of the word and two right-brackets (again, no spaces) ] ] on the end of it. That should create a red link, which when followed, will allow you to make your new article. There are other nuances, but that's the basics. Does this help? Sinister Petrus 04:52, 29 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it worked. Thanks. (But it's more cumbersome than a one-click method would be.) IacobusAmor
This method has the advantage that you will not create a lonely page. ;-) --Roland2 14:05, 29 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
You can also type the page name into the url at the top of your browser, and it will automatically take you to the "new" page.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:35, 29 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Though this doesn't stop the creation of lonely pages ;].--Ioshus Rocchio 14:36, 29 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Nuntium Iacobe, mihi placet tuum. Yeah, it is cumbersome to make sure that all new pages have an article that refers to them. But if pages are just made then someone else has to do the work to figure out where that page fits into everything else. And if your new article is just hanging out where no one can get to it, then no one can read what you've written. Sinister Petrus 15:01, 29 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

How to translate "Card Game"?[fontem recensere]

I was thinking to make a serie of articles about card games, but i didn't find any latin means for "Card Game" or "Play a Card Game". I found only a medieval "pagina, -ae" for "Card".

I thought to translate "Paginarum Ludus" and "Paginis Ludere"...or someone has any better suggestion? Maximillion Pegasus 17:56, 29 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

The genitive plural is more appropriate, in my experience. See Usor:Iustinus' comments in a discussion about the proper name for chess, in latin:

"Scaccorum est ludus tabularis: I phrased it this way for a reason. Names of games in Latin are typically the name of the game piece in the plural. But formally one usually says Scaccorum ludus 'the game of chess pieces.'" --Ioshus Rocchio 18:12, 29 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

So aren't any problem if I translate "Paginarum Ludus". But "To play a card game"? Can I translate it like I suggested (Paginis ludere)? Maximillion Pegasus 18:40, 29 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Whenever possible, it's best not to reinvent the wheel. Here are idioms relating to cards, from Ainsworth's Dictionary, an 18th-century word-hoard for schoolboys:
a card = charta picta [can we safely omit "picta" where it should be understood?]
playing-cards = chartae lusoriae
a pack of cards = foliorum fasciculus
the cards go against you = parum favent tibi chartae
a court-card [i.e., what a face card was then called] = charta imaginem humanam gerens
a single card = charta simplex vel pura
a suit of cards = chartarum familia, vel genus
to cut the crads = chartas pictas dividere, discindere, vel bipartire
to deal the cards = chartas pictas distribuere
to deal away the cards = folia distribuere
I must deal the cards next = Me proximum distribuere oportet
to play at cards = chartis pictis ludere
to shuffle the cards = chartas pictas miscere
the trump, or turn-up card = charta index, dominatrix, triumphatrix
the trump at cards = charta index, vel triumphalis
I have not yet turned up the trump = Nondum protuli indicem
card-playing = chartarum, seu foliorum pictorum, ludus
a dealer (at cards) = distributor
a club (at cards) = trifolium
the diamond (at cards) = rhombus
a spade (at cards) = macula nigra [Remind anybody of Treasure Island?]
(It doesn't give 'heart (at cards)', but why not cor, or corcula?)
(It doesn't give 'joker (at cards)', but it does give plain ioculator 'joker') IacobusAmor

So could we adopt these definitions? I ask frist of change all articles....Maximillion Pegasus 20:02, 29 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I should have mentioned above, pagina not the word for card, but charta. Where did you find pagina?--Ioshus Rocchio 20:14, 29 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Also, for cards:
a knave at cards = miles, eques
the ace at cards = monas, -adis, f. IacobusAmor
For that matter, here are chess-related terms in Ainsworth's. Bear in mind that these are in effect attested terms, which British (and probably Continental) schoolboys and adults once used. (Why make up new terms when we know that these actually exist?)
chess = ludus latrunculorum, scruporum
a chess-board = latrunculorum alveolus, vel tabula; latruncularia, sc. tabula
the chess-men = latrunculi, calculi
to play at chess = latrunculis ludere, certare, contendere
a pawn at chess = pedes, miles gregarius
a rook at chess = elephantus, dux
check-mate at chess = incitae; rex conclusus
to check-mate = ad incitas redigere
checker-board = alveolus tessellatus IacobusAmor
Well if you look at Scacchi#Fontes, you will see that the terms we have picked are fully attested as well. Many, being from the carmina burana, were in use long before british schoolboys. I don't thinking we are "reinventing the wheel" by any stretch.--Ioshus Rocchio 20:17, 29 Iunii 2006 (UTC)
Evidently not; maybe the phrasing ("Scaccorum est ludus tabularis: I phrased it this way for a reason") gave that impression, but I was actually thinking of the card-game words there. It's a fine article, accommodating a venerable history! IacobusAmor

We have parody![fontem recensere]

We have a parody. Just as Wikipedia has Uncyclopedia, so now Vicipaedia has Uncapaedia. Check it out here. Daniel () 19:05, 1 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

I mean this with the utmost sincerity and devotion: "fuck that".--Ioshus Rocchio 22:08, 1 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
I had seen it earlier. I thought it was very funny, but I don't think that I've got the energy or interest to contribute though. Sinister Petrus 00:20, 2 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protecta[fontem recensere]

I'd suggest to semi-protect (see Vicipaedia:Paginae protectae) these pages:

  1. Chilia (now protected)
  2. Civitatum Foederatarum civitas
  3. Civitates Foederatae Americae

Opinions? --Roland2 18:25, 2 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:01, 2 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, let us try this and see what happens. --UV 19:12, 2 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Sinister Petrus 22:49, 2 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Done. Later I have added Disputatio:Chilia to the list. See Usor:201.222.159.212. I put a note on his talk page ... after having "invited" him. --Roland2 21:48, 2 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Was it ok that I semi-protected this talk page? --Roland2 00:26, 4 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

I don't think talk pages should be protected...--Ioshus Rocchio 00:41, 4 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
That person used the talk page merely to talk to himself/herself, and these edits without sources given were not too useful. I think it is ok to require a login in this case, and it is not too difficult to register. --UV 00:47, 4 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, part of me thinks that all users should need to login to edit anything, just for sake of accountability. But I have seen unregistered editors make great contributions. The reason I don't like protected discussion pages is that I don't want to discourage dialogue. I'm not adamant, like you said, it's not difficult to register.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:16, 4 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
I did it, because I thought it was the best in that situation but I am no Diamant (I know this word better than adamant) either. ;-) Please change the protection as you like it. - Heeeeeeeeellooooooo, other users out there: What do you think ...? --Roland2 06:16, 4 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Non certus de disputationibus semi-protectis sum. Disputatio loquendo sit bonus locus sed quid in animo habes, video. I could be persuaded either way, but I think for the time, I'd say that we should stick with leaving disputatio pages un-protected for the time. If it becomes a problem, then maybe we should consider semi-protecting on a case by case basis. Mei duo nummi. Sinister Petrus 06:50, 4 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Ok, there seems to be a majority for unprotecting. — Done. --Roland2 18:17, 4 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Fontes[fontem recensere]

Please see Vicipaedia:Fons. --Roland2 21:53, 22 Iunii 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should broadcast this a bit more loudly, Roland:

The lack of citations on this Wikipedia has been recently more and more discussed. We are all, as authors, guilty, myself thoroughly included. It is an issue, along with a few others like small size, and small number of active contributors/editors that prevent this Wikipedia, at the moment, from being a truly useful academic tool, and more of a pet project by people who are interested in latin and linguistics and romantic antiquity. We don't ask that you immediately drop everything else and frantically start combing articles for things that beg sources. Rather, incorporate it into your future authorship, and as you see something in your own work that begs a source, add it, if you can provide a source for someone else's work, do that too, and as always, be bold, and don't hesitate to mark someone's work when it begs a source. As we rapidly approach 10,000 articles here, it behooves us to promote the reputation of this wiki as described above: a truly useful academic research tool. I already tell my students to use vicipaedia, I'd like it to be a legitimate citation if they need to use it for a professor in the future who distrusts our credibility. Anyone have contrary opinions, or anything else to add?

I should add, again, see Vicipaedia:Fons, and en:Wikipedia:Citing sources.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:14, 2 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Disputatum recens et frequente ut huius paginae multae Vicipaediae fontes non habent, ad malum. Nos omnes auctores culpam hanc feremus, egomet valde ipse. Aerumna est, cum aliis variis sicut parvitas et parva usorum multitudo, quae ad tempus impediunt hanc Vicipaediam a re vera utilis pro scholasticis rebus fiendo, pro qua nunc putatur proiectulum quibus latinitas, linguistica, hisoriaque romantica interesse. Non quaesemus ut statim omnia dimittas, paginasque scrutinetis ut res fontes carentes inveniatis. Immo, fontes addituri estote in opera vostrum futura, si videtis in opera tua locum in quo fontem addatis, addete, itaque in opera aliorum. 10,000 paginarum multitudini appropinquamus rapide, ita opportet nobis famam huius Vicipaediae proferre sicut ita explicatum: instrumentum verum pro rebus scholasticis. Discipulos meos cohorto Vicipaedia in classe mea uti, sicut velim ea uti possint in classibus professorum Vicipaediae non credentum. Sententias insimiles, opiniones plurimas adddere habesne aliquis?--Ioshus Rocchio 19:00, 2 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Addam, videte Vicipaedia:Fons, et en:Wikipedia:Citing sources.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:14, 2 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Hem. De quo loqueris? De me? Nescio de quo loqueris. Heu. Fontibus conabor melius in futuro agere. Sinister Petrus 06:56, 4 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Quippe de te non loquor, Petre =]. Nemo nostrum hanc culpam fert ;].--Ioshus Rocchio 12:28, 4 Iulii 2006 (UTC)


Mean vs average[fontem recensere]

Ok, I know the difference between the two concepts. But, how are mathematical means and averages expressed in Latin? What are the adjectives I should use? You ask, "Sinister Petrus, why ever do you want to know?" I'm working on re desiderata #1, and I don't want to write a stub. Sinister Petrus 03:55, 8 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Negligi! Ea verba inveni. Mean = mediocritas atque average = medium (inter minimum maximumque). Sinister Petrus 05:08, 9 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Could you expand on this? You need terms for at least four kinds of average:
arithmetic mean = the sum of N values divided by N
geometric mean = the Nth root of the product of N values
median = the middle value in an ordered set of values
mode = the most frequent value in a set of values
Suggestions: mediocritas arithmetica (vel simpliciter mediocritas), mediocritas geometrica, medium, & modus, respectively. IacobusAmor

Pagina nova[fontem recensere]

Salve! I just did a translation of the English page on the Centrarchidae, the family which includes the sunfishes. My Latin's not very good and this is my first crack at anything on Vicipaedia -- so I would appreciate it if somebody could take a look. Cheers. Tkinias 21:31, 8 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

TuvicBot[fontem recensere]

I would like a bot flag to run my interwiki-bot TuvicBot (using Pywikipedia). This bot will run in manually assisted mode, adding and updating interwiki-links, using the Dutch wiki as a starting point. I'm mostly planning to solve interwikis that autonomous bot skip because they're ambigious. (And sorry for not speaking in your language, uderstanding it in one thing, writing it another)

I'm posting this here, because I couldn't find a local approval page. (Vicipaedia:Bot links to meta) --Tuvic 10:11, 9 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking! I know that on other wikipedias, people insist on doing it the other way round, but I would prefer if your bot did a number of edits (without the bot status) first. That way, people will look at whether your bot is working correctly etc. If everything is fine, then your bot should be given bot status.
Other opinions? --UV 11:31, 9 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. --Roland2 13:15, 9 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Agreed.--Ioshus Rocchio 13:59, 9 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll add 'la' to the list. --Tuvic 14:16, 9 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Meo animo, TuvicBot credendus! Addamus.--Ioshus Rocchio 23:07, 21 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

TuvicBot has bot status now. Thanks. In case their should be any problems, my talk page is always open for suggestions or remarks. --Tuvic 21:10, 1 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Qui articuli optantur?[fontem recensere]

Constant praecepta de aetatis rei in articuli? Quis de thematis scribere potui, tantummodo re antiquis, an re nova quoque?

Are there any rules regarding the age of things described in an article? What topics could I write about, only old ones or new ones too? --David Schneider 17:13, 10 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Age? You can write about anything...from Jell-O, to the Big Bang...as long as it is a good, informative, article, properly formatted, with decent latin...What are you thinking of writing about?--Ioshus Rocchio 17:26, 10 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure, that's the point. Right now, I am just browsing through articles and looking what to work at. But I was also thinking about writing one or two articles about some movies depiciting ancient Rome. --David Schneider 17:39, 10 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
This sounds fine. Usually we write (pellicula) after a movie, ie Gladiator would be about gladiators/collisseums/spectacles in rome, but Gladiator (pellicula) for the film. But yes, please feel encouraged to write about ANYthing you want. The only thing to keep in mind is that we usually do not allow for vernacular spellings. We almost always try to find a proper latin title. There have, and surely will continue to be, exceptions to this rule, but as i said, it is to be kept in mind.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:55, 10 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
Vae mihi! Here I thought I was the only one who wrote about movies in Latin. Not to toot my own horn too loudly, you can check my blog at Pluteo Pleno to see what I've been doing. It could take a trip into the archives. Though, I should add, they're half-baked reviews and not really suitable for an encyclopedia.
While I'm at it, I could also point you to Annus. It could really stand a pair of eyes looking at it for proper Latin, as I had to use lots of words that I didn't know. Sinister Petrus 18:40, 10 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it once I have the time, though I cannot guarantee you absolute grammatical correctness, since I am just a moderate student of Latin in year ten. What I can do is take a look at those words you mentioned. What in particular am I to look for?

Templates_for_some_types_of_redirects[fontem recensere]

Please have a look at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Redirectio#Templates_for_some_types_of_redirects. --Roland2 21:42, 15 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Pagina specialis: Onerare fasciculos[fontem recensere]

I think that the Latin in this special page can do with some correction. I tried my best, but I can't seem to change it myself. Also I have to confess that I don't really understand the meaning of the sentence starting with "capsam". What exactly is meant by "verba privata"?

I suggest this:

SISTE! ROGAMUS UT IMAGINES POTESTATI IURIS SUBIECTAS ONERES IN VICIMEDIA COMMUNIA, NON APUD NOS.

Si necesse est hic onerare, lege et pare consiliiis Vicipaediae de usu imaginum.

Ut videas aut quaeras imagines oneratas antea, adi indicem imaginum oneratarum. Onerata et deleta in notatione oneratorum notata sunt.

Utere formam subter exhibitam ad fasciculos novos onerandos. Capsam designare debes qui verba privata non uteris. Preme "Onerare", ut oneratio incipiat.

Formae antipositae sunt: JPEG pro imaginibus, PNG pro simulacris, et OGG pro sonis. Nomina descriptiva utere, ut confusiones evitentur. Si imaginem in rebus includere vis, nexum [[image:file.jpg]] aut [[image:file.png|verba alterna]], aut [[media:file.ogg]] pro sonis utere.

Hmmm, a few errors still in that. Check the latest version, I still do not know the sentence "Capsam desginare debes qui verbis privatis non uteris" either.--Ioshus Rocchio 22:37, 17 Iulii 2006 (UTC)
SISTERE! (I would rather use the imperative than the infinitive:siste) QUAESEMUS (the correct form is quaesumus if this verb is to be used) UT IMAGINES CUM POTESTATE IURIS ONERES IN VICIMEDIA COMMUNIA, NON APUD NOS. Si necesse est hic onerare, lege et pare consilia (the case has to agree with pare as this is the closest verb to the object, hence dative case consiliis) Vicipaediae de uso imaginum. (...) Onerata et deleta in notationem (use ablativus loci: notatione) oneratorum notata sunt. Utere formam subter onerare(English 'in order to do sth.' cannot be rendered with an infinitive in Latin. Use 'ut oneres') fasciculos novos. Capsam desginare debes qui verbis privatis non uteris. Preme "Onerare" ut incipias. (Maybe this is to mean: Capsam pungens te verbis privatis non esse usum vel usam confirmare debes.)--Iovis Fulmen 11:30, 18 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

arca successionis[fontem recensere]

Antecessor:
Edgar Ætheling
Rex Angliae
1066–1087
Successor:
Gulielmus II


Antecessor:
Robertus Magnificens
Dux Normanniae
1035–1087
Successor:
Robertus Curthose

Alex1011 09:19, 17 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Dies, menses, anni[fontem recensere]

For reference (macrons omitted):

"The name of the month appears as an adjective in agreement with Kalendae, Nonae, Idus."—Allen & Greenough #631.d.
"To these three names of days, the names of the months were attached as adjectives: ad Kalendas Maias, 'by the 1st of May' (326); in Nonas Iunias, 'for the 5th of June'; Idibus Martiis, 'on the 15th of March.'"—Bradley's Arnold, #538. IacobusAmor 03:24, 29 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

For entries under "Eventa," "Festa," etc., in articles that are days of months, is there a stylesheet? IacobusAmor 12:19, 29 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Great minds think alike. I asked the same question on the disputatio of Index dierum. We do need some sort of consistent way of saying things, and right now, we don't have that. Please, join the conversation over there. My feeling is that we can develop a stylesheet. The problem, as always, is getting it implemented. If I have to take care of that, I guess I will--I've put in, as have you, some work on the days.
As of right now, we don't even have all of the days in articles. I've been working on that, but it's tedious (though I'm trying to make sure that *today*, whatever day that is, has an article). Sinister Petrus 15:20, 31 Iulii 2006 (UTC)

Endangered Languages[fontem recensere]

I'm interested in languages (as you can see by my user page) and am glad that vicipaedia latina has a few language articles, however I'm unsure how to go about translating an article such as en:Endangered Language. In fact I'm not even sure what the word endangered is in Latin. Can anyone help translate this article? Alexanderr 22:35, 7 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

'Endangered': periclitatus ~ in discrimen adductus. 'To endanger': in discrimen adducere. Just post a translation: grammatical gadflies will hatch and buzz around it. IacobusAmor 03:38, 8 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Piratae Maris Caribii (pellicula)[fontem recensere]

If anyone can fix the mistakes I made (because I know there are quite a few) I'd really really really appreciate it. Also if anyone wants to go one step further maybe they can help translate the article from de:Fluch_der_Karibik from whence the spoilers/plot outline comes, or any other facts about the movie from your own native language. It'd be really cool to see this up as featured article week/month, so pls help. Alexanderr 07:19, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know the word for "smuggelers" in latin? Alexanderr 03:04, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Praedator works very well cf praemia. Someone who chasses booty... Fur is thief--Ioshus Rocchio 14:26, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
But a smuggler doesn't chase booty (that'd be more pirate-ish. The import goods illegally esp. banned stuff. Alexanderr 14:45, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I'm wondering...what did the Romans have that was contraband, that they would have needed a word for "to smuggle"...--Ioshus Rocchio 15:00, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Evidently, there's no good word. For 'to smuggle', one of my dictionaries has merces furtim, vel sine portorii solutione, invehere, and for 'smuggler', it has qui merces furtim, vel sine portorii solutione, invehit, but those amount to definitions, not synonyms. For 'to smuggle', another dictionary offers two possibilities: merces vetitas tracto and portorium evado. For our purposes, the latter, being the shorter, may work best. Also, it would make a smuggler qui portorium evadit. IacobusAmor 15:58, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
What would the gen. plur. be then? Mercedium, quae portorium evadunt? Alexanderr 16:22, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Singular: Qui portorium evadit 'one who evades import tax'. Plural: Qui portorium evadunt 'People who evade import tax'. Genitive plural: Quorum portorium evadunt 'Of people who evade import tax'. IacobusAmor 20:40, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Fair use[fontem recensere]

Sententiae haec a disputatione Ioshi Rocchionis
Well the picture was deleted because it is fair use and that is "forbidden on commons". But on the actual wikipedias it isn't so can I re-upload it here? Alexanderr 20:51, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
„Fair use“ may in some cases be problematic:
Wikipedia wants to be a free encyclopedia. Therefore, it accepts only content that may be freely copied. Copyrighted works, however, may not be freely copied (unless the copyright owner allows it). Therefore, it is not possible e. g. to copy articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica (or any other commercial encyclopedia) and to add them to Wikipedia. This would be a copyright infringement. Likewise, it is generally not permissible to use copyrighted pictures in wikipedia.
Regarding the movie poster: This is undoubtedly a copyrighted work.
Now some people argue that in some special cases it is nevertheless permissible to use copyrighted works under U.S. law. This is called „fair use“. However, in these cases the person who wants to use someone else's copyrighted works must establish (give reasons) that under the circumstances given, this is in fact a case of permissible fair use. This is always at his/her personal risk (see en:Wikipedia:Fair use). Furthermore, while „fair use“ exists under U.S. law, such a thing does not exist in most Continental European legal systems. For all these reasons, Commons and a number of wikipedias do not permit „fair use“ images. The English wikipedia, on the other hand, does allow fair use.
We have not yet had a discussion here whether we should allow „fair use“ images on the Latin wikipedia. (Among the images that have been uploaded up to now, there might be a some „fair use“ candidates). Personally, I am somewhat reluctant regarding „fair use“ images, and I would prefer to have wikipedia as safe (from copyright infringement quarrels) and as free as possible, even if this would mean that we would have to do without a movie poster for Piratae Maris Caribii (pellicula). (Of course, it would be possible to add a weblink to the official movie website.)
[Just my personal viewpoint – I am open for discussion …] --UV 22:19, 9 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
.

Personally, I agree with UV. The owner, not the wikipedian is to decide what is "fair use". While ancient Roman law probably never even considered such an issue, the Latin wikipedia, I feel, should act more in the European style than the American style (just as I feel everyone should act more in a European manner than an American one, but that is another topic entirely =]). If commons doesn't allow a specific type of media, it is for a reason, and we should follow it's guidelines. If Piratae Maris Caribii (pellicula) does not have a movie poster image in the top right corner, that is hardly the end of the world. At the end of the day, it will have been better to act legally and responsibly, than to include images in every article. Agreements? Disagreements? Thoughts?--Ioshus Rocchio 00:20, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Etiam a disputatio Ioshi Rocchionis:
I agree. For everyone's information, what, right now, is the latest date from which no prior copyrighted material remains outside the public domain? 1 January 1936? 1931? or when? It's presumably a sliding date, which advances (annually) with the calendar. IacobusAmor 00:36, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure Iacobus, I know music is public domain after 20 years (ie you can sample music legally without consent of the author or the record company after 20 years). I do not know about other media...let me see what I can find.--Ioshus Rocchio 00:39, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Twenty years?! I'd have thought it was the life of the composer plus seventy years or something. My memory is that extraordinary extensions like that went into effect in the late twentieth century. Before then, if memory serves, it was 56 years in the U.S.A.: 28 years plus (if the copyright holder did the right paperwork) a renewed term of 28 more years—but even then, the term was longer outside the U.S.A. Does the length of copyright in recordings differ from that in printed works? IacobusAmor 01:18, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong? I have friends in the DJing business who have told me that music that is 20 years old is sampleable without legal consent. I am not consulting legal documents but 20 something DJs =].--Ioshus Rocchio 02:25, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I think the rules for sampling are laxer than most other issues. --Iustinus 03:09, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
The duration of the protection period differs significantly from one jurisdiction to another. The page Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain provides quite helpful „rule of thumb“-guidelines on this topic (see the other sections of this page as well). --UV 09:41, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Well, here's the crux:

"Both issues are against the commons policy to provide images that can be used by anyone anywhere for any purpose.

You are, however, welcome to submit such images to your local Wiki, if it allows fair use."

So we simply debate whether this wiki allows it. So far, the vote seems to be no. Roland or UV, is it possible to set up some voting table or something? Anything I design will be much cruder than what y'all two are capable of.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:24, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I do not know a special technical solution how we could make such a voting within this wiki, but I think we should first start with a discussion (on a special page) to find out the pros and cons and to get a feeling about the tendencies. Then we should list our options and then we should rate these options. I think we have more options than just pro and con. At the end there could be a classical voting. --Roland (disp.) 18:58, 10 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

So, far, I believe we have been able to resolve most questions by consensus - like the Pagina Mensis list. I agree with Roland that it needs more discussion, though. It would be nice to see a table of pros and cons so that we could get a grasp of the question. Personally, I have been in favor of a looser interpretation of copyright laws where there is room for discussion, as I think it enables a freer exchange of ideas. I don't know enought about the questions involved in this issue to give much of an opinion, though. --Tbook 15:47, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

So are we looking at Vicipaedia:Usus legitimus or Vicipaedia:Usus iustus? We can start the pros and cons there, as I agree there are plenty of both.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:57, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Choosing a good translation will be the first task. ;-) Are there words which do not have lex or ius as a root? honestus? decens? Maybe these examples are nonsense ... just to illustrate what I mean. --Roland (disp.) 16:29, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Well, as etymologically significant as ius is, iustus is the best word I can think of that directly translates as fair.

"Ille est honestus et iustus."=>He is honest and fair. Let me look around... Fas, maybe?--Ioshus Rocchio 16:50, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Fas has good meanings. ;-) Another one: aequus? --Roland (disp.) 17:50, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Aequus has other connotations of level, equal, or clear. ie "Aequa cum mente"=>with a clear head. Let's go with fas.--Ioshus Rocchio 13:25, 18 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

The Great Latin Language - And All Her Forms[fontem recensere]

I'm no expert in Latin and probably am responsible for what I'm about to suggest we stop doing if possible, however I'd like to pose this question/suggestion to those that are more fluent in it than I.

I've heard quite a bit about Latin being "Classical" or "Ecclesiastical" or even "Medieval" along with other terms such as "Military Latin" and "Neo-latin", and quite honestly don't know the difference between them all, but one thing I don't want to happen in writting this encyclopedia is to take an "early" latin word or form and mix it with a "late" syntax. I also don't want to use to many late and early words together and produce who knows what kind of article. So I'm suggest that those who can write their articles in a particular style (and variety is good) with standard-ish vocabulary (meaning that you know what clavus so that the reader knows what means in that instance, and doesn't have to rely on adjectives like metallus which I'm guessing wouldn't naturally appear after clavus in Latin). This'd be much better in my opinion than the gibberish articles which I'm sure are floating about right now. Also if indeed we do decide to do something like this (and make it some sort of rule that the latin has to be of a certain era and style) we can use templates such as those on the Als wikipedia. Just click the Zuefalls-Artikel bit a few times and you'll understand what I mean...

Alexanderr 04:01, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Alex...you suggest something to which even the Romans didn't adhere. Palmer has an excellent section on "style" in The Latin Language (liber legendissimus!). He suggests that syles were many and varied, and that even, as you put it "gibberish", a style that mixes anachronisms, archaisms, neologisms, parataxis, syntaxis, hypotaxis, graecisms, etc, is a legitimate style in it's own right (he calls it the "florid" or "new" style).
In some senses I am with you, shouldn't we write military history in the style of Caesar, philosophy with the language of Cicero, drama with Plautus' insolita latinitas sed iucunda, etc. The problem is that this is a wiki written by modern authors who are not completely fluent in latin. These authors need to be respected. If you write an article on the current war in the middle east, would you like me to come along after you, completely wipe out what you have written and replace it with a more Caesarian style? Few of us here are capable of writing good latin at all, fewer can write latin in a particular style, and fewer still are capable of writing in more than one style. I would argue that none of us can write comfortably in many styles, even the best of us. I can comfortably write Caesarian latin, and Plautine latin, and I can fake a few others, but that's just it, faking. As Iustinus said somewhere, I can't at all recall where, let's try to write Ciceronian latin, with standard classical vocabulary, but before that, let's write legible grammatically correct latin. Maybe you could be more specific in your suggestion of what to do differently? What I would suggest is read, read, read latin, all different authors, from all different times, and try to assimilate the sum of the styles. Like George Orwell said, "break all the rules of language, sooner than write anything outright barbaric."
More on Palmer, he even argues writers change their styles in the course of a work. Livy, in his Ab Urbe Condita, starts with a more religious/archaic style to emphasize the grandness of Rome's beginnings, and then switches his style gradually through the course of the work as the history of Rome changes. Then there's Tacitus...whose style can be described as an almost complete lack of style (unless you call giving his poor modern readers uncurable migraine headaches a style!). Many many things to consider...--Ioshus Rocchio 15:13, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm not saying that you need to fake a style at all, nor necessarily need the "proper" style for the article (although it would be best if you can). My main point is that if you can write in a specific style try to do that as often as possible so that we can have articles that are fully comprehensible... Alexanderr 15:09, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I think that's what I'm saying, too. Write articles that are fully comprehensible...you do not need to adopt a specific style to do so. Terrence is as comprehensible as Augustine, writing some 4-5 centuries apart, with completely different style.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:14, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Okay then, just a suggestion. Alexanderr 15:21, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

One worthwhile project would be to improve (or create) the articles about the different styles of latin that are referenced in Latinitas. It seems that one area a latin wikipedia ought to be strong in is writing about the latin language, but I don't know of any of us who has chosen to focus on that area. --Tbook 15:33, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think there is even this mentioned a few headings above. Daniel was motivated about such a project, but I think he moved on to wikibooks. I definitely think you're right, though, that Vicipaedia should most certainly be a resource for students of latin, including in depth analyses of its grammar, styles, and history/development... I'll put it somewhere on my agenda. It feels like I am forever volunteering for projects, and then getting sidetracked...--Ioshus Rocchio 15:40, 11 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

California - many changes[fontem recensere]

Please, can someone check these [7] many changes by an anonymous user? Unfortunately he did not provide sources. Thanks. --Roland (disp.) 07:36, 14 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I changed the broken links so that they work (i.e. connect to articles that already are here). I also changed Hollywood to whatever Traupman has. I'll double check my sources in the next few days. Sinister Petrus 21:25, 15 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Learning Latin[fontem recensere]

Copied from Pagina prima:

How can someone learn Latin outside a school course? Unless one of you guys wants to teach me, I'll have to wait until college to be able to do serious contributions, maybe an online course...KAMERONUS MAXIMUS 21:17, 12 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

We have some starting points for grammar (Vicipaedia:Grammatica) or dictionaries (Vicipaedia:Lexicon), but we do not have specific pages about

  • "Learning Latin"
  • "Teaching Latin (how the Latin Wikipedia can help with teaching)" (we have talked about that)

Could someone suggest titles for such pages? Then we can collect the links ... --Roland (disp.) 17:55, 13 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I'm learning on my own and bought Gavin Betts Teach yourself latin and other latin books. Maybe we really should work on those wikiprojects for teaching/learning latin. Keep on striving to learn !--Jondel 08:53, 15 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Ars docendi page is about teaching Latin. It is probably poorly named, and is linked to from the front page, so it would, I am sure, appreciate some work. --Tbook 20:07, 15 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
now moved to Vicipaedia:Ars docendi. --UV 10:08, 3 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I thought of a page about a) teaching Latin and b) by using the Latin Wikipedia (and maybe other online ressources). In this context it would be useful if we had a category for pages which are suited for being used in education. A bit like the opposite of "stipula". --Roland (disp.) 20:28, 15 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Or you could always head over to bolchazy.com and look at Artes Latinae (and help keep the mortgage and other bills paid at my house). The idea behind it is that it's "self-teaching." Sinister Petrus 21:34, 15 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Disputatio:Oceania#Template_Oceania[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio:Oceania#Template_Oceania. --Roland (disp.) 19:26, 14 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Pagina prima et praecepta varia Vicipaediana[fontem recensere]

Quomodo contribui potest, ut, quae usoribus explicentur, soloecismis careant? Videte enim, quid nos in prima fenestra huius Vicipediae ipsa offendat: "Ave! Vicipaedia cooperandi opus est ut creatur Libera Encyclopaedia. Omnes ad participandum invitati sunt." Haec verba, ut de syntaxi pravissima taceam, intellegi ideo tantum possunt, quod eodem fere sensu eodemque loco comparare possumus, quid Vicipaediae aliae dicant. Mihi quidem haec aut similia scribenda videntur: "Vicipaedia opus commune est, quo creetur Encyclopaedia Libera Interretialis. Omnes ad contribuendum invitantur." Neque vero id quidem unicus locus depravatus explicationum vel praeceptorum vicipaedianorum est. Quae omnia facile emendari possent, si aditus aut forum quoddam illo consilio crearetur.--Irenaeus 10:43, 18 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Estne Disputatio:Pagina prima forum eiusmodi? (Etiam in "vicilibri" vitia inveni.) Alex1011 13:44, 18 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Gratias ago Iosho nostro pro errore sublato. --160.45.162.235 13:59, 18 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Mentionem noli facere.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:19, 18 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

6000 paginae![fontem recensere]

Congratulations – thanks to Alexanderr, who started Douai (Biblia), we now have 6000 articles on the Latin wikipedia! --UV 00:50, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Euge! Gratias Alexandrro! Sinister Petrus 01:25, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Macte, sine dubio. Tamen, etiam nobis sunt agenda multa. Nos omnes exhortemur! Labores bonos continuemus!--Ioshus Rocchio 02:00, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
14 - 7 - 5 - 3 - ... the number of months we needed for another thousand. --Roland (disp.) 18:21, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Well thanks for the congratulations, but over all it really is just one article (though I really like it, and thank Iosus Rocchio for his help on it). Alexanderr 18:39, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps change the main page notice, where it says quinque milia still? Daniel () 21:36, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Done! Thanks!--Ioshus Rocchio 22:20, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Radius et diametrum[fontem recensere]

I couldn't find the word for radius, as opposed to diameter, in any of my dictionaries. Radius, as opposed to ulna, I could find. Anyone know? Or is it the obvious? Sinister Petrus 01:25, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Radius,-i, m; diametros, -i, f.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:57, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Iam mihi patet. Gratias maximas, Ioshe. Sinister Petrus 01:43, 22 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Modern names and latin grammar[fontem recensere]

I'm wondering how modern names should be adapted to the latin grammar. In many articles, they are - if they are ending on -a or -us - handled like latin names and thus declinated. But if they are ending on other letters, they are not adaped at all. Shouldn't they be declinated as well, e.g. using the consonant declination? E.g. should not "Filia pastoris Horsti Kasner" (from article Angela Merkel) better be replaced by "Filia pastoris Horsti Kasneris"? 84.177.165.93 19:31, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Please see Vicipaedia:Translatio nominum propriorum and maybe {{invitatio}}. ;-) --Roland (disp.) 21:09, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. But unfortunally I didn't find what I was looking for. I wasn't wondering about the translation of names into latin langue. I was rather thinking if the names - even if they are not translated - should be adapted to the latin languge. Because in other languages - even if the name is not tranlated - the ending of the name is adapted to the requirements of the grammar, to let it be a word in genitive, dative or accusative. So I would use the untranslated word as nominative and would adapt it according to the rules of the "fitting" declination. E.g. Georgius Bush, Georgii Bushis, Georgio Bushi, Georgium Bushem,... 84.177.138.105 20:29, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Family names remain indecinable (unless there is a very good reason to decline them, e.g. if the name is already Latinate, like some Scandinavian names). Indeclinable names can be a pain in the neck, but the Romans themselves did deal with them, at least sometimes. Virtually none of the Hebrew names in the Vulgate Bible at all are declinable, even when one might expect them to be (e.g. Iuda). --Iustinus 22:58, 25 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
That, Iustine, is why I never went with Iosue. I wanted something that was visibly declinable, which for me is a big part of the fun of latin. I think, 84.177.138.105, that a large part of the reason is that declinations have always been kind of the author's choice in latin writings. For example, Leonhardus Eulerus et Gabriele Cramerus, both of whom you'd expect to go with er, -is (one of whom, I embarassingly did think went by er, -is). So the trend has been to go with the name that is the fons priscinus for the cognomen, and the most classicly phonetical equivalent if the name is in a language that doesn't use the roman alphabet, to go with a declinable form of a latin name if it is utterly latinate, or to go with an unaltered undeclinable form if it is in a langage that uses the roman alphabet but isn't romantic in origin. One of them things.--Ioshus Rocchio 00:27, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Ait Iustinus: "Virtually none of the Hebrew names in the Vulgate Bible at all are declinable."
That's what one might think, and it seems to be true, at least for many names, but browsing in the text, I see that some are irregularly declined. For example, the genitive of Adam is Adami (heading to Gen. 5, "Adami posteri"), but the dative is Adae (Gen. 2:20, 3:17, 3:21), and the accusative remains Adam (Gen 3:24). The genitive (II Sam. 1:22) & dative (II Sam. 4:4) of Ionathas are Ionathae, the accusative is Ionathan (II Sam. 1:12), and the ablative is Ionatha (heading to II Sam. 1, "de Saule et Jonatha"). Lamech's wives (Gen 4:19), Ada & Sella, have attested datives in -ae (Gen 4:23), and would thus appear to decline regularly.
Addit Iustinus: "even when one might expect them to be (e.g. Iuda)."
Are there multiple Judahs, who behave differently? Gen 29:35 has an accusative Iudam ("et ob hoc vocavit eum, Judam"), but his nominative is Iudas ("Dixit ergo Judas fratribus suis," Gen. 37:26), so this fellow behaves differently from Iustinus's Iuda, though he's Judah in standard English—as is the Iuda who seems indeclinable in II Sam. 2:7 (domus Juda 'the house of Judah') and again in Num. 1:26 (De filiis Iuda 'Of the people of Judah')— but isn't it the same guy as in Genesis, Jacob's son and founder of the house of Judah? His vocative is Iuda (Gen. 49:8), and so is an alternate nominative, Iuda (Gen. 49:9), and the ablative (Gen 4:10). A wee inconsistency?
Just quick question. In Jonnase 20:29 my version has Thoma for the vocative. Is this also an irregular declination or do -as words usually turn into an -a vocative? Alexanderr 15:36, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Yes. --Iustinus 21:41, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
As to the question of surnames: there's nothing unusual about forcing proper nouns from one language into the declension system of another. English, which is semihostile to marking case, is happy to attach possessive markers (e.g., Caesar's, Kamehameha's, Stalin's, Tojo's) and plural markers (e.g., Caesars, Kamehamehas, Stalins, Tojos) to proper nouns that would take different markers or none at all in their original languages. Why shouldn't Latin, a language much friendlier to marking case, do something similar? The main problems with that are which declension into which to force the name and which form to give to the nominative singular. Is it Hitler, -i (2nd declension)? or Hitlerus, -i (ditto)? or Hitler, -is (3rd declension)? Is it Naurum, -i (2nd declension) or Nauru, -us (4th declension)? If the person himself or common usage hasn't bestowed an answer, who gets to choose? IacobusAmor 03:17, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Re. Vulgate: I did say virtually, and I still assert that if you do a random survey of them, the great majority of the names don't decline. What I was trying to say by this is not "If the Vulgate never declined anything, then neither should you," but rather "If readers of the Vulgate could handle indeclinable names, then so can we." (Side note: I'm not sure I'd trust headers, like Adami posteri, to be ancient. But this is a triffling point anyway). It is interesting that Judah the man declines but Judah the kingdome doesn't: it's the same name in Hebrew. On the other hand, notice that most European languages have had different outcomes for the Latin names Iacob and Iacobus, both from the same Hebrew name.
Re. surnames: The fact is, Iacobe, that not Latinizing family names, for better or for worse, has been the default since, oh, somewhere in the early 19th century, I'd say. This practice is followed by pretty much all of the seriouse modern Latin "authorities" and publications. Some examples from the Periodica Latina I have handy:
  • "...praeclarum lyceum Mediolanense, Iosepho Parini dicatum, nonnulli discipuli inundaverunt." -p. 211 Horatii Antonii Bologna "Diarium Latinum: Lyceum Mideolanense inundatum est." Latinitas, An. 53, Lib. 2, 2005.
  • "Statua equestris Pauli Revere" -p. 576, Gaii Licoppe "De itinere Americano (III)", Vox Latina, Tomo 40, Fasc. 158, 2004
  • "Qui liber in tres est partes divisus : primam, quæ parentes tractat et liberos, a Christiano Læs compositam ; secundam, quæ in amores incumbit et mores venereos, ab Antonio Van Houdt tractatam ; tertiam autem a tribus libri auctoribus curatam, quæ de matrimonio agit." -p. 16, Volfgangi Jenniges Lovaniensis "De Novis Libris", Melissa 119, 2004
  • "Studiis Lindae Buck atque Richardi Axel ingeniosissimis..." p. 13, "3.1 Nasus humanus quantum valeat" Nuntius Leoniinus, Vol. 1 2004
  • "Bavari Owenum Hargreaves nequaquam volunt amittere." Ephemeris
Lest you think all these sources are merely influenced by each other, I could dig up older references, from the 1800s, if you like. But this will have to do for now. --Iustinus 21:41, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I should also point out, that it is likely possible to find declinable forms of Hitler already in use (indeed, I saw some in the issue of Melissa I looked through), just because major historical figures have always tended to be exceptional, when it comes to Latin names: so many people write about them that you can't expect any two to aggree on the propper form.
Typically in the case of world leaders the best source is one put out by their government: I know for sure that these can be found for Mussolini, and I would be shocked if none could be found for Hitler. Of course then you end up with problems where, say, William the Fourth of Cloudcoocooland used Willelmus but William the Nineteenth used Gulielmus. Then what do you do? --Iustinus 21:47, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Diagnoses (vel descriptiones) imaginum[fontem recensere]

Over & over I'm seeing (1) images with no captions and (2) images with inadequate captions. If possible, captions should tell us more than, say, "Euclides mathematicus": if that's really Euclid, how do we know? and how closely does it resemble him? and when does it date from? and what's he doing? (Obviously, it isn't Euclid: it's a model from one of the past few centuries, and calling it Euclid adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the historical Euclid, unless perchance the depictions of the costumery & furniture are accurate, and even then they probably don't add much.) If the medium itself has historical interest, it too should be described and its place given. Here's a suggestion for the form of a complete caption (I'm making these details up): not "Ioannes Doe," nor "Ioannes Doe, dux Indianorum," sed:

Ioannes Doe, dux Indianorum Quechuanorum, a Ricardo Doeo anno 1532 pictus. Oleum super lignum. 61 cm x 38 cm. Nationale Boliviae Museum. Donum Ioannis D. Rockefelleri, 1919.

Or, if people prefer more connected grammar:

Ioannes Doe, dux Indianorum Quechuanorum, a Ricardo Doeo anno 1532 pictus. Oleum super lignum, 61 cm x 38 cm, in Nationali Boliviae Museo, donum Ioannis D. Rockefelleri, 1919.

And captions showing actions should be sentences in the present tense (again I'm making the details up):

Iuxta Adolfum Hitlerum in palatii podio stans, Benitus Mussolini galerum agitat. Romae, 1939.

Just a suggestion to get contributors to think about what an image proves. IacobusAmor 14:33, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Recte dicis... magis encyclopaedicum erit.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:45, 26 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Latein[fontem recensere]

This seems to be rather new: de:Portal:Latein. --Roland (disp.) 13:40, 27 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting, the portal. They claim superiority =]--Ioshus Rocchio 21:00, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotecting Disputatio:Chilia[fontem recensere]

I think we should semiprotect Disputatio:Chilia, see this. --Roland (disp.) 21:05, 28 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I looked, but I don't see the problem - to me it just looked like a user adding information on indigenous peoples. --Tbook 20:54, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
It's the talk page. Who will cleanup the talk page? It would be easier if the user took an account here. --Roland (disp.) 21:53, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
The term as used here is intended to be derogatory.--Ioshus Rocchio 20:59, 29 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Today this has been added: [8] etc. and some new pages:

  • REGIO TARAPACENSIS SEU TARAPACAE
  • REGIO HATUNFAIAGASTINA SEU HATUNFAIAGASTA
  • REGIO ATACAMENSIS SEU ATACAMAE‎
  • REGIO CUCIMPENSIS SEU CUCIMPI
  • REGIO PORTUS VALLIS PARADISI
  • REGIO O’HIGGINIANA SEU LIBERTATORIS DUCIS BERNARDI O´HIGGINII
  • ... and some more.

Who wants to cleanup this? Wouldn't it be better to have a little threshold? --Roland (disp.) 19:44, 1 Septembris 2006 (UTC)‎

De orthographia dierum annorumque[fontem recensere]

Hae sententiae a disputatione Disputatio:Vasingtonia, C.C.

Cur haec res diebus annisque Romanis utitur? Ut difficile legere fiat? Sine usu, mea sententia, est. Sinister Petrus 03:42, 20 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Consentio scilicet. Paginae quae Americae important tam in statibus malissimis sunt, ut modo cogitatio eas emendare conandi caput meum permaxime doleat...--Ioshus Rocchio 06:35, 20 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Proh dolor! Mihi caput dolens tuum diplicet. Etiam dies annique mutati sunt. Sinister Petrus 01:15, 21 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
The precedence from other wikis is to follow the formatting that was origionally used in the article. I have reverted the changes in accordance with that. Davus618 18:15, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted your changes in accordance with our policies.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:16, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I assume good face and that you mean Vicipaedia's policies by "our policies;" however I did not see the policy you are refering to. The Auxilium pro editione points one to other wikipedias for editing styles. Based both on Wikipedia's stance on CE/BCE vs. AD/BC and on the Auxilium pro editione article's section on dates I would conclude that keeping Roman dates in the system is the correct course of action. Davus618 18:26, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I did not see it either on page Auxilium pro editione (latine) ;-) But there is a reference to Vicipaedia:Numeri Romani. And I see, you haven't been officially welcomed yet, so I did it on your talk page. ;-) --Roland (disp.) 20:03, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Hey! I've not been officially welcomed either. ;) Sinister Petrus 20:08, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)--Ioshus Rocchio 20:17, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Interjecting here, you may both agree, but it most certainly does address roman dates, saying them to be both "unwieldly and unsightly".--Ioshus Rocchio 20:15, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
It also specifically says that Roman dates can be used "if wanted." Davus618 20:51, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC) P.S. I reformatted the thread so it would be more logical--hopefully no one minds.
I certainly don't mind. As I said, it may need a rewrite. The problem again is that this is not a roman wikipedia. The old style of dates went out of practice in the christian era. There isn't much practical use for them these days.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:05, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
The article Ioannes Bosco contains the Roman numeral MDCCCMXV. I think that's an example of the unwieldiness that Ioshus decries, not least because I can't figure it out! IacobusAmor 21:23, 30 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Right, "arabic" numerals are in use for a reason.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:01, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Indo-Arabic numerals are used for complicated numbers in Roman numbers such as the one the IacobusAmor pointed out (however that numeral makes no sense); however, this is nothing supporting the use of I nor 1 instead of the other. Davus618 04:09, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Same principle though. Who wants to subtract 753 years from every date they see. Same principle for lower case letters and punctuation. It's the modern mode. I feel your desire for an antiquated feel, but so few people read roman numerals well, and fewer know the roman date system.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:14, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Truth be told, I have had to look for most of the Roman dates on the days of the year articles I've written. Not that I can't figure them out, but it's never been important enough to be more than a curiosity to aware of and understand in rough outline. There is no way I'd recognize any dates other than the Kalends or their pridie or the Ides of March (and no other month). Sinister Petrus 05:25, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I move:
(1) that all dates throughout Vicipaedia take either of the forms "31 Augusti 2006" and "31 Aug. 2006," with "a.C.n." and "p.C.n." added only when disambiguation is necessary;
(2) except that dates that occurred during, and were pertinent to, the lives of ancient Romans, or their imitators in later ages, may in parentheses take the form prescribed by the Roman system, in any of several styles, which may vary as appropriate, thus:
28 Martii 58 a.C.n. (a. d. V Kal. Apr. DCLXXXVI AUC)
28 Martii 58 a.C.n. (ad diem quintum Kalendas Aprilis DCLXXXVI ab urbe condita)
28 Martii 58 a.C.n. (ad diem quintum Kalendas Aprilis DCLXXXVI anno urbis conditae)
28 Martii 58 a.C.n. (a. d. V Kal. Apr., L. Pisone A. Gabinio coss.)
28 Martii 58 a.C.n. (ad diem quintum Kalendas Aprilis, Lucio Pisone Aulo Gabinio consulibus);
(3) and that dates may in parentheses take the forms prescribed by other calendars where appropriate.
A punctuational nuance: for about fifty years, American genealogists (of whom there are millions) have been omitting the period after abbreviations in dates; consequently, the form "31 Aug 2006" may be acceptable to many, but it should probably not be in free variation with "31 Aug. 2006" (with the period): professional copyeditors would prefer that an encyclopedia use one form or the other. IacobusAmor 14:03, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I addend that BCE and CE should have Latin translations, but agree that BC and AD or in our case ACN or PCN are antiquated and should be replaced by common era/before common era. I do not want to think about Christ every time I write a date. I move not to abbreviate the month, but write out 31 Augusti 2006, duing away with the punctuational nuance. Also agree that it is appropriate to include in parentheses roman style dates if we are talking about ancient romans, or as Iacobus says, their imitators.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:44, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the observation about Christ: putting Christ in dates offends many, possibly a majority of the people in the world. Is there an acceptable Latin translation for "(Before) Common Era", one that would be obvious to ignoramuses—that is, one that would use the initials (B)CE? For Common, we could have Communis, -e; but Era is apparently a late Latin metaphor (drawn from aera), and the Romans might have preferred something like Aevum IacobusAmor 14:50, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
While your proposal is somewhat reasonable I suggest you propose it in the propper place--with some changes I might support it. For now, there is no such rule prohibiting the use of Roman dates in an article. If you can not show anything to suport the changing of Roman dates to Gregorian than the article should be reverted (unless of course you can also show that the Vicipaedia does not follow the rules of other wikis in absense of any such rules here as supported by the AUXILIUM PRO EDITIONE section in the help article.) Davus618 17:41, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
.

Please identify such changes, Dave (vocative of Davus, not the American nickname) and list them. I don't think Iacobus is suggesting prohibition of roman dates, he is in fact promoting them in their proper place, but subordinate to contemporary standard date notation. The article should most certainly not be reverted, as we are clearly showing that it is an article about an American city, that was founded over a millenium after roman dates went out of style. There is no real reason even to have roman dates subordinate in this case. In an article on say, Brundisium, roman dates would be fine, subordinate to standard ones. As for what is common among other wikis: the only thing I have found to be consistent at any wiki is the removal of unuseful, irrelevant, or counterproductive material. This, I think Iacobus and I to argue, fits neatly into that category.--Ioshus Rocchio 19:42, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

The whole discussion on (B)CE vs. BC & AD is, as I feel it, a very American thing. Not the whole world uses this new (and IMHO very ugly politically correct) (B)CE mode. In the Netherlands for example, we use (the Dutch versions of) "before Christ" and "after Christ" (and for the latter also AD). I think in many other countries (B)CE isn't used either. So, I see no reason to change aCn and pCn into Latin equivalents of the American abbreviation (B)CE.
Moreover, I don't think that many people would be offended by the use of aCn and pCn as Iacobus suggested. The Jews have their own calendar, as have the Muslims. If they use our calendar, they know what it's based on, and with Whose birth it starts. If they felt offended, they surely wouldn't use it (as they often don't); if they do use it, they seem not to be offended by it. To be honest, the use of (B)CE instead of BC & AD offends me.
Edit: according to this Wikipedia article a possible latin abbreviation for CE would be EV, for Era Vulgaris.--Agricola 21:17, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't offend me to use ad, or bc it's just a god (or gods, the trinity thing always confuses me) to whom I need not refer every time I write a date. The only reason we use this system is because historically christians have had the bigger swords, guns, and recently nuclear bombs. Like you said muslims and jews (and chinese and native american, etc) have their own calendar, but internationally we use the gregorian one. Isn't that a bit more common than it is christlike? I'm just talking about separation of church and date (sorry, couldn't resist... =]).--Ioshus Rocchio 21:23, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Agricola, and note that one of the vices of writing a latin Encyclopedia about modern things is that we periodically are forced to deal with things that do not have proper Latin names (new world places, for example.) Making up new abreviations for dates contrary to what has been the common practice would be a step away from latin to wikilatin. Full disclosure: I admittedly prefer AD and BC in English to CE and BCE, as I do not subscribe to the POV that would revise the calendar. --Tbook 21:37, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

(Note: I revised Iacobi's proposal to switch March to Martii - I assume no one minds.) --Tbook 21:41, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Oops! That's fine! IacobusAmor 22:00, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Ait Agricola: "The Jews have their own calendar, as have the Muslims. If they use our calendar." But that's the point: they are us (so to speak). The pretense here is that Vicipaedia is a universally appreciable reference: our calendar is everybody's calendar.
As for Era Vulgaris: I was avoiding Era because it's apparently late Latin aera 'counters', a plural of aes, treated as a fem. sing., especially in the phrase era Hispanica, denoting the number of years after 38 BCE—so if the Latin term era now finds itself meaning English "era," it will have had quite a semantic ride. But if people accept it, then CE might work for Communis Era. But what could then be done with BCE?
As for the typography of a.C.n. and p.C.n., people are used to seeing capitals with dates, and if Vicipaedia were to keep using them, I like Ioshus's idea of making them all caps with no periods: ACN and PCN. Likewise AUC. IacobusAmor 22:00, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)
Pigritiam scribendi meam Iacobe pro suggestione erras =].--Ioshus Rocchio 00:37, 1 Septembris 2006 (UTC)


Dixit Iacobus: "But that's the point: they are us (so to speak). The pretense here is that Vicipaedia is a universally appreciable reference: our calendar is everybody's calendar." It's indeed the Western calendar that's used in the Western world, and it starts with Jesus' birth. If I would live in the Arab world, they would expect me to use their calendar; they surely wouldn't alter theirs to not offend Westerners living in their world! They expect them to use the Arab calendar. Why would we (have to) alter our calendar to accomodate them? Cuius solum, eius fastum, I'd say. --Agricola 17:47, 1 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
I will repeat that the only reason they use "our" calendar is because, historically, christians have had the bigger swords, bigger guns, bigger nukes, and bigger desire to convert the world to their modus operandi.--Ioshus (disp) 19:53, 1 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Ioshus, despite having the bigger guns, or whatever point you are trying to make the Christian world - Europe - underwent an industrial revolution earlier than most other places, which means that even if they hadn't pursued colonizing the rest of the world they would have still been the most technologically advanced. Our Calendar wouldn't have been used by foreigners because they were afraid we'd attack them. It would have been used for the same reason that the scientific community used to use French, or that all pilots have to learn English - to make international communication easier. Alexanderr 20:05, 1 Septembris 2006 (UTC)


Ait Ioshus: I will repeat that the only reason they use "our" calendar is because, historically, christians have had the bigger swords, bigger guns, bigger nukes, and bigger desire to convert the world to their modus operandi.
I think it's reasonable to expect non-Westerns to use the Western calendar when in the West, as it is reasonable for Westerners to use the Arabic calendar when in the Arab world, or the Hebrew one, when in Israel. As said: Cuius solum, eius fastum!
As to the bigger weaponry of the Christians: in the time of the sword, that was hardly the case, the Crusaders were kicked out of the Holy Land by Suleiman the Great and later kicked off Cyprus by the Turks, and even kicked out of Constantinople by them! In these nuclear times, the West can hardly be called Christian anymore, though many in the Arab world regard Westerners still as "Christian Crusaders". As to "converting the world to their modus operandi", I seem to recall one Muhammad of Mecca who wanted to convert the world to his newly created religion. --Agricola 17:43, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
The Gregorian Calendar is no more Christian now than the Julian Calendar was pagan as Christianity gained power. I am offended by having to cite any god and it would not be prudent for a encyclopedia to force people to constantly relate dates to a god. Davus618 02:17, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
The gregorian calendar has christian roots, as the Julian Calendar had pagan ones, and to mess around with the abbreviations just because you don't like them as they appeared traditionally is stupid. I'm not calling you stupid or anything, but the idea that you should totally change the abbreviations, and confuse people (I thought BCE meant millions of Years ago (e.g. 45 BCE equaling 45,000,000 years) when I first found out about the system) is ridiculous. So what now? We are tied. Alexanderr 02:30, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Equidem iam dudum hanc vicipaediam, ut quae ad regulas nullas, nullas normas, nullum denique exemplum castigetur, in ludos meros nugasque evasisse intellexi. Haec enim est vetus et optima et ahenea lex omnibus, inde a temporibus Petrarcae Latine scribere qui dignati sunt, constituta, ut ad latinitatem Ciceronis respiciendum sit. Huius viri verba sequantur, siquam rem tenuerimus. Quodsi dies annosque designare velis, habuit, inquam, habuit ille, quomodo dies certas indicaret! Calendarium illud ingenuum et Romanum non difficilius est nostro. Differt scilicet quodam modo ab usitata notione. Quid? Ecquidnam discere oportet? Id ut fiat certe a ratione nostra alienum est! Tamen equidem mordicus teneo exemplis optimis utendum esse, si hanc vicipaediam alicuius pretii esse volumus. Inter quae libenter opera non Ciceronis modo, sed Caesaris etiam et Petrarcae et auctorum litteris renatis qui scripserunt diligentissimorum numeranda esse concedo, ut non modo illud ante vel post Christum natum adhiberi, sed annos vel Domini vel salutis vel Christi numerari posse videatur. Annos autem diesque notandi rationem novam, etiamsi his temporibus apud populum aliquem floreat, in hanc linguam antiquissimam transferre viri est rudis segnis barbari.--Irenaeus 11:01, 6 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Magistratus[fontem recensere]

Please see Vicipaedia:Petitio magistratus. --Roland (disp.) 23:36, 31 Augusti 2006 (UTC)

Please take part in the voting. --Roland (disp.) 19:57, 3 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

gratias vobis (ago)[fontem recensere]

tandem inveni locum in quo Latine loqui possim (utrum possim anne possum?)... eu! quindecim sum annorum et unum annum linguam Latinam ad scholam studeo multissimo... studio. scilicet multa discenda habeo, verum etiam ad ea discendum tempus. Interea haec optima erit exercitatio.

Is ornis a bird in latin[fontem recensere]

In an article in fi.wiki someone has written that "ornis" is a bird (bird in general or a certain species) and that "ornithfas" is a spring wind blowing from south-east. Are either of these true? I can't find ornis in my dictionary and ornithfas doesn't look like latin? Could these words be greek? -130.232.129.242 07:35, 13 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Their class is Aves. Ornithfas I don't know if it is an attested greek word, it certainly doesn't look nominative. But for instance, ornithology is the study of birds, so for sure the "ornith" stem is valid.--Ioshus (disp) 11:09, 13 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Ornis, gen. ornithos is Greek. The wind you are thinking of is "Ornithias", which, unlike ornis, is attested as a genuine word in Classical Latin. --Iustinus 06:53, 15 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Cortina d'Ampezzo?[fontem recensere]

Usor:Rodrigobeltransuito Ampitium Cadubri habet.

In libro inveni:

1) Cortina = cortina. Oppidum in quadam cortina iacet inter montes.

2) Ampezzo de ladino verbo Ampec orsum est. (Ampecani ut ita dicam Ladini sunt quamquam multi nunc Italice loquntur.) Ampec praeromanum esse dicitur. Non iam significationem verbi habemus vel plures opiniones dubiosae sunt.

3) Opinio unius hominis aliquid insolens est qui dicit cortina non solum cortina esse sed etiam tripus Pythiae qui in oraculis in usu erat. Cortina d'Ampezzo locum veterem esse ubi oraculum erat. Ergo Ampec corruptione verborum de Apollo et Pythia orsum esse.

Cortina d'Ampezzo ergo Cortina Apollinea Pythia esse.

4) Ego propono aliquid sicut Cortina Ampecina, Cortina Ampeca, Cortina Ampecanorum vel similia. Homines qui in Ampecia/Ampecum? (Ampezzo), ut dicam, vivunt Ampeci/Ampecani? appellentur. Alex1011 08:13, 14 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Translation request (2 sentences)[fontem recensere]

For the front page of the Novial Test Wikipedia it would be nice to have a Latin translation of the following 2 sentences:

<>

Welcome to the Wikipedia in the Novial language!

You can read about the international auxiliary language Novial here.

<>

See the original request at Wikimedia Incubator here.

A flag is next to each translation. For Latin, if you had to choose a flag what would it be?

Thank you , from Nov_ialiste.

Gratus advenisti apud Vicipaediam Novialem!
Ut de lingua auxiliari inter nationes adhibita Noviale legas, vide hoc.
At Vicipaedia:Babel formulae I have used the modern flag of Rome for the latin language. No one has commented negatively about this, but I can't say for certain. Vexilia were a personal/family matter in antiquity. Ancient Rome may indeed have had a flag, but of it I am not aware.--Ioshus (disp) 13:04, 16 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Also, I have invited your IP to become a named user. =]--Ioshus (disp) 13:06, 16 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the translation. I also used the flag of Rome. I am certainly interested in the Latin Wikipedia but my Latin is too small to contribute usefully. I might come here looking for templates though, like the multingual invite for anonymous users: very nice. Salutos, Nov ialiste [9]

Caveat (deletion of the Latin wikibooks)[fontem recensere]

The Latin wikibooks is being considered for deletion!--Jondel 07:19, 18 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

It says: "Vicilibri (sive Wikibooks) cooperandi opus est ut creatur Liberae Liberi." This creatur is indicative, so the sense is 'as is created'. Particularly puzzling is how the children (liberi) of a free woman (liberae) fit in. IacobusAmor 11:28, 18 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
The Latin Wikibooks as it stands is completely useless. There is no good content (the 12 or so pages should all be on Wikisource) and there is no community. Almost none of the interface is translated either. I have nominated it for deletion because there is no use for it, at least in the near future, and it is both wasteful and tempting to vandals to leave it open. Please discuss on the page at Meta. Daniel () 19:22, 20 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree with you. For example, the pages about Latin grammar which you started here some time ago might better fit into Wikibooks than into the Vicipaedia. There are also some pages with word lists we could move from here to there or maybe a collection of Latin phrases. Maybe: "Useful phrases for users of the Latin Wikipedia." Where else should such content go? Again, I do not think that Latin Wikibooks are "completely useless". I wished you had not proposed the deletion, because it's not easy to explain such a collection's value either. I'll vote for keeping it and will point to my statement here. I hope others will express their opinion, too. --Roland (disp.) 19:41, 20 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between Wikibooks and Wikifons? Alex1011 14:00, 22 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

You mean wikisource (fons=>source)?--Jondel 17:17, 22 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
Ita. --Alex1011 17:23, 22 Septembris 2006 (UTC)
As far as I gathered, Vicifons/Wikisource is the place for the reproduction of classical texts. These texts are not subject to change. Vicilibri/Wikibooks, on the other hand, is the place of for self-created or collaborately created texts in the Latin language, therefore subject to being improved at any time. --UV 22:31, 22 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

See also below. --UV 22:14, 9 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Formulæ catalanæ et occitanæ[fontem recensere]

Hi, could someone make catalan and occitan "formula"? (babel templates)

Hola, podria alguien hacer las plantillas del catalaán y del occitano?

Salut, est-ce que vous pouvez faire les "formula" du catalan et de l'occitan?

Hola, algú podria fer les plantilles del català i de l'occità?

Adiussiatz, qualqu'un pòt far los bendèls dau catalan e dau occitan? Keko dc 18:38, 25 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

I think you are the only one here who speaks occitan and catalan, so you can leave those out of your list when requesting =]. As far as French? and Spanish, most people speak English here, you will certainly be more understood speaking English than either french or speanish, but I suppose it couldn't hurt. As far as templates go, again, you are the only one here who speaks catalan and occitan, so I'm not sure why you want someone else to make them... I would go to en:Wikipedia:Babel and just copy them to here, changing all instances of "Category" to "Categoria" and all instances of "Occitan language" to "Lingua Occitanica" or whatever it is in latin, certainly something close, all instances of "User" to "Usor", etc. So you should be filling up
Formula:Usor oc, Formula:Usor oc-4, Formula:Usor oc-3, Formula:Usor oc-2, Formula:Usor oc-1, Formula:Usor oc-0, and Formula:Usor ca, Formula:Usor ca-4, Formula:Usor ca-3, Formula:Usor ca-2, Formula:Usor ca-1, and Formula:Usor ca-0. When you're done, please copy your work to Vicipaedia:Babel formulae.--Ioshus (disp) 20:14, 25 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know most people who contribute here are english speaking people. And, you're not hurting me, if I can make myself undertood using only enlish... I don't know if I will be able to do them (the templates) but I'll try it (not today, because I don't have enough time).Thank you. Oh, I'd like to ask you something, where did you learnt latin? Me, I'm beggining with it, last week I bought a method for leraning it (it's a book). I'm not sure if it will work (latin is so difficult!!) but I learnt occitan in a similar way (but with CD's, and occitan is similar to catalan, my principal language). The majors problems I have are the entonation (I don't know where the stressed syllable is!) and the "long" and "short" vowels (what are them??). Thank you very much and good bye!Keko dc 16:50, 26 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Hic sapientia est: qui habet intellectum conputet[fontem recensere]

Vicipaediae iam sunt 6,666

... quid plura? --Iustinus 02:48, 26 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Figura sinistra! Saepissume novam paginam crea!--Ioshus (disp) 02:57, 26 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Saravia[fontem recensere]

Nova pagina Saravia rectum nomen habet mea opinione.

Facere volo etiam paginam insigne autocinetorum et insigne autocinetorum (Germaniae), vide de:Kfz-Kennzeichen. Adhuc dubito aliquid de verbo insigni (tessera? dux?)

Si hanc paginam faciamus etiam indicem habeamus de omnibus pagis Germaniae. --Alex1011 11:28, 30 Septembris 2006 (UTC)

Charta positionis[fontem recensere]

Eiusmodi charta caremus adhuc:

{{Positionskarte|Kroatien|label=Split|lat=43.50|long=16.43|position=left|width=145|caption=|float=right}}

Alex1011 08:18, 2 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Quid, Alex?--Ioshus (disp) 20:11, 2 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

In pagina Spalatum charta est sed - pro! - sine punctum quod situm oppidi indicat. In aliis vicipaediis quaedam formula est quae quoddammodo punctum in chartam proicit. Eadem quaestio est cum chartis Britanniae vel potius charta quia una charta sufficit et puncta situs in charta proiciuntur. In vicipaedia Anglica charta cum puncto situs apperet, in vicipaedia Latina solummodo charta apparet sine puncto. --Alex1011 21:04, 2 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

"Chemica" aut "Chemia"[fontem recensere]

(nobis plurimis Anglicam melior Latinae loquentis illa lingua utiar)

Dear all,

I'd like to contribute to the Vicipaedia chemistry ("chemica") pages. Now I found in my New-Latin dictionary, that "chemistry" is translated there as "chemia", not "chemica". Especially for "biochemistry" the Latin translation given is "biochemia". What do other people think of this? Should there then be a forward from "chemia"? I guess, that "chemica" may be thought of a short form for "ars chemica" (like in Greek), and thus it originates from an adjective. Hints are welcome! --Cornu 14:14, 2 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 'chēmīa' (ancient Greek χημεία) is chemistry, 'chemicus' is the derived adjective. It is like biographia : biographicus, geologia : geologicus, anatomia, anatomicus—and in most cases the fem. of the adjective can stand for the art as a whole as well. —Myces Tiberinus 18:03, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
The latter is what I have always seen. Chemica is the adjective ie "chemical".--Ioshus (disp) 20:18, 2 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
I agree; however, even on the initial page the category is named "Chemica". So how should we proceed? (Being a very Vicipaedia-beginner I seek your advise, masters.) --Cornu 08:52, 4 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
I would move it. Proper latin should reign free. Be bold, yknow? Audax esto!--Ioshus (disp) 12:11, 4 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Grammatica[fontem recensere]

Res grammaticae nobis mea opinione magni momenti sunt ut melius paginas scribere possimus. Quaestio proposita est utrum haec paginae in vicipaedia sub categoriam "grammatica Latina" scribendae sunt an in vicilibris in novo libro de grammatica Latina? (Vide exempli gratia meas paginas Unde? Ubi? Quo? et antequam) In vicilibris mihi videtur hoc temporis puncto nullum librum esse. --Alex1011 07:16, 9 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what I wanted to propose/ask. After the debate on the possible closing of the Latin wikibooks (see above and on meta), b:it:Utente:The Doc volunteered to rebuild and relaunch the site. In the past, people had confused wikibooks and wikisource and had added classical texts to vicilibri. Yesterday, The Doc cleared out all the rests of the classical texts that had been moved to wikisource so vicilibri is now awaiting a fresh start! I would be in favour of having encyclopedic articles here on vicipaedia and having didactic material in the Latin language on vicilibri (of course with the ones linking to the others and vice versa). This would also be an opportunity to move the Latin-Portuguese phrasebooks and other material that is more appropriate in vicilibri there. Opinions? --UV 22:12, 9 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Ita, et Doctori gratias do. Apud nos lingua latina non est explicanda, at vicilibros.--Ioshus (disp) 02:17, 10 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Qui nexum facimus ad vicilibros? Alex1011 15:50, 11 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Ita: b:Grammatica Latina/antequam --Alex1011 18:17, 11 Octobris 2006 (UTC) paginam movi --UV 23:17, 11 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
What would be a good title on vicilibri for the bilingual "books" on phrases like the Latin-Portuguese phrasebook and similar pages? Verba et sententiae Lusitanice? --UV 23:17, 11 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
"Glossarium" propono, Glossarium viatorum etc. --Alex1011 08:16, 12 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Stercus pati me taedet[fontem recensere]

Recente, tirones stercus faciebant. Opera sua si tam inutilia, tam horribilia, confecta cum tam superbia linguae audaci non sint patienda! Non modo inscribamus "reddenda" vel "maxcorrigenda" at deleamus statim, nec haesitemus ultra tempus quo auctores/vandales scripserunt ipsi. Sunt res quas velim videre Sinice scriptas, at non simulo Sinice scribere potere, tamen bene mihi placeat. Numerum paginarum, quo gloriamur, sit mendacio magnissima si stercora nostra enumeraremus.--Ioshus (disp) 01:04, 11 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Tempus fortasse oritur quo scopus noster sit melius opera etiam bene scripta augescere ameliorareque. Saepe tirones quibus dicebam nobiscum in animis manere habent, at cotidie paginae scribuntur auctoribus in quos cogitatio latinitati studium dandi numquam nullo modo umquam accidit, sicut is qui Studii Disney... Mure imprimendo unum vel dua aliquis cognoscat dua studia non esse "studii", etiam si numquam verbum "studium" non sensum studio significare putasset. Vel Sailor Moon, lingua huius incerta...latina, anglica, latinglica? Usoribus novis qui strenue laborare temptatis, et suam latinitatem emendare, errores forte facientibus, non vobis maledico, et semper apud nos sitis grati...at quos vandalismum agere malint peto, quo usque tandem patientia nostra abutere?--Ioshus (disp) 01:54, 11 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

OK, Ioshe, consentio. Liberaliter dele! (Cur casus ablativus? Cf. Q. Horatii "indocilis pauperiem pati," non "pauperie.") IacobusAmor 02:53, 11 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Gender of automobiles[fontem recensere]

What gender should names of cars bear in your opinion, neuter or feminine (as I understand is the rule in romance languages)? Illa Edsel or illud Edsel? Looking forward for any comments.

--328cia 08:13, 13 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Any foreign nondeclinable loan word should be neuter (cf Pong cervisiale et Disputatio:Deportus#Ping Pong (it's a trademark)), and car itself is neuter. So two reasons to make car names neuter. Any help?--Ioshus (disp) 14:17, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Maximas tibi, o vir doctissime et polytrope magisterque tantarum linguarum, gratias ago, quod mihi verbis tam propitiis in hoc circulo bonorum hominum salutaveris. --- As I haven´t touched a latin book in 15 years, I find it quite hard to revive the corresponding brain cells, but will try to do my best in the future. Bought the German edition of the Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis plus a much-needed grammar to refresh my knowledge just today. --- As for the gender question, I agree with you to prefer the neutrum (un)natural gender. Theodisce, by the way, cars are masculine.
Vale!
--328cia 15:37, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
What about obvious first-declension feminines, like the made-up (and misspelled) word Acura and such? IacobusAmor 15:10, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
[As spelled, it wants to be stressed on its second syllable, but the company wants otherwise, and so has spent millions training us English-speakers to stress the first syllable—which we might have done anyway, had it been Accura.] IacobusAmor 15:10, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Well, I would defer to VP:TNP in this case... easily declined nouns should be so declined. Acura-acurae makes perfect sense to me. But Ford-fordis/fordonis I can't really get behind. Interesting point, though.--Ioshus (disp) 19:06, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
In Italian etc. all names of automobiles are of fem., in German all are of masc. gender, regardless of names that seem to be of a certain natural gender; e.g. it`s la Lexus, der Honda (no Acuras/Acurae over here). So if we concur that they´re neuter, they should all be neuter.
I take it that if we regard a car´s name as a non-declinable loan word, then there should be no special forms of the word to indicate the plural, right? Tauri and Loti (as to be found in Car & Driver) are just jokes, right?
By the way, it´s my plan to do some articles on cars; but I am not sure at all I could ever succeed in that, for it would require myriads of neologisms...So what about an entry on car-related neologisms? I found "lamina puppis" here for "rear spoiler", which strikes me as very good.
--328cia 15:51, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Chocolate[fontem recensere]

Is chocolatis a good way of latinizing the (originally nahuatl) word??? --Alexis Hellmer 21:25, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Vide, quaeso, Disputatio:Pagina prima#Chocolate = Tzocolate?. Chocolatis malum sit...--Ioshus (disp) 21:28, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Gratias ago tibi, Ioshe. What would be your advice for naming the article? Chocolatum?socolatum? I do not quite like the tz- thing. --Alexis Hellmer 21:37, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Incertus sum...responsum persaepe dabo.--Ioshus (disp) 21:41, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
If old Romans had heard old Nahuatl, wouldn't they have interpreted tl as ta? Hence, first-declension feminine, ciocolata, -ae. (See my remark at Disputatio:Pagina prima#Chocolate = Tzocolate?.) Preferably, though, whatever attested form survives from sixteenth- or seventeenth-century Mexican Latin should be best. IacobusAmor 21:45, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Gratias. I will try and look for it in the Spaniards' chronicles. --Alexis Hellmer 21:53, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Videtur apellatum esse litteris romanis hispanice non latine a Cortes regi Hispaniae... at vide de es:Chocolate:
  • La palabra chocolate es una adaptación de la palabra náhuatl xocolātl, que hacía referencia a una «bebida espumosa hecha a base de cacao» y cuyo significado literal es agua agria.
  • Se postulan dos etimologías para xocolātl:
    1. se trata del resultado de añadir a la palabra ātl («agua») las palabras xococ (del náhuatl (región centro-occidente de México), cuyo significado es «agrio») o xocolia («agriar»).
    2. se trata de una adaptación de chokolhaa, palabra proveniente del maya (Guatemala) que, literalmente, significa «líquido o bebida caliente».
  • el filólogo Joan Corominas expone la siguiente hipótesis: como las noticias más antiguas acerca de la preparación de este brebaje son de que los antiguos mexicanos lo hacían con semilla de ceiba (pochotl) y de cacao (cacahuatl), quizá provenga de pocho-cacahua-ātl, bebida de cacao y ceiba, abreviado por los españoles en chocahuatl (en la forma actual pudo haber influjo fonético de otros brebajes mexicanos, como pozolātl, bebida de maíz cocido, pinolātl, bebida de pinole, y chilātl, bebida de chile).
  • Según el misionero inglés Thomas Gage, que se refirió al chocolate en 1648, el término tendría un origen onomatopéyico, pues xoc imitaría el ruido que producía la bebida cuando se agitaba en el recipiente en el que se preparaba o batía.
Ergo putem nomen magis phoneticum scribendum...chocolatum recte pronuntiatur "khokolatum" non "shokolatum"...--Ioshus (disp) 21:54, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
The OED says: "Chocolatl has no connexion whatever with the Mexican cacauatl 'cacao', or its modern corruption cocoa; but is, so far as is known, a radical word of the language. It is possible, however, that Europeans confounded chocolatl with cacaua-atl, which was really a drink made from cacao." IacobusAmor 22:03, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
I just sent a request to Andrew. Hopefully he will come share his knowledge shortly.--Ioshus (disp) 22:31, 14 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Here I am. For a Latin name for "chocolate" we have three possibilities: 1. Theobroma ("drink of the gods" in Greek), 3rd declension, which was invented by Linnaeus as a name for the genus to which the cacao tree belongs; 2. Cacao, which we would treat as indeclinable, and was adopted (not invented) by Linnaeus for the species; 3. Whatever spelling of "chocolate" was used by 16th/17th century botanical and medical authors writing in Latin. But, in my view, 1. would not be a good choice because only botanists would understand it; 3. would be best.
Unfortunately, I can't find it in any sources at hand. If I were guessing, I would say that some modern Latin writer must have used ciocolata before now (it happens to be the Romanian spelling too); but better not to guess. Does someone have René Hoven,Lexique de la prose latine de la Renaissance (1994)? Might be there. Andrew Dalby 12:10, 15 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
In "Ursus Nomine Paddington", a published translation of Michael Bond's famous children's book, Peter Needham uses the phrase "circum carrulum socolata et potionibus theanis oneratum". How authoritative that is, I couldn't say. Decimus Canus 23:25, 15 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

Videte etiam, ubi verba dictionariorum proponuntur: Disputatio:Pagina prima#Chocolate = Tzocolate? --Alex1011 08:37, 16 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

Medieval history and literature[fontem recensere]

These seem good topics for Vicipaedia, since so much on these subjects was originally written in Latin. Having just needed to skim through De instructione principis by Giraldus Cambrensis I have inserted an article on it. This is mainly an outline for the present, using the original chapter headings. I just wanted to say that it contains a good many redlinks to medieval monarchs etc., and someone might want to check that they conform to the intended format. I have added a similar article to the English Wikipaedia, where, of course, most of the links are already blue. Andrew Dalby 18:04, 21 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I realise that a list of contents doesn't make the ideal bodywork of an encyclopedia article, but in the case of literary miscellanies, difficult of access, I think it can be useful. With that thought in mind, I have made in-line links in the German and French Wikipedia articles on Giraldus Cambrensis, within the list of his works, direct to this Latin article where the full contents are listed. Does that seem a good idea? Andrew Dalby 21:03, 21 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. There is a heap of medieval latin I would like to learn for lexicographical purposes. There are entire corpora of words that we often try to invent here (like vocabulary for universities for example) so I think any way we can make it easier for vicipaediani to read medieval latin the better. This is a good place for the collection of his works as well, especially if they were originally penned in latin. Seems like a good idea, to me.--Ioshus (disp) 22:45, 21 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Wikimania 2007 Team Bulletin[fontem recensere]

Published by the Wikimania 2007 Taipei Team, Wikimania 2007 Team Bulletin provides the latest news of the Team's organizing work to everyone who is interested in Wikimania; it also gives the Team chances to announce calls for help/participation, so assistance in human and other resources can be sought in a wider range. Team Bulletin is published at the official website of Wikimania 2007 and released to the public domain. Issue 1 and Issue 2 has already published.--218.166.212.246 01:58, 29 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Shortcuts for Anglice, Germanice, Russice, ...[fontem recensere]

I think we should have shortcuts (= REDIRECTs) for

I think this is not a cluttering of the namespace. These terms are used so often that they are worth a redirect. It would be more convenient - especially for new users - to add translations to the title of a page.

I have started a list: Vicipaedia:Lingua#Index_redirectionum_ad_linguas

--Roland (disp.) 09:33, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. They can't do it in English (they always have to say [e.g.] ''in [[French language|French]]'', but we can in Latin because we have the language adverbs! What a sensible language! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:41, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Great idea. This makes life much simpler. --UV 22:51, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

"Discretiva" maybe better on the top ...[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio Vicipaediae:Discretiva#Maybe_better_on_the_top_.... --Roland (disp.) 13:10, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

What about the proposed layout? --Roland (disp.) 10:01, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

Rogo vos ut corrigant hanc errorem[fontem recensere]

"Haec pagina 75 kilobytes longa est; aliqui navigatra paginas magniores quam 32 kilobytes longa. Considera paginam in partes minores frangere. "

Non es magniores sed maiores.

by 84.234.110.198 --Roland (disp.) 13:59, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

The reason is, that this page is now too long and should be archived.

I think we should have a page like "Taberna vetera" and there a list of the archives, named by the date when they were created:

  • "Taberna archive until 2005-01"
  • "Taberna archive until 2005-12"
  • "Taberna archive until 2006-04"
  • "Taberna archive until 2006-10"

I'll create a Category:Taberna vetera and categorize the archives we already have. --Roland (disp.) 13:59, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

I changed MediaWiki:Longpagewarning. --UV 23:05, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
actually i was talking about the grammar error: "magniores" is wrong, "maiores" is good. but i see it has been solved

The Ancient Library[fontem recensere]

I've created a page The Ancient Library. They have a category Not_in_Wikipedia. Is this an invitation? — Although I am quite sure they mean the English Wikipedia. ;-) --Roland (disp.) 10:45, 31 Octobris 2006 (UTC)