Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 32

MMXXII[fontem recensere]

Annum faustum, felicem, fortunatumque vobis omnibus precor! Legamus, scribamus, gaudeamus! Lesgles (disputatio) 15:44, 1 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fausta omnia tibi ceterisque Vicipaedianis. Proposito tuo subscribo.--Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 15:53, 1 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vicipaedia:Pellicula mensis[fontem recensere]

Salvete omnes! Habemus Vicipaedia:Pellicula mensis (gratias @UV: et elegi pelliculas per 2022. Estne bene hoc uti in pagina prima? --JimKillock (disputatio) 17:23, 3 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cur non? Anno novo quoddam novum faciamus. — Paginae primae columna prima nunc brevissima est, ibi pellicula inseri potest. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:29, 3 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bene, quis ergo possit paginam primam emendare? @UV: fortasse? --JimKillock (disputatio) 22:52, 5 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nemine contradicente pelliculas mensium in paginam primam inserui. --UV (disputatio) 21:04, 6 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi @UV:! --JimKillock (disputatio) 16:55, 9 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rogationem de annorum[fontem recensere]

Habemus rogationem de hoc commons:TimedText:Uruk,_erste_Metropole_der_Weltgeschichte_(CC_BY_4.0).webm.la.srt: Ibi quattuor milia [annos / annorum?] ante Christum natum prima urbs post hominum memoriam condita est. Utitur annos aut annorum? --JimKillock (disputatio) 16:57, 9 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post milia annorum melius. Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 16:05, 10 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ling formula[fontem recensere]

Should languages named by the ling formula be adverbs or nouns? We notice that in "Lingua Scotica (Gadelica)," editor 2804:1054:3014:fde0:f045:7592:d7f5:8331 has changed {{ling|Scotice|Anglice}} to {{ling|Scotica|Anglica}} overnight. We notice also that the formula is given as {{Ling|Lingua Italiana{{!}}Italiane}} in "Runcus Genuensium." What's the most appropriate way of coding this kind of information? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:09, 11 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paginas de linguis Scotiae nunc semi-protexi. Editor anonymus, linguae Latinae expers, nomina linguarum in paginis de Scotia inutiliter mutat.

Scribimus e.g. de nexu externo monolingui {{Ling|Anglice}}; de nexu bilingui {{Ling|Anglice|Francogallice}}, etc.

UVbot interdum e.g. {{Ling|Anglice}} in {{Ling|Lingua Anglica{{!}}Anglice}} mutat: haec mutatio in facie paginae non videtur. Nobis neque expansionem ab UVbot factam imitare, neque revertere, necesse est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:06, 11 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De pagina prima[fontem recensere]

When you visit our Vicipaedia:Pagina prima from today on (and you are logged in), you may notice that Vicipaedia now will greet you using your username ;-)

(You might beforehand need to reload the page, shift-reload the page and/or clear your browser cache to see the effect.)

This greeting is a (hopefully pleasant) side-effect of me today adapting the top of our Vicipaedia:Pagina prima to make sure everything will still work in the future: Possibly, the MediaWiki software developers will, within a few weeks or months, add a “Sticky Header” near the top of the page may put some useful controls onto the same line as the article title. For this to work smoothly in the future, I have today removed our custom main page heading and re-enabled the standard one.

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:35, 11 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but the gadget doesn't know the vocative case. Of course, vocative is not needed for all nicknames, but for those that are needed, is it possible to specify a form somewhere? To change the ending -us to -e and -ius to -i. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 03:15, 12 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I have tried to include a manual workaround for the vocative case (see the source code of MediaWiki:Mainpage-title-loggedin/vocative) – does it work now? If anyone else prefers a greeting in the vocative case on our pagina prima as well, do tell me and I will add your username to MediaWiki:Mainpage-title-loggedin/vocative. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:18, 12 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Now it really makes an impression. — It seems to me, also Bis-Taurinus (one of those who often edits — and always corrects errors). And IacobusAmor — what about the space, it's unclear, maybe he will say. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:35, 12 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, I have added the two. If anyone prefers it some other way, please tell me! --UV (disputatio) 22:42, 12 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De UVbot[fontem recensere]

Hodie in capsa editoria rei "Percy Liza," 190.237.93.100, editor ignotus, nobis dicit UVbot "is misbehaving or if there is just the slightest suspicion that the bot might be malfunctioning, please block it." Re vera? UVbot indecore se gerit? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:20, 22 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UVbot «non annexa» formulam posuit et recte omnia fecit, nam non annexa est. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:11, 22 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could indeed happen that (a) I make a mistake while operating UVbot (nobody is perfect) or (b) there is a technical problem that causes UVbot to malfunction. If such a situation occurs, I invite everyone to raise the issue here in the Taberna or on my user talk page; and if the bot is still running and doing more harm, I invite every admin to block UVbot at sight. In the case at hand, I believe that UVbot did neither misbehave nor malfunction. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:06, 22 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Noster 190.237.93.100, editor ignotus, appears to be under the impression that the "Pagina non annexa" formula shouldn't be applied to pages lacking an incoming link, or at least to "Percy Liza." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:17, 22 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last of those :) To put it in context, 190.237.93.100 has been spreading this footballer across many Wikipedias. The Latin page was just about acceptable as a start so we didn't delete it. 190.237.93.100 prefers the page not to have any templates on it, and has learned that bots can conveniently be accused of malfunctioning. It's up to us how we deal with such messages, taking due account of their origin.

As for the page, the text is far too short to be useful. If anyone wants to improve it and add an incoming link somewhere, great: if not, I suspect it will eventually be deleted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:20, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formulae desideratae[fontem recensere]

Fortasse noster Usor:Klein Muçi or some other kind programmer would like to make the formulas printing nakedly in red under "De nominibus hodiernis" here work. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:08, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IacobusAmor, LaWiki was completely lacking technical foreign language support. I found myself in a rabbit hole where each module required 10 other modules to be imported so it worked. After 87 imports of modules and templates (my hands literally hurt :P ), the situation should be better. Unfortunately that is not the complete list of templates (the complete list requires +200 other templates to cover almost all the languages and scripts of the world) and some of the already imported templates may require further fine-tuning to be translated in Latin (that's actually easy to do) but I did what was needed to solve the current, immediate, problem I believe. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 14:14, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macte! Multas gratias tibi ago! Such labor! Who knew? Bravo! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:38, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the name of the language must be Latin, "Graece" and not "Greek" etc.; "romanized" — "litteris Latinis"? "Listen" — "audias" etc. Or is it easier to rewrite a paragraph without formulas. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:31, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I do. I don't know what benefit the templates offer. But all praise to Klein Muçi for doing the work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Demetrius Talpa, please, take a look at Module:Lang/data. You'll see a long list in red. The right part (the one in quotation marks, after the equals mark) is the part that needs to be translated for 90% of those cases you're referring to. Can you do that for me? I'll take care for the remaining ones in the end or fix any errors that might arise.

@Andrew Dalby, to put it very simply, some computers are dumb when you offer them different languages or different scripts and they don't know how to render them and they may end up rendering question marks or other similar symbols instead. The work I did gives them metadata (data/information about the data they're reading) so they know what they're reading and therefore how to render them. That + some templates so they (computers) know how to render the IPA symbols. The problem is that, as I said, there are many languages and scripts in the world and each have their own templates so, of course, there are a lot lacking currently. I only imported the basic ones needed for the system to work and the ones that were needed in that specific article.

How much IPA is needed here... That does require a discussion on its own. My vague idea is that given that IPA is universal per se, can be utilized everywhere but I'm not an expert on linguistics, let alone phonology. If you say that it is not needed, we can remove some templates related to IPA while keeping the other ones that help computers render text better. Even though I'd propose to wait a bit before acting, maybe that proves useful.

Thanks to everyone for the good words! :)) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 15:41, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Klein Muçi. I agree with you about IPA: it is international and acceptable, it is sometimes useful, but (since our focus is written Latin) IPA pronunciations of foreign names may not be truly useful in every case. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:55, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for editing the list of languages — I don't know, I'm not sure that these templates will be used; maybe one day.

And about the display of rare alphabets — now almost everything is displayed almost everywhere (thank you, Unicode), and when squares or question marks are visible, then the problem is in the user's device, and not in the template; I recently had a case with the Avestan alphabet — on one machine you can see even without a template, and on the other, and through the Formula:Lang-ae template, it's still squares. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:19, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Demetrius Talpa, the template you mentioned didn't exist in here. Just imported it. (You'll see that now it generates an error because it has no text defined, just the template itself.) Can you tell me more about the case you were talking about in there? Not an expert on this subject as I said (I've only dealt with this phenomenon briefly in the past) but maybe I'm able to help. And well done on the string translations! :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 23:20, 23 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted those adverbia that I could; we don’t have articles about the rest and I don’t want to invent on the go. - About Avestan - I was talking about Russian Wikipedia, and the case is the same in in English. Android and Linux shows Avestan even without a template, Windows even with template don't shows. These templates made sense around 2005, now it seems to me that they can (or should) also be eliminated in large wikipedias, they stand by inertia. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:13, 24 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same impression as Demetrius when I looked at the use of these templates on en:wiki a while back and the long discussions about them over there. They surely seemed a good idea when invented but their real value may be small, and the more templates you see in the edit screen, the less you want to edit it. I quote from far above: "is it easier to rewrite a paragraph without formulas?" Yes, it could be. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:10, 24 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe user @Trappist the monk can explain us more on the whole subject as the creator of Module:Lang. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 22:33, 24 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: while I was the writer of Module:Lang, the wikitext templates existed long before I consolidated everything into Module:lang.

I get the impression that editors here don't think that the language templates are important and that while they might have been useful 15 years ago, they are no longer useful. Were that the case, HTML5 (MediaWiki publishes articles in HTML5 markup) would have dropped the lang= attribute. The authors of the html5 standard have not done so; see the standard. Were the {{lang}} template not useful, editors at en.wiki would have long ago abandoned them. They have not done so; Module:lang is in use on more than 1.2 million en.wiki pages. Proper html language markup is important and the {{lang}} templates are intended to make it as easy as possible for wikipedia editors to write text in languages different from the local wikipedia's language.

Here is, I think, a simple example – la.wiki doesn't have {{lang-ar}} so I've fudged this example with a direct call into Module:lang. I grabbed this Arabic text from Lingua Arabica.

Lingua Arabica: اللغة العربية الفصحى ← plain text mockup rendered by your browser using the default font
Lingua Arabica: اللغة العربية الفصحى ← the same text with your browser choosing a font more appropriate to Arab-script text; the properly formatted html looks like this:
[[Lingua Arabica]]: <span lang="ar" dir="rtl">اللغة العربية الفصحى</span>

Much easier to use the template. If you are reading this page using a screen reader, the screen reader is more likely to correctly pronounce the Arabic words when they are wrapped in the proper html markup.

—Trappist the monk (disputatio) 00:32, 25 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it slightly enlarges the Arabic font (but it can be enlarged in other ways). - It never occurred to me to look for a program that reads Latin aloud from the screen; maybe it exists. — Engage in templates if you like; I did what was asked of me for this. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 01:18, 25 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My overall opinion on that is that it doesn't do any harm to provide that kind of support even if considered a small thing. The only concern is that it may overburden editors but new editors mostly work with VE (Visual Editor) and in there templates aren't really a concern. For the editors who would like to take the extra step and provide that technical support in the articles they're editing, the possibility will be there. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 23:57, 25 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Any harm" exists, while Formula:Lang-ka, not Georgiane, Formula:Lang-ab, not Abasgice: ..., etc. Please, if they're already here, don't be harmful. Or delete. Suddenly someone will uses them? (I then immediately redid Pontus Euxinus without them, you can not think about it) Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:01, 26 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use visual editor. If it does reduce the clutter effect of templates in the edit screen, that's surely a Very Good Thing.

One of the points often discussed on en:wiki is, what categories of "foreign" text are appropriate for templating? This needs to be clear, and it strongly affects the value of a voiceover. Simple examples:

Foreign names for the page title, as part of a list of foreign names (which may be in the first paragraph or in an "etymology" or "toponymy" subsection). This is the case in the example we began with, Pontus Euxinus. I guess these need to be correctly voiced in the foreign language -- though the hearer will have difficulty understanding them, as spoken one by one, unless they are in a language the hearer already knows and spoken in an accent with which the hearer is familiar.
Foreign name adopted as our page title because there is no Latin name. I guess this needs to be pronounced with Latin phonemes, as a reasonable Latinist, not knowing the foreign language, would make an attempt at pronouncing it. Because if, every time it occurs in the text, the speaker switches to pure foreign pronunciation, that bit of the sentence will be lost to understanding.

The distinction might relate more-or-less to whether we would use italics or not in written text. Those who have listened in a vehicle to a voiced GPS that is programmed to speak language A but give placenames and road numbers in language B will agree that the question needs thought! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 26 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation is going to be a problem with certain spellings produced by speakers of Latin after late antiquity. For example, we have Pechinum—to Cicero, something perhaps close to /peχinum/—because Ricci and his Italian friends would have pronounced Pecinum more like /pet͡ʃinum/. For Pechinum, many modern Italians would actually say /pekinuma/ or in careful speech even /pekinum:a/ (as did Morgan), because final /m/ is awkward in their native phonology, but that's a different story. And then of course we have /χilia/ for the country spelled as Chilia, but perhaps better (that is, classically) spelled as Tsilia or even Silia. At least we have Sicagum (not Chicagum!) for 'Chicago', though attestations of pertinent adjectives include Chicaginiensis—which in turn, more thoroughly applying the spelling conventions of "church Latin," should have been Chicaghiniensis (with another aitch) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:30, 26 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Long ago we found consensus for a style of written Latin. How can we select a pronunciation style? Should we? Is it proper for us to choose one? I don't know.

Recte dicis. Stylum scripturae consensu iam diu selegimus; modum pronuntiatus quomodo eligere possumus? An nobis oportet? An re vera licet? Haud scio! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 26 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more note about the templates: plain {{lang}} is slightly different from {{lang-ar}}, {{lang-fr}}, etc. I've been using the former, which I think works fine as is for all ISO codes (correct me if I'm wrong). Formula:Lang-ar removes the extra step of having to add "Arabice", but I don't think that's worth the extra effort of creating all the separate templates. For example:

{{lang|grc|μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος}} ⟶ μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος

{{lang|zh|施氏食獅史}} ⟶ 施氏食獅史

Lesgles (disputatio) 22:36, 27 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesgles, the ideal approach, if you ask me personally, would be that everyone who decides to use the lang templates cared to use the correct one and, if one didn't exist, the said user imported it. Eventually the majority would have been imported and there would come a user that would import the remaining part, consolidating the system and fine tune its details. This would be the best way to share work in a non-tiring, organic manner. But that's just my opinion. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 01:04, 28 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with those that are already imported and do not work correctly (displaying titles in another language with, of course, broken links)? The user is not obliged to guess that the tool offered to him is (yet) harmful (Greek pronunciation: [...]}, IPA: [...], Formula:Lang-ae, Formula:Lang-el, Formula:Lang-uk, Formula:Lang-tr, Formula:Lang-rus, Formula:Lang-ro, Formula:Lang-xmf, Formula:Lang-ka, Formula:Lang-crh, Formula:Lang-bg, Formula:Lang-hy, Formula:Lang-ady, Formula:Lang-zh, Formula:Lang-hbs, Formula:Lang-ab). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 01:24, 28 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Demetrius Talpa, Rome wasn't built in a day. Progression takes time. What we currently have is more or less what I did in a frenzied hurry in less than 30 minutes some days ago. Assuming we're not going to delete everything really soon, I (and hopefully other editors) will continue to help fixing the problems, which I stopped after this discussion started happening about them. Given how template works, you need only to fix one and you'll immediately solve the problems in wherever that template is used, whatever those problems may be. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 01:35, 28 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To put it shortly, if we greenlight the use, I'll try to help fixing the problems. I just stopped for the discussion to conclude first because I didn't want to dedicate more time to something that might be deleted soon.

(Thanks for reporting the problematic cases!) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 01:38, 28 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need to fix these 17 without waiting for the thousand years that Rome was built (or we need to prevent the possibility of their accidental use before the construction of Rome). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 01:46, 28 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. I'll get to it in a few hours. I would have finished since that day to be honest but, as I said twice now, I stopped to wait and see the discussion's conclusion before so I'd be a bit more sure I wasn't working for nothing. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 01:53, 28 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Klein Muçi, it's just not clear to me that those templates add anything that {{lang}} doesn't already provide. Do they do anything besides adding a link to the name of the language? Lesgles (disputatio) 16:48, 28 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesgles, I believe not. @Trappist the monk can tell us more in that regard.

@Demetrius Talpa, apparently Module:Lang/data had to be updated with a different list which then had to be translated. I have done so, imported your translations and added some more. Can you please take a look and see if I've made any mistake or if you can add some more languages? I believe that will solve all the problems with templates in English. If you find any other problems, please do report here so we can try solving them. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:49, 1 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Demetrius Talpa, also, can you translate the different kinds of Greek language here: Formula:IPA-el? The more, the merrier. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 12:01, 1 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{lang}} at la.wiki is an old wikitext template and is not the same as {{lang}} at en.wiki. The {{lang-??}} templates are the same as the en.wiki templates. The essential difference between the Module:Lang-supported {{lang-??}} templates and {{lang}} is that {{lang}} only marks-up the text (italics when appropriate and html); {{lang-??}} provides a language name prefix linked to the local article about that language and also has support for romanization and translation.

—Trappist the monk (disputatio) 12:53, 1 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk, {{lang}} is the same as its homologue now. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 13:04, 1 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did as much as I could (that is, how many articles about languages we have - I must say, there are almost all of this list). - It is necessary that the word "language" not be added - now it does not work because of this (Formula:Lang-uk). (Note: we usually have a redirection from an adverb like Anglice to Lingua Anglica, but in some cases this redirection has been forgotten; I should have made a list of these while I was looking at the titles, but I didn't figure it out in time. In general, the missing redirects - there are not so many of them - will have to be created one day) — About IPA-el - I don’t understand how it is used, why there are links to dialects. But I translated them so that they lead to articles that are. — P.S. These categories, which early template now automatically adds to the end of the article, e.g. Categoria:Articles containing Ancient Greek (to 1453)-language text, must either be translated (but this is not me) and sent to hidden, or make that they are not added (it is possible without category to check which articles contain the template). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:37, 1 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I expect you already know, Demetri, the categories demanding to be created are listed at Categoriae desideratae. If the categories are unnecessary, it might be better to revise the templates so that they don't demand categories, as you suggest in your last sentence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:36, 2 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God, there are almost a hundred of them and they spoil two or three thousand articles ... At the beginning of the discussion, one was spoiled - Pontus Euxinus, and now almost three thousand. @Klein Muçi, all this should be turned off or deleted, it's a very big harm. (And for new ones, make that "langugage" is not added, or also delete it.) Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:36, 3 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat that it was kind of Klein Muçi to respond immediately to Iacobus's request. But it was very unwise to embark on a big series of changes like this so hastily. Vicipaedia is a small wiki. Let's admit it, Latin is a minority interest. To attract and retain a readership we need our pages to read well and look good, and there are not many of us doing the work. Templates that don't function at all, or don't give a correct result in a Latin context, damage our pages and are bad for us. In my opinion, modules and templates that will need continuing work should not be introduced here at all unless discussion shows that the effort will be repaid by strong advantages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:23, 3 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice my test-edit of Formula:Polytonic, which takes it out of this system: it thus reduces the number of pages currently demanding a badly-named category by about 2,000. The edit is easily reverted when anyone wishes to do so :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:07, 3 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Demetrius Talpa, hello! First I would ask you to relax. In Wikipedia nothing ever loses and every change can be undone with literally a click of a button if considered harmful, sometimes by many people. I do understand that seeing something not right and not knowing how to fix it can be alarming but I do repeat that even the wrongdoings of the biggest vandal in the world are 1 click away from being removed.

Now, in regard to the categories: They are all added because of them being present in one of the templates/modules. When working with the localization (that is, translation of the terms used in them) categories were left to be translated in the end. We have been working for quite some days now and you've helped me personally in that quest. We can't just do everything in the same day not only because the whole volunteering setting doesn't work like that in general but even if the work was paid and it was our only job, it still wouldn't make a difference because it takes time to develop a good product.

I'll go and deal with the categories now. I'll also look after the "language" part. We'll solve each problem as it comes and if we can't, we'll just revert back to its latest most stable state.

@Andrew Dalby, personally I'm really grateful for the existence of this place as it allows me to easily read ever-evolving texts in Latin apart from the classical literature. Even if it may not show much because of me always typing in English and not being involved much in editing articles per se, I do spend quite some time reading them using the "random article" feature. What I imported lately mostly worked in the background, by doing overall rather minor changes, as it can be evidenced by some users having it hard to see the provided change itself. If deemed harmful, everything can be reverted. But, as you may know from some changes that we've done together in the past, it takes some time to fully localize a module and in this case, we're still in that process. Demetrius maybe got a bit rightfully alarmed because he thought that that was the final product or that maybe I'd disappear and leave the work in half but none of those options are true in this case. It's just that beside everyday real life issues, beside LaWiki, I also deal with SqWiki, SqQuote, EnWiki, some minor Mediawiki code changes and occasionally try to fight vandalism in other small wikis and I try to dedicate each project a fair share amount of time (EnWiki and Mediawiki less time given that those are bigger projects in which my absence would be felt less). - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:29, 4 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of 2 categories was translated. (The other will soon join.) Please check one of the articles that was already showing this category in English and see if the provided translation works correctly. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:37, 4 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Klein Muçi, you do indeed do a lot of work for Vicipaedia -- I am very glad that you are also reading some Latin while you're here :) It's true, everyone is a volunteer and we should not be impatient about work that must necessarily take some time to complete. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:15, 4 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! All those redlink categories seem to have disappeared ... If I didn't know someone was working away at this behind the scenes, I would say it was magic! OK, they have been replaced by others, which are still in mixed language, but perhaps easy to correct. For "Articles containing X" (where X is a language-name adverb) the Latin category name could be "Continetur textus X scriptus" (literally "text written in X is included"). For "Ancient Greek (to 1453)" all we need in Latin is "Graece". If languages change their names at a specific date -- which we may doubt -- there is no better date than 1453 for the change from Graece ("in Greek") to Neograece ("in modern Greek"). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:23, 4 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, yes. Can you please show me one or two articles where these categories appear? It would make fine-tuning the translation easier.

Also can you help me by translating the last template which is still in English from the templates that were imported lately? Template:IPA-all It has only 3 words which should be translated, the parts after the equal signs. "Local pronunciation", "locally" and "pronounced". I can provide more context if so needed. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 00:34, 5 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! I happened to look at the page Bitolia. As you will see, it contains several examples. Incidentally, when the example "Articles containing Ancient Greek (to 1453)" is fully changed to "Continetur textus Graece scriptus", then it would be sensible to revert my edit to Formula:Polytonic: I think its 2000 pages will then show a nice Latin category name. As you may know, ancient Greek and Latin had a sort of symbiotic relationship over a very long period. This helps to explain why so many of our pages contain words or phrases in ancient Greek. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 5 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klein Muçi, okay, everything is fine, the development process is underway. But, for example, on an article, while the development process is underway, you can hang {{in progressu}}, or hide the unfinished stuff through , and it will not be displayed; in general, an article can be written and tested in a draft in a personal space. I just don't know how to similarly secure templates, that are under development and require testing (so that they don't generate foreign language categories or require articles like Ucrainice language). - And I fully support the translation "textus (adverbium) scriptus continetur". Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:35, 5 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With templates under revision, there is often no way to avoid temporary display errors. We just have to say to ourselves "Vicipaedia perficienda est" (Wikipedia is a work in progress). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:03, 5 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, these are the current changes that I've done:

Category:Articles containing <language>-language text → Category:Continetur textus <language>
Category:Articles with text in <language> languages → Category:Articuli continentes textum <language>

Correct me if I'm wrong.

There is also one last category left of which I'd like your help:

Articles containing explicitly cited Latin-language text

This is formed by adding the string we've used above (Continetur textus) + a translated string for "explicitly cited", which you'll need to give me.

And thank you for the already provided translations in the IPA template! :)

@Demetrius Talpa, we can actually create "surrogate templates" that have all the code of the template that we want to create but a different name used just for testing purposes and use it on a draft article (a surrogate article) but it does require more than double the effort and personally I use that method only for templates that make substantial changes to the articles. In our case I considered the changes to be of a minor type and we had to import over 80 templates and modules to begin with, a number which would made the described method almost impossible to utilize. As I've said above, I wouldn't want to upset anyone around here, let alone bring harm to the current articles. If you remember my first ever discussion here, I asked to help around in technical matters just because I was happy for what I found here. I'll try to be even faster in future cases in localizing processes so you won't see much of the development. That will make the transition be way more subtle. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 00:53, 6 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Τhey need to be moved in any case to "Categoriae celatae", in the second line Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 01:56, 6 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Demetrius Talpa, yes. After the categories get created, they should be hidden as most (if not all) maintenance categories in most projects are. I'm just waiting to get a comment from user Andrew about the correct form of them so he won't need to delete them again to fix my mistakes. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 02:14, 6 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will a category "Articles containing explicitly cited Latin-language text" ever be useful to anybody? This is Vicipaedia! we talk about the Latin name of something on every page that extends for more then a sentence or two. Show me where such a category is used on another Wikipedia and I might grasp it better.

OK, on the other questions above, how do the two category groups differ from one another? Show me a case where the first text "Continetur textus ..." will not be appropriate for members of the second group.

About the name for the first category group: it seems to me very itchy Latin to terminate the whole name with a language adverb. Try to wrap the language adverb inside "Continetur textus [Anglice] scriptus". If anyone thinks I'm fussing unnecessarily about this, please say so! There may eventually be a lot of cases, so it's worth getting it right.

Nomen "Categoria:Continetur textus [Anglice]" mihi barbare sonat. Nomen "Categoria:Continetur textus [Anglice] scriptus" vehementer urgeo! An alii consentiunt? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:17, 6 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ita! Sic! Certe! Vero! Continetur textus [Anglice] scriptus nobis melius sonat. Sed fortasse Continetur textus [Anglicus] optime sonabit? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:48, 6 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ita, optime! Sed, si hac locutione utimur, necesse erit novam enumerationem nominum linguarum exscribere ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:31, 6 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree Iacobus's version is better still ... but it will need a new list of language names based on the masculine form of the adjective. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:31, 6 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe @Trappist the monk can be far more useful than me for providing context for the categories in this case, sparing me some detective work on EnWiki. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 12:59, 7 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At en.wiki, Module:Lang links to three category types (ignoring error categories):

for individual and macrolanguages (most ISO 639-1, -2-, -3 language tags are associated with individual languages; some ISO 639-3 languages are macrolanguages):
[[Category:Articles containing <language-name>-language text]]
for ISO 639-1, 2 collective languages (these names in the standard all have the form: <language-name> languages – an rfc decided on this form):
[[Category:Articles with text in <language-name> languages]]
for English (this category exists because, in general, it is inappropriate to markup English text at en.wiki which is already marked up as English text; there are good reasons to markup English text so that is why this is not an error category):
[[Category:Articles containing explicitly cited English-language text]]

—Trappist the monk (disputatio) 14:39, 7 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. Thanks very much, Trappist. Can do. But let's decide how we're dealing with the main group (note also Demetrius's comment below) and then a form of words can be devised for these (very rare) cases also. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:41, 7 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk, so, should Latin also mark up Latin text?

Also, for my personal and maybe other's curiosity here, what exactly is meant with "macrolanguages" and "collective languages"? Because that's what seems to be the main difference between the 2 aforementioned categories. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 15:34, 7 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As at en.wiki, generally no, so the category catches improper use of {{lang|la|...}}. But, there are occasions when such use is appropriate, for example, Latin text within text from another language.—Trappist the monk (disputatio) 15:55, 7 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I never thought of that! I can imagine it! As above, when we know which style we're using for the whole group of categories, we can add a name for this one too. No problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:32, 7 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See en:ISO 639-2#Collective language codes and en:ISO 639 macrolanguage.—Trappist the monk (disputatio) 15:55, 7 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another list of languages (with a masculine form, not with an adverb) is not a problem, I'll make it from the existing one - I just don't know where to insert it. (the existing one still cannot be removed, it is for the text of articles, not for categories). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:36, 7 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, so do we have a translation for the last category now? (Or even better translations for the first 2 I translated?) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 12:39, 8 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has become a little complicated. Questions to answer in sequence:

Is it possible to build in a second list of language names, this time in the form of masculine adjectives ("Latinus", "Anglicus" etc. = X2)

If Yes, best of all: Demetrius [says above that he] will make list X2, and the category name (as suggested by Iacobus) will be "Continetur textus X2". Go ahead with that.

If No, OK then, is it possible to wrap the category name around the language name?

If Yes to this, second best: the category names can have the form "Continetur textus X1 scriptus" (as I already suggested above, and using the existing list of language names X1). Go ahead with that.

If No, OK then, third best, the category names had better be in the form "X1 citatur", meaning, with super-Tacitean compression, "There is a citation in X1". Not so readily understood, but it will be a hidden category after all ...

Right, then, the the names of categories for macrolanguages and language groups can be based directly on the names of the pages -- or future pages -- about these groups. I think a list, X3, will still be wanted, to ensure that they are in a standard plural form e.g. "linguae Italicae". The category names will be "X3 citantur" meaning e.g. "Italic languages are cited".

Finally, if a text in Latin is marked up, the category name can be "Lingua Latina intra textum citatur", meaning "There is a citation in Latin inside a/the text". The ambiguity "a/the" is useful here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:41, 8 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby:

This second list of language names is assumed to replace the first one, no?
I believe we can make the category's syntax however we want as long as it is not very dynamic (there aren't different words appearing and disappearing in different cases)
We can deal in the end with this special case. But here you mention a third list. Again, if we're meaning to replace the existing ones, that's easy enough. If we want different lists for different cases, I believe that would require substantial technical reworks that go beyond my technical capabilities.

Maybe you can have a clearer idea if you take a look at the code we're talking about yourself: Click here and you'll see the documentation for the 3 categories. Then below that, you'll see the 2 categories that I've already translated and a part of the third which should be translated (the third one is created by using parts of the existing ones above + that). Then you go and compare everything with the original code in EnWiki and you'll understand what I've changed and why. There are literally only 3 lines I've changed so it should be easy enough. That will make the bigger picture clearer maybe. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 00:04, 10 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience! I understand about the difficulty of incorporating two lists of language names. Extra construction work of that kind for just one Wikipedia is not really desirable. So we move to the second best option. No problem. I am busy with life till late today but as soon as I can I will have a look at the code and either correct it, or tell you how to correct it. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:26, 10 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, of course. Thanks for your fast response! :)) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 13:00, 10 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You make it seem easy, Klein Muçi! Yes, I have edited those lines of the module. I hope they work. There is no need in Latin to distinguish the macrolanguage and group categorues from the others: it will just be necessary, in the list of languages, to write the names of language groups in the ablative, because an adverb does not work, e.g. "linguis Italicis". This is likely to be a rare case, anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:43, 10 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, great, it's gotten a lot better. - But there is still Continetur_textus_Ancient_Greek_(to_1453)_scriptus left (231 pages)? ...textus Graece (ante 1453)... I would do it myself, I don't know where. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 05:51, 11 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said far above, there's no need for the 1453. The reason for its presence is that it is contradictory in English to claim that all Greek until 1453 is "Ancient" but they want to say it anyway. However, it's not contradictory for us to say that all Greek is "Graece" until we begin to say "Neograece". Those terms are easily defined: no need for a semi-fictional date in parentheses.

But no, I can't find it either! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:24, 11 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find it now. Meanwhile, speaking of Greek, @Andrew Dalby, can you translate the first lines and the last ones in this template {{IPA-el}}? There are words like "locally" "pronunciation", "pronounced", "modern" etc. that are left in English. Saw it now while I was searching for the template causing that. The translation will be similar to what you did with the general IPA template some days ago. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:57, 11 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk, {{lang|el|word}} works as intended, while {{lang|grc|word}} gives category Continetur textus Ancient Greek (to 1453) scriptus. I can't see any code for that beside Module:Lang/data#L-373 but it's not in the localizations table. Is that a kind of English fallback? Anyway we can remap it? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 12:08, 11 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek (to 1453) comes from Module:Lang/data from Module:Language/data/iana languages from IANA language-subtag-registry file from ISO639-3. It is not something made up by the editors at en.wiki.

Module:Lang does not strip parenthetical disambiguators from category names so that different languages with the same name (for example: Ainu aib China; Ainu ain Japan) will be categorized separately.

Module:Lang/data exists to override the names provided by IANA. Create an entry there for whatever flavor of grc you want.

—Trappist the monk (disputatio) 13:04, 11 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk, thank you! I was afraid of using THAT list of overrides because of the code name being the only one in 3 letters. It worked fine.

@Andrew Dalby, check this diff. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 13:13, 11 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, @Klein Muçi! We may well need to override some other parenthetical insertions in category names, but thanks to @Trappist the monk we now know how to do it.

Since this category name now looks good, I can revert my edit to Formula:Polytonic and I may as well go ahead and create the category. It has more than 2000 members. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:33, 11 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optime; now with the categories that the old templates suddenly began to generate, by common efforts (almost) everything is OK. The word "language" remains in the new templates (Formula:Lang-ae, Formula:Lang-el, Formula:Lang-uk, Formula:Lang-tr, Formula:Lang-rus, Formula:Lang-ro, Formula:Lang-xmf, Formula:Lang-ka, Formula:Lang-crh, Formula:Lang-bg, Formula:Lang-hy, Formula:Lang-ady, Formula:Lang-zh, Formula:Lang-hbs, Formula:Lang-ab) - where does it turn off? Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 05:20, 12 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk, I'm sorry but I'll have to ask you again on this. I can't find anything on Lang/data for that specifically. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:34, 12 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At en.wiki Module:Lang links to language articles through <language-name> language redirects. This avoids ambiguity and allows the Module to output a consistent link format that does not require fixing with every update of the IANA language-subtag-registry file. Redirects are free and MediaWiki handles them efficiently. Use redirects.

The language names in Module:Lang/data should be names only: Slavica ecclesiastica, not lingua Slavica ecclesiastica, etc. Use redirects.

—Trappist the monk (disputatio) 12:56, 12 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Just for context, in case it's useful:] "Slavica ecclesiastica", like "Latina", is not a language name. Those words are just adjectives. "Latina", without other context, means "a woman from Lazio"; "Slavica ecclesiastica", without context, means "a Slav woman who is a church member".

If we have a language adverb available, like "Latine", that makes it easy. "Latine" means "in a Latin way", and the most usual context for such an expression is linguistic, so any reader will understand "Latine" as "with Latin speech" or "in the Latin tongue". That fits the context of these categories nicely. If we don't have an adverb we can use, the correct way to substitute for it is with a phrase in the ablative, "lingua Twi" (singular) or "linguis Akan" (plural): "in the Twi tongue", "in the Akan tongues". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:00, 12 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't understood the problem that Demetrius mentions: can someone link to a page on which one of these redlinks to XXX language appears? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 12 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These new templates ({{Lang-xx|...}}), which link to an article about a language, take the name of the language from the list (we have edited it and, in any case, it is clear how to edit it) and add the English word "language" to it, and therefore the link does not work; for example Formula:Lang-tr (click on it) requires Turcice language instead of Turcice, and all the others above. — And if they cannot be configured, these 15 must be deleted or, at least, somehow removed to a safe place, to some test space, so that the person, who copied the text with them from another wiki, does not fall into this trap. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:34, 12 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. Thank you for explaining, Demetri. Now I understand better the point raised by Lesgles above. So, if none of these new "lang-" templates is currently in use (I have just verified that), and {{Lang|...}} can be used in their place, and no one (not even Klein Muçi) can quite see how to configure them, it seems to me also that it would be wise to delete the "lang-" templates quickly and move on. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:29, 12 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappist the monk, maybe I haven't understood you correctly but I'm finding the courage to press on this one more time: The problem is the "language" part, (the language "suffix"). Can we twist Module:Lang in such a way that instead of "language" it uses "lingua"? (Or maybe remove it altogether, if so needed?) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 00:04, 13 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an adverb in the templates that matches our redirects, no need to add "lingua" to it (it will be absurd again, the same as with "language"). It is necessary that nothing be added to it (neither "lingua" nor "language"), it will work. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 05:07, 13 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: no added word is what we need. Incidentally, there are other languages in which the naming of languages is handled in a similar way to Latin. Greek would be an example. So a solution to this issue would help the transfer of these templates to other wikis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 13 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be another challenge with the {{Lang|…}} template: {{lang|grc|μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος}} gives

μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος,

and {{lang|zh|施氏食獅史}} gives

施氏食獅史,

but when I hover my mouse over the foreign-language text, a tooltip "Graece-language text"/"Sinice-language text" is displayed, which is a horrible and ungrammatical mixture between a Latin language adverb and English words. We should discuss how this should read (I would propose "textus Graece scriptus"/"textus Sinice scriptus", but maybe there are better suggestions), and it would be good if someone would find out where to change this tooltip text – I would consider it a bad idea to keep it as it reads now. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:53, 13 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to write simply "Graece scriptum", "Sinice scriptum" (but simply "Graece", "Sinice" is too lapidary). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:27, 14 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well observed, UV! I agree that we have to change this. Either your phrase or Demetrius' phrase would suit us, in my opinion. For brevity, perhaps "Graece scriptum" is better. But can we make the change? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:24, 14 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some other wikis that use the "lang" template series don't show any tooltips. We could accept that as a solution, I think :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:19, 14 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check the tooltip part soon. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:59, 17 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UV, @Demetrius Talpa, @Andrew Dalby, you can modify that part to your wish here. There are 4 lines for different cases. Modify the parts in red. Be careful to respect the spaces and hyphen parts. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:04, 21 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's off. - I did the minimum: now the tool tip is just "Graece". I tried to write "scriptum", but the grace of the gods was no longer enough for this. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:09, 21 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I have achieved "... scriptum". If I caused any error, Demetri, please revert my edit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:21, 21 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Carbonarius[fontem recensere]

(quaestio nova fortuite in tabularium inserta est, huc moveo, — Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 13:15, 26 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Da ich leider nicht weiß, wo ich sonst fragen kann, versuche ich es hier mal wieder. Von Gregor von Nyssa habe ich einen Text in Alt-Griechisch gefunden. Mit Hilfe des Internets konnte ich keine Übersetzung finden. Vielleicht hier?

Der Text ist von hier: http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_0330-0395__Gregorius_Nyssenus__De_vita_Gregorii_Thaumaturgi__MGR.pdf.html Es geht mir ausschließlich um drei Zeilen:

Zeilen: [00360] Καὶ τίς οὗτος, φησὶν, ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος, οὗ τὴν µνήµην πεποίησθε;

[00361] Εἶτά τινος τῶν συµπαρόντων ἐν γέλωτι παραγαγόντος εἰς µέσον τὸν µνηµονευθέντα, ῥακίοις πιναροῖς ἠµφιεσµένον, οὐδὲ ὅλῳ τῷ σώµατι, καὶ ἅµα δεικνύντα τῷ φαινοµένῳ τὴν ἐργασίαν χερσί τε καὶ προσώπῳ, καὶ τῷ λοιπῷ σώµατι κατεῤῥυπωµένον τῇ ἐργασίᾳ τῶν ἀνθράκων, τοῖς µὲν λοιποῖς γέλωτος ἦν ὑπόθεσις, ἐν µέ σοις τοιοῦτος ἑστὼς ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος, τῷ δὲ διορατικῷ ἐκείνῳ ὀφθαλµῷ πολλὴν παρεῖχεν ἔκπληξιν τὸ γινόµενόν τε καὶ ὁρώµενον·

[00378] Πάντων δὲ πρὸς τὸν νέον ἱερέα ἀποβλεπόντων, προτραπείς τινα πρὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν λόγον ποιήσασθαι, ἔδειξεν εὐθὺς ἐν προοιµίοις τῆς ἀρχῆς ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος ἄψευστον ἐπ' αὐτῷ τοῦ µεγάλου Γρηγορίου τὴν κρίσιν

Da wird was über Alexander, dem Köhler/Alexander Carbonarius (Heiliger und Bischof) erzählt? Ich weiß, hier geht es um Latein, aber ich habe die Hoffnung, dass hier auch viele Alt-Griechisch können. Kennt jemand evtl. einen Link zu einer deutschen Übersetzung, oder kann auf die Schnelle(!) grob(!) sagen, worum es in den drei Zeilen geht? Danke

Qwertzu111111 (disputatio) 16:10, 24 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(This page is already archived, you probably made a mistake, it is better to move the question to the current tabernа.) — Sorry, I am not fit to make a translation into German or English, but it tells how St. Gregory Thaumaturgus chose Alexander as bishop, a simple coal-burner, in tatters and completely black from coal (colorfully described), and all the people gathered in the church looked at him with bewilderment, but Alexander immediately turned to them with such a speech that everyone understood that Gregory was wonderfully perspicacious. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:11, 24 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your quick and kind response. Yes, I made a mistake. sorry for that. It sounds like the content is that: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01295c.htm? Qwertzu111111 (disputatio) 22:23, 24 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Genera animalium[fontem recensere]

I thought we'd finished applying this category (and similar categories in the set) to all appropriate articles, but several spiders not so marked just turned up. Do other such articles exist? Would it be possible for someone to construct a program that would list any articles that have, say, the word Animalia in a taxobox but not the category "..... animalium" (where "....." can be species or genera or tribus and so forth)? ¶ And then of course with plants (having Plantae in a taxobox). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:31, 26 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: much was done, but it was not a job that could be completed 100% manually.

We still have some survivals of a very ancient kind of taxobox, and not all the articles concerned have taxoboxes at all -- they don't have anything predictable in common, not even that -- but nearly all of them do, and your solution, if it can be applied, would pick up all of those. The aim would be to list all the articles (a) with Animalia or Plantae in a taxobox (b) currently lacking any category that is a subcategory of Categoria:Taxa gradu digesta. Yes, it seems a good idea to me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 27 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Default location & size of images[fontem recensere]

If memory serves, the default in Vicipaedia is that fasciculi print flush right at a size of 250px (or upright=1); therefore, the word right and an indication of size don't need to be written into the code. However, in "Monumentum Nationale Marinum Papahānaumokuākea," if the word right is omitted from the code, the first image, a map, prints flush left. Also, if an indication of size (either via px or via "upright') is omitted there, the image prints extra-large, all the way across the screen. Do we have bugs in the system? or do these irregularities come from something particular to that image? ~~

The word thumb was missing. I added it and now everything works as usual ;-) --UV (disputatio) 22:56, 3 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll be darned. But that raises another point: evidently "thumb" isn't needed if "right" and an indication of size are present. In other words, only two of those criteria are required. (I'd always thought "thumb" was obligatory.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:02, 4 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should generally use thumb. Omitting thumb and adding right|250px produces a different result: an image without the gray frame that usually holds the image caption (in fact, in this case the image caption is usually invisible):

Preferred: With `thumb`	This image caption is displayed on the screen.
Should generally not be used: Without `thumb`, using `right\|250px`. Note that the image caption is usually not visible on the screen.	This image caption is usually not visible on the screen.

--UV (disputatio) 00:20, 4 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good to know! I've always tried to use "thumb" myself anyway, since it's more efficient—because, by permitting "right" and an indication of size to be omitted, it reduces the potential number of octeti that constitute an article. (I do, however, reduce the size of most images that appear on the left, and of some subsidiary images on the right; furthermore, some kinds of images, especially those on the left, like flags & simple symbols, can profitably be minimized, down to "upright=0.5" or even smaller.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:08, 4 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formula: Ludus[fontem recensere]

Salve! I stumbled upon the aforementioned template. It appears to be an old template which has been replaced with {{Capsa ludi electronici}} in 2013. However 2 articles remain that still use it: Specialis:Nexus_ad_paginam/Formula:Ludus. I'd suggest someone edited the said articles to use the new template and then delete the old one. {{Ludus}} is rendered in gigantic proportions ruining overall article formatting.

Pinging user @UV given that he's been the last editor to deal with {{Capsa ludi electronici}}. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 03:38, 5 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ludus}} and {{Capsa ludi electronici}} are identical in the sense that {{Ludus}} redirects to {{Capsa ludi electronici}}. There are only three articles that use this template ([1]). Generally, I am not too fond of infoboxes (with the exception of those infoboxes that get their content exclusively from Wikidata, see the Capsa xyz Vicidata templates at Categoria:Formulae Vicidata). I prefer an article text with complete Latin sentences to "pieces of information" in an infobox, see e.g. this old discussion here: Disputatio Formulae:Capsa hominis/draft. If I remember correctly, a consensus formed several years ago not to add any new infoboxes that would require local content, only Vicidata infoboxes that get their content from Wikidata only. That said, I would not object if someone wants to remove the infobox from those three articles. Afterwards, {{Capsa ludi electronici}} (and its corresponding redirect, {{Ludus}}) could be deleted. --UV (disputatio) 21:49, 5 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UV, I was searching for a Wikidata template but I wasn't able to find one for this case. {{Capsa ludi electronici}} is better than {{Ludus}} in formatting aspects so the hope was for someone to make those 2 articles (

World of Warcraft and Baldur's Gate) use the first ones instead of the later one as an immediate solution and then decide what a better absolute solution would be for articles about electronic games in general. Those 2 articles are currently very hard to read because of {{Ludus}}. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 01:01, 6 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat that {{Ludus}} redirects to {{Capsa ludi electronici}}. It does so since 2013. The way an article is displayed to the reader will therefore not change (or improve) if {{Ludus}} is being changed to {{Capsa ludi electronici}}. --UV (disputatio) 17:04, 6 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UV, I know that but the example in {{Capsa ludi electronici}} looks well-formatted, as opposed to the result that we see on articles. So I thought that was coming because they were utilizing {{Ludus}} or were using characters in a bad manner. But most likely it's because {{Capsa ludi electronici}} is outdated itself. So there's no help coming from Wikidata in this case, eh? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 17:17, 6 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Wikidata is mentioned because of our biographical (etc.) infoboxes that draw data from Wikidata -- am I right? Computer games bore me, I'm sorry to say, but if Klein Muçi or anyone else wanted to adapt an infobox for computer games, they can of course use these designs. They are native to Vicipaedia (drawing on work done here by several editors). Adapting them to more subject areas, e.g. computer games, can be a very easy thing to do -- if the required data is present at Wikidata.

Cur ad Vicidata alludimus? Fortasse propter nostras capsas informationis (biographicas etc.) quae data ex Vicidata extrahunt? De ludis computatralibus laborare nolo (date veniam!), sed si quis designationes Vicipaedicas ad ludos computatrales accommodare vult, aut ad alias disciplinas, certe potest. Facile erit, si data iam apud Vicidata exstant. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:54, 6 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting UV's observation that very few Vicipaedia pages call for this template, a better use of time, Klein Muçi (or anyone else), might be to adapt an infobox for films on our existing model. We have many pages that require it. That, also, would probably be a quick task. If you try it, you'll soon see how it works and (who knows?) you might conclude that the model could be transferred to other small wikis.

UV recte supra dicit: perpaucae paginae nostrae capsam de ludis electronicis requirunt. Ergo fortasse melius erit hoc tempore, si quis velit, formularium nostrum capsarum informationis ad usum paginarum de pelliculis cinematographicis accommodare. Facile erit (mea mente). Is qui temptet fortasse idem formularium censebit in alias Vicipaedias minores transferendum esse. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:26, 7 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, I'm a fan of Wikidata but I've never got the chance to utilize its power up until now because the environments (wiki projects) I usually deal with don't give too much freedom in using or creating infoboxes that draw data from out of the project, fearing vandalism issues. Because of that I'd be excited to try and help in what you suggest (the film's infobox). If I have any good results to report, I'll be back here.

In regard to all the {{Ludus}}/{{Capsa ludi electronici}} thing, I was hoping for you to direct me to an already established Wikidata infobox (similar to the one used for bios, etc. as you mention) but apparently it doesn't exist.

And I'd like to really thank you personally for providing the Latin text below your answers. It's an extra step you're taking that's beneficial to many people for many reasons. For me it does help a lot to get better at my Latin reading. I really wish I could reply back in the same language but I lack the courage and the skill to do that. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 13:11, 7 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are problems with the data in Vicidata, including occasional vandalism. That is why I named Vicidata, and added the logo, at the head of the infobox. It's not our data. However, in the great majority of cases, it is a useful supplement to our pages.

Recte dicis: errores exstant et vandalismus accidit apud Vicidata. Hac ratione nomen et emblema Vicidatorum ad caput capsarum posui, ut qui diceret "Haec data non sunt nostra". Sed plurimis casibus hae capsae res utiles paginis nostris addunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:20, 10 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, I tried dealing with this (studied some Wikidata templates in other wikis) but I couldn't, I'm sorry. Creating a Wikidata template from scratch was a bit too hard for me. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 03:02, 12 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should have explained more fully: the general layout for all these infoboxes is given by Formula:Capsa Vicidata; the details specific to each topic area -- mainly, the fields at Wikidata from which we draw our data, the way we place it in the box, and the Latin text with which we label it -- are given in a formula for each topic area, for example, Formula:Capsa urbis Vicidata. Did you see that? But if you prefer I'll have a go at the films myself in a couple of days. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 12 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novus articulus[fontem recensere]

Salvete, novum articulum scripsi, sed nescio ubi eum submittere, ut revisionatus sit a expertibus et publicari posset. Gratias ago.
Llaaww (Disputatio) 06:57, 12 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vicipaedia, ut in centum miliis commentariorum iam editorum facillime videtur, numeris Romanis annisque A.U.C. non utitur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:57, 12 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multas gratias ago! Articulus creavi. --Llaaww (disputatio) 17:26, 12 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Egregiously missing articles[fontem recensere]

For reference: these are the articles that Meta says are most egregiously missing from Vicipaedia (as of 16 February 2022), linked to their Q-numbers and titles in English. Adding them will improve our score. These and the other 2,592 egregiously missing articles (plus the 7,408 most important articles already present) are found here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:59, 17 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~COVID-19 pandemic 0~~
~~table salt 0~~
~~giraffe 0~~
~~orange~~ 0
~~carrot 0~~
~~tool 0~~
~~UEFA Champions League 0~~
~~political science 0~~
~~peanut 0~~
~~ampere 0~~
~~theory of relativity 0~~
[~~magazine 0~~
~~Formula One 0~~
~~beard 0~~
~~oil 0~~
~~Mongols 0~~
~~engine 0~~
~~scientist 0~~
~~JavaScript 0~~
quadrilateral 0
~~rhombus 0~~
birth control 0
Tom and Jerry 0
~~scientific research 0~~
pertussis 0
International Olympic Committee 0
Premier League 0
Warren Buffett 0
accounting 0
trapezoid 0
plate 0
National Basketball Association 0
momentum 0
~~nuclear physics 0~~
~~Pimpinella anisum~~ 0
atomic mass 0
pillow 0
~~Mohammad Ali Jinnah 0~~
marketing 0
lens 0
Ohm's law 0
Willis Tower 0
holiday 0
distance 0
~~list of chemical elements 0~~
~~drama 0~~
Yuan Empire 0
insurance 0
construction 0
byte 0
~~Litchi chinensis~~ 0
pumpkin 0
humidity 0
finance 0
pen 0
Shaka Zulu 0
limestone 0
Tenzing Norgay 0
student 0
ohm 0
Soviet–Afghan War 0
Napoleonic Wars 0
Iker Casillas 0
~~Interpol 0~~
egg 0
~~Gestapo 0~~
Bollywood 0
rock and roll 0
unit of measurement 0
video recording 0
British India 0
caffeine 0
erosion 0
Samuel Finley Breese Morse 0
waste 0
organic compound 0
Ravi Shankar 0
murder 0
Alex Ferguson 0
Renault 0
sea piracy 0
G20 0
~~Boeing 0~~
magnetism 0
~~Newton's law of universal gravitation 0~~
covalent bond 0
climatology 0
pascal 0
Syrian Civil War 0
~~Song dynasty 0~~
Yellowstone National Park 0
UEFA European Championship 0
Zhou dynasty 0
management 0
Mossad 0
~~Babur 0~~
Shah Jahan 0
alternating current 0
friction 0
parliamentary system 0
general 0
geophysics 0
chemical substance 0
major depressive disorder 0
game theory 0
CBS 0
Shang dynasty 0
anthrax 0
Myspace 0
Niels Henrik Abel 0
jewelry 0
Aryabhata 0
archery 0
geodesy 0
weed 0
~~Sahel~~ 0
degree Fahrenheit 0
Tiger Woods 0
Tina Turner 0
totalitarianism 0
German Shepherd dog 0
viola 0
espionage 0
bourgeoisie 0
border 0
NASDAQ 0
biophysics 0
parsec 0
Allies of the Second World War 0
refugee 0
NBC 0
Abdul Hamid II 0
learning 0
B. B. King 0
field hockey 0
jinn 0
~~fast food~~ 0
atmospheric pressure 0
Rudolf Diesel 0
palace 0
dysentery 0
adult 0
Lesser Sunda Islands 0
Attack on Pearl Harbor 0
~~Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth 0~~
snooker 0
Ferenc Puskás 0
Maurya Empire 0
famine 0
Latinoamérica 0
Yalta Conference 0
scabies 0
weightlifting 0
celluloseperronation 0
Humphry Davy 0
glove 0
cadaver 0
~~caliphate 0~~
geomorphology 0
patriotism 0
drinking water 0
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar 0
cyclone 0
pharmacy 0
~~Gustav Kirchhoff 0~~
small calorie 0
candela 0
incest 0
Borobudur 0
Andre Agassi 0
Ayurveda 0
Druze 0
corrosion 0
dharma 0
harmonica 0
immunology 0
infectious disease 0
combustion 0
lie 0
rhythm and blues 0
company 0
direct current 0
Charles Thomson Rees Wilson 0
~~Age of Discovery 0~~
Cuban Missile Crisis 0
~~Kingdom of England 0~~
Crab Nebula 0
color blindness 0
~~William Wallace 0~~
jurisprudence 0
William Shockley 0
binoculars 0
Emmy Award 0
double bass 0
monarch 0
ore 0
~~Scandinavian Peninsula~~ 0
~~pond 0~~
history of Russia 0
Steffi Graf 0

Some of these articles are actually present in Vicipaeda but are prevented from being registered correctly at Meta by curiosities in interwiki linking. For example, Vicipaedia's "Drama (fictio)" is the correct match for the English article "Drama," but it's linked to the English page "Dramatic arts," which vicissim redirects to the English article "Drama." Changing Vicipaedia's link so as to bypass the redirect may or may not help. (I'll try that now, but we may not know until mid-March whether this change solves the problem.) Maybe a kind programmer can discover which other articles are wrongly linked and find a way to fix the process. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:10, 17 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I switched "drama (fictio)" on Vicidata, it seems like it really fits. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:42, 17 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macte! I'll cross it off the list. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:55, 17 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Illam enumerationem lingua [Graeco]latina explico: has paginas, a metasymmachis nostris nominatas (quia usque adhuc apud nos necessitantur), nobis oportet creare et augere si lauras nancisci cupimus metacosmicas. Eaedem paginae insuper (quis dubitabit?) utiles erunt lectoribus nostris. Nexus, quos Iacobus supra dedit, ad Vicidata dirigunt, ubi -- quando imam in istam paginam te summersus eris -- indicem paginarum apud alias Vicipaedias iam factarum cito reperire potebis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 18 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Malum Sinense" (orange), moleste apuud Vicidata annexum, inter paginas cognatas restitui et ex hac enumeratione expunxi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:00, 18 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sequentes stipulas conscripsi: Gestapo 18 Februarii 2022), Caliphatus (18 Februarii 2022) et Mongoli (19 Februarii 2022) et modo Guillelmus Wallaceus--Utilo (disputatio) 11:05, 20 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now just a minute! Vicipaedia has "Stagnum," and it links to English "Pond" (#198 above), but Meta doesn't know about that. Maybe someone will investigate. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:06, 20 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stagnum nunc correxi. [Dixit Lesgles.]

Similarly, Vicipaedia has the article "Giraffa," and it's linked to English "Giraffe" (#3 above), but Meta doesn't know about it. More investigation warranted? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:31, 28 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Myrias" includes "Northern giraffe", I switched on wikidata, I hope they don't cancel. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:40, 28 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretical question[fontem recensere]

A theoretical question for programmers (in case they're interested): is it possible to figure out why Meta chooses these topics—out of more than 2500—and lists them in this order? Are the choosing and the sorting random? or is Meta trying to tell us something about the relative importance of the items listed? Might we reasonably say that the first topic listed is the most egregiously missing, the second topic listed is the second most egregiously missing, and so forth? Is comparison with other wikis (or one wiki, presumably the English) involved? and if so, how are the comparisons quantified so as to produce a ranked list? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:03, 20 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you give a link to the page at meta where the above list is provided? If not, please do, because that would be where I'd start looking for your answer! Mind you, I don't self-identify as a programmer :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:10, 20 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a link is there, but here it is again! I'm not a programmer either, though I wasn't unfamiliar with BASIC and FORTRAN in antediluvian times. An unasked question is whether it's (somehow) better to do "Giraffe" (#3) next, or "Steffi Graf" (#200), and if so, why. Computationally (quantitatively), the order shouldn't make a difference, but when the wikis are compared, maybe it does? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:03, 20 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, there something I don't grasp yet. That link is to a list of Wikipedias (which I know quite well). Where do they provide the list of 200 missing articles that you have just pasted above? That seems to be what you're talking about. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:26, 20 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've got it now. If anyone else wants to find it, the real link is here! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:31, 20 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That list! Well, now you've got it! :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:39, 20 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Iacobe. Your answer is this. For wikis that have all, or nearly all, of the 10,000 articles already, the list shows the 200 shortest of them as they stand on each wiki, in ascending order of size, with a digit showing the number of words in each. Where one or more articles are entirely absent from a wiki, the names of those articles (quite logically) come first in each list, with the digit "0" following, meaning "no words". For wikis that lack more than 200 of the 10,000 articles, the list shows a random 200 names of absent articles, all followed by "0"; there is no rationale behind the selection, and no rationale in the order.

We lack about 2,500 of the articles, so this list of 200 may be of no great value (no, I'm wrong there, because it has persuaded some of us to write new articles!) If anyone disagrees with my diagnosis, please say. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:50, 20 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that the order of items in the list is not random, and there is a rationale behind the selection and the order. This month's list (published today) shows Vicipaedia's still-missing articles in almost exactly the same order as last month's. (That wouldn't happen in a new random selection.) A note on Meta's talk page tells us why (emphasis added): "The absent articles are sorted with the most popular first. So you get the 200 most popular articles that are absent in each Wikipedia. Popularity is here counted by number of languages that have the article." Therefore, it seems that, to improve the project the most, we should concentrate on topics at the start of this list and proceed downward from there. That's not to say that our volunteers shouldn't continue to "do their own thing" with other topics. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:57, 16 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This means that right now, the most important of the missing topics are (in descending order of importance):

Of course, adding any of the 2550 missing topics will improve the score. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:05, 16 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you discovered that. It is heartening to learn that there is a logic to the arrangement :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:33, 16 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we know how Meta ranks the items in the list, it occurs to me that addressing those items in the order of their descending importance—scilicet in the order of their descending publicity—may help attract more visitors to Vicipaedia from other wikis. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:49, 2 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latine brevissime verto: Iacobus de ratione enumerationis, quam ipse supra inseruit, quaeret. Ego originem enumerationis non sine peripetiis repperi; quo facto perspexi selectionem ordinemque titulorum e nulla ratione humana oriri statui. (Si erravi, s.v.p. dicite!) Nihilominus utile fuit quia persuademur ut paginas novas gravitudine haud minimas creemus.

Enumerationem omnium paginarum desideratissimarum, ab humanis selectarum, hic habemus. Paginarum, quae a Vicipaedia Latina absunt, titulum Anglicum ibi videmus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:03, 20 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regnum Angliae conscripsi.--Utilo (disputatio) 07:18, 30 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Magazina" and "Theoria relativitatis" have been converted from redirects; will Meta understand and give us credit in its rankings? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:12, 5 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably you need to ensure that the Wikidata entry is updated with the link to the la.wikipedia page for it to be detected in the next analysis? I checked for the 'oil' page for instance, as well as the two articles above, and this is missing. -JimKillock (disputatio) 22:26, 11 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that supposed to happen automatically? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:56, 11 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong but … how would a machine programmatically be able to match them up? Possibly by a link to the English or another language page, but that could be misleading. But if someone has other information, that'd be good to know. -18:16, 12 Aprilis 2022 (UTC) JimKillock (disputatio) 18:16, 12 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: it seems that @Demetrius Talpa is generally adding the latin pages to Wikidata entries, looking at the history on the WD enties. -JimKillock (disputatio) 18:44, 12 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Magazina" and "Theoria relativitatis" I tied today, "Oleum" was already tied. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 18:59, 12 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice of you to do that for Iacobus, Demetri. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:30, 13 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the oils, are both links there? One should go to "Oleum" ("Olive oil"), and the other should go to "Oleum (generale)" ("Oil"). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:18, 12 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested about my experience with this subject, I might add that that list was once one of the most talked about lists in the whole Wikimedia community. I remember when we would have the exact same discussions as the one here in my homewiki (SqWiki). Completing the list became the central aim of most of our work, each user only choosing articles from that list if they wanted to write something new (according to their subjects of interest). This lasted for quite some years. Then later, somewhat strangely, it started falling into obscurity for us and, take my words with a grain of salt, in a global scale. I don't know exactly what happened that its popularity faded. Maybe it was because there was only so much a community could try about writing 10k articles before they gave up (that's more than 1/10 of our total number of articles written in around 20 years, 1/10 of which with the help of robots), maybe we (and the other projects) did indeed create most of its articles and that allowed them to give it a rest, maybe it was because a lot of lists started popping up with similar aims but more subject oriented some time after that list reached its peak fame, some of them with a literal infinite number of articles (so much that they created a bot for generating them: ListeriaBot), maybe it was because no one really wasn't sure of the answers of the same questions that were asked in this discussion but something happened and it had been literal years without me encountering those lists.

Something that may also tangentially touch this matter is Abstract Wikipedia, a project which basically aims to use artificial intelligence aspects to auto-generate articles in every possible language if that article exists in one language (most likely English).

So all in all in my personal, maybe wrong, belief, I'd say that you shouldn't feel constrained to finish the list and only work on it because a) it may be only "a random list" in "the bigger scheme of things" and b) ideally speaking, "soon enough" AW will most likely change a lot of ways about how we feel and think about article numbers and translations. That said, if dealing with it motivates you, go for it and be sure that your help will be appreciated by people reading those articles eventually. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 09:15, 13 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are hardly random, but nevertheless, they're terribly flawed. Of the 2000 people collected under "Homines," a more careful evaluation (by well-informed experts) would replace several hundred with individuals more important "in the greater scheme of things." But the fact that the lists have a bias toward popularity (rather than historical impartiality) may be precisely what makes them useful at this stage of the project's development—in potentially attracting readers! Far more people are going to want to read in modern languages about, say, Marshall Mathers than about (ahem) diabolic Panamian ants, or sixteenth-century Mexican professors, or French villages that have eleven residents, and in so reading, they're going to have a greater chance of noticing & visiting Vicipaedia if Vicipaedia has an article about the aforesaid Marshall Mathers. Not to say that we contributors shouldn't continue addressing topics that interest us, whether they be rare ants, long-dead professors, or out-of-the-way crossroads (and authoritative texts on such subjects, especially if they offer more than can be found in vernacular wikis, will indeed have no little utility!), but those with time available might want to consider the public service of building the encyclopedia in such a way as to make it the most attractive to the most people, right now. As for the future, we should have no doubt that our efforts here, within a few decades, will be utterly undone by programs guided by artificial intelligence. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:15, 13 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Top-viewed articles[fontem recensere]

As for Vicipaedia's top-viewed articles, it appears that any text with S-E-X in its title must be highly attractive! (That and being a Catalonian political activist.) Also, it appears that Vicipaedia gets more pageviews from India than from any other country. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:48, 13 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Notice also the amount of interest coming from that large European-Asian country that figures prominently in the news these days. Could that be because of interest in the ongoing "praecipua negotia militaria"? If so, it might behoove the ablest contributors to improve the Latinity of pertinent articles, particularly this one. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:58, 13 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motio novi articuli[fontem recensere]

Salvete! Versio articuli de systemate periodico extenso ultra septimum periodum scripsi. Id movi a vetero nomine (harenarium meum) ad novum nomen, sed cum inspicio aliae linguae, mihi dicitur articulum non existere in alias linguas. Sed verum non est! Anglice, articulum nominatur Extended periodic table. Quomodo hoc rectum facere possum?--Llaaww (disputatio) 16:39, 25 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Novam paginam apud Vicidata addere necesse est: id quod nuper feci. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:10, 25 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias ago. Vidi latinitatem corrigendam esse: quidne erratum est? Si possum, volo eam corrigere... Llaaww (disputatio) 17:20, 27 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Si rationem nescis, historiam paginae inspice. Quis hanc notitiam imposuit? Ad paginam disputationis illius usoris quaerere potes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:45, 27 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarus. Gratias ago. Sed nunc aliam paginam creavi et idem problema habeo. Possum id resolvere solum an auxilium magistrati petere debeo? Nescio quomodo id facere, si a mihi fieri potest, aliquis hoc mihi explicare potest? Multas gratias ago. Llaaww (disputatio) 18:35, 28 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina nova iam creata et servata, i ad paginam de eadem re apud aliam Vicipaediam; e.g. en:Robbert van de Corput. Ad sinistram marginem reperi lineam "Edit links". Imprime. Ad pedem paginae Vicidata rubricam "Vicipaedia" reperi. Imprime "edit". Ad pedem columnae, in spatium vacuum, scribe "lat". Selige "Latine". Fac "Tab". Incipe nomen paginae tuae scribere, "Hardv " ... Selige "Hardvell". Imprime "publish". Omnes, non magistratus tantum, id facere possunt -- sed NB necesse est novam paginam tuam antea creavisse et servavisse. Paginae futurae non accipiuntur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:38, 28 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Optime! Permultas gratias ago! Llaaww (disputatio) 07:48, 1 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quando primum facis, difficile esse videtur; postea facile (id spero). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 1 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dē additiōne linguae graecae[fontem recensere]

Χαίρετε! Magistrātus Vicipaediae graecae sum et volō rogāre sī translātiōnem graecē ubi "Participātiō tua" in pāginā prīmā dicat addere possīmus. Translātiōnem egō sānē faciam. Crēdō, quod linguae latīna et graeca longam et propinquam historiam habent, illam additiōnem bonam fore. (Ignōscite mihi sī latinē bene nōn scrīpsī) --PastelKos (disputatio) 12:14, 13 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talem paginam Attice versam proponis? Cur non, nihil obstat, ut mihi videtur. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:34, 15 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the vandal[fontem recensere]

Those of you who sometimes watch recentchanges may over the last few weeks have noticed a vandal adding italic formatting to entire pages. Since the problem has now been recurring for some time, I have earlier today implemented a measure to prevent anonymous users whose IP address starts with 2001:4454:6 from adding italic formatting to pages. They can at this time still create a user account and/or log in (and then add formatting). The logs tell me that just two hours after I implemented this, the vandal arrived, tried five times in vain to add italic formatting to our page Gallia and left again ;-) Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:59, 21 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Vandals' motives are usually clear, but in this case they are not. What's the point of making the whole page in italics? I even thought it was some kind of lost bot. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:58, 22 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UV, it's back, under the name of Регистриране. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:41, 2 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doubled number of visitors[fontem recensere]

Just checking the Vicipaedia stats, I see that vistor numbers have doubled in the last 4 months, from around 750,000-1 million views a month, to around 1.4 million; peaking at 1.8m in Feb. (see also wikimedia stats tool; gives a different but similar story of increased traffic.) This looks like something changed in the accessibility of the site from Wikipedia generally - does anyone know what this might relate to? --JimKillock (disputatio) 08:17, 25 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the real answer, Jim, but I think I have noticed in recent days that searching for Latin on Google brings up fewer pages of imitations and mirrors of Latin Vicipaedia, more pages of the real Latin Vicipaedia. If this is true, possibly the algorithm of Google as applied to "minor" languages has changed a tiny bit.

Responsum haud bene scio, @JimKillock:, sed observavi paginas imitationum speculorumque Vicipaediae Latinae minus, paginas verae Vicipaediae Latinae nostrae plus, quaerentibus apud Google in his diebus monstratas esse. Si id verum sit, fortassse algorithmus Googlensis, linguis "minoribus" applicatus, levissime mutatus est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:56, 27 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anyone can help me please. edit Mirette El Hariri page correct translate Thanks.[fontem recensere]

https://la.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirette_El_Hariri#curriculo

ALPES aut VALEAMUS[fontem recensere]

Grex novus Metae de linguis antiquis, ALPES, sive Ancient Language Promotion, Education and Support, nomen alterum eget; debet Wicimedianos aut Wicimediae uti. Ergo VALEAMUS proponitur, (anglice Wikimedians for Ancient Language Education Assistance Mutual Undertakings and Support); placet aut non placet vobis? --JimKillock (disputatio) 07:58, 30 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mihi placet. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 18:55, 30 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sententia alia? Si non placet vobis, aut non bonum est, dicete quaeso! --JimKillock (disputatio) 15:05, 3 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neglected articles among the 1000 most important[fontem recensere]

According to the latest survey (6 April 2022), these are the ten most neglected articles among the 1000 most important articles, with their sizes in number of bytes:

~~video game (1222)~~
~~Iran (5431)~~
~~Indonesia (4171)~~
~~Thailand (4749)~~
periodic table (5452)
~~Vietnam (5342)~~
~~Nigeria (2494)~~
~~bird (4130)~~
~~Michael Jackson (4897)~~
~~Democratic Republic of the Congo (6461)~~

That's to say that the discrepancy between the sizes of Vicipaedia's essays on these subjects and the sizes that the other wikis expect them to be is the greatest among the 1000 most important subjects. (A couple of other criteria may also be in play.) In short: these are the topics that Wikilandia hopes we'll enlarge the most. We'll get 0.03 points for pushing them above the 10,000-character level and 0.05 more points for then pushing them above the 30,000-character level. ¶ Additionally, Vicipaedia lost 0.07 points in March, probably because someone reduced two articles below the 10,000-character level, but until the pertinent program is rerun, we probably can't know which articles they are. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:28, 7 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've boosted "Video game" above the 8K and 10K cutoffs and in so doing have found an attestation prior to the previously cited one. Attention to the other listed articles (as with many small articles on big subjects) may turn up other surprises. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:35, 13 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commentarius de avibus hodie augetur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:52, 8 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Latin[fontem recensere]

Salvete! I was checking the Mediawiki Incubator now and I noticed that there exists a Wikivoyage version in Latin. I was thinking to myself, what if it existed a simple version of Latin, similar to this. That version was created, among other reasons, for people that wanted to learn English. The same rationale could be applied for Latin.
Now, I do understand that creating a new Wiki from scratch is no easy deal. But I was inspired by what I found from Wikivoyage. "Wouldn't Simple Latin be 'more important' from an utilitarian point of view than Latin Wikivoyage?" I'm still aware how hard would such a feat would be (especially knowing that beside English, no other simple language version currently exists) but I was curious to know your opinions on it anyway. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 06:58, 3 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is feasible, I suppose. The question is, prior to starting a wiki, linguists and latinists would have to define what simple latin is. Simpe english is defined and known. For latin, I think never such a work has been done. Never heard of it, at least. Yet, both the ideas of a simple latin and a corresponding wiki are very interesting. Pápiliunculus (disputatio) 07:24, 3 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How would Simple Latin look like? Non-Ciceronian Latin, like the Latin used in Hungary until 1844, in the Catholic Church or in neoscholastic philosophical articles isn't really Ciceronian Latin, however, I wouldn't call this language 'simple' either. --Martinus Vester (disputatio) 09:57, 3 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A foundational step would be to assemble the words of highest frequency. The Simple English wiki uses about 1500 words (and their grammatical variants) based on the 850 words of Basic English. Searching the internet will reveal several basic Latin lists, of which this is an example. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:28, 3 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following up the comment by @Pápiliunculus:, I'd suggest that for Wikimedia to create Simple Latin would be original research. I'd also suggest that, given the fairly small number of enthusiastic editors of Vicipaedia, to split our effort into two Vicipaedias instead of one would be unwise.

I and a couple of other Vicipaedians did the initial work on Vicivia, to see whether others wanted to join in. No one did. For exactly the reason I have just given, I now think that those who didn't join in were correct, and we do better to focus our effort on Vicipaedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:35, 5 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we had this conversation. I found out two things by it:

The creators of Vikivia are active here;
Simple English has well-defined rules

There have been times where Simple English hasn't been defined as a language on its own but rather a method to learn a certain language or to even just provide technical facilities. For those interested in knowing more what I'm talking about there is this link here. But now that I'm sure it is an individual language, the hopes of creating "Simple Latin" are almost 0. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 00:18, 10 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can always consult Interlingua if you like! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:06, 10 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... So "simple Latin" does exist. Interesting... - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 01:10, 10 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But, it is more understandble, and that it is very important... I am certain that the munus of a language it is not be difficult, but must be understandble and flexible... for example, Latin accept, grammerly, to script "Rosa Rosae", "Rosae rosa" and " Rosa de rosis", but you accept the last one? 88.214.161.198 02:59, 8 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

correction "Rosa de illis rosis" 88.214.161.198 03:02, 8 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Es gibt bereits genügend Artikel in der Latein-Wikipedia, die in sehr simplem Latein verfaßt sind! - Giorno2 (disputatio) 14:09, 13 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Stimmt! :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:47, 13 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formula:Math[fontem recensere]

In commentario de "momento" deficit {{Formula:Math}}. Do we have a kind programmer who'll make it work? Fortasse noster @Klein Muçi? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:16, 10 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redactio inanis?[fontem recensere]

Cur redactio mea nuntiorum nuper facta in pagina prima non apparet?Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 21:02, 14 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video ego: fortasse et tu? Interdum, quando paginam mutavisti, utile est in pabulatro (browser) tuo visionem renovare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:22, 15 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placentinus omnibus s.p.d.[fontem recensere]

Salvete omnes! Nondum me vobis ostendi. Ego Placentinus sum, sed saepius Logodaedalus vocor in rete mundano, propter hoc nomen meum mutare velim, si quaestio non est. In animo habeo omnes paginas de scaccis emendare et nova addere. Utinam bene vertat. Curate ut valeatis! --Placentinus (disputatio) 17:27, 24 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salve! Bene te convenire --JimKillock (disputatio) 18:45, 8 Iunii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latin expressions - articles[fontem recensere]

Salvete!

Would it make sense to have articles about common Latin expressions like "divide et impera", "et cetera", etc.? I would think those could be a nice addition but I struggled to find such articles already written so I thought a discussion about them could be a good thing to have. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 01:56, 11 Iunii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again, @Klein Muçi:. There are some articles of that kind already: you would find them via Categoria:Locutiones Latinae, also maybe Categoria:Abbreviationes Latinae. More such articles is a very good idea. They have to be more than dictionary entries (which belong in Victionarium): information about who first used the expression and about later uses, for example, would fit the bill. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:57, 11 Iunii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, hello!

Yes, that's what I meant. Thank you! :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:43, 11 Iunii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page Translatio[fontem recensere]

Salve! Volo te interrogare, ut cicero paginae in latinum. Articulus continet pagina, et 'Turcicum et Russian?[2] . Forsitan poterit ad transferendum. Gratias tibi in antecessum!

How to translate or translitterate "influencing" to Latin?[fontem recensere]

"influentium"? 88.214.161.198 02:33, 8 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair example of the fact that many of the transferred senses that modern languages have developed from classical Latin roots didn't exist in classical Latin. A participle based on influ- in classical Latin conveys the idea of 'inflowing, flowing in (upon), streaming in, rushing in'—nothing at all about 'influencing' (as we understand it). The aptest one-word Latin participle for 'influencing', if you must have one, may be movens, but Latin has several other ways of conveying the idea of 'to influence', for example valere apud X 'to have strength upon X' and magnum posse apud X 'to have the ability of greatness upon X'. ¶ For a modern Latin word formed backward (in the nineteenth century, out of medieval models) from influ-, see the article on "influentia," the flu, supposedly indeed originating in influence—from the moon or the stars! ¶ Your influentium is a genuine classical Latin word, a present participle in the genitive plural case, meaning 'of things flowing in'. It's not a neuter singular noun. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:18, 8 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recte dicis, Iacobe.

v. "moveo" (sicut suggeris), "inspiro"? n. "motus", "inspiratio"? n. agentis "inspirator, inspiratrix"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:33, 8 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

secto ? imitor ? adduco ? it depends on the context --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 18:01, 8 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

si agitur de nomine, non de verbo temporali: potentia, momentum. - Giorno2 (disputatio) 05:25, 9 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ita vero, et non solum illa verba, sed etiam auctoritas et gratia et pondus atque adeo (quod attinet ad numina) afflatus divinus et instinctu divino. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:07, 9 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Down for maintenance[fontem recensere]

Working in the harenarium, I just spent an hour drafting a new article, but when I clicked to publish it, the wiki system said "Oops!" (literally!) and announced that it was down for maintenance and I should try again. Well, maybe, but not today. The text has disappeared. [Insert grumpy icon here.] IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:21, 19 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cladi in capsis taxinomicis?[fontem recensere]

How to print clades in taxoboxes? In the article "Oxaeinae," for example, neither "clade," nor "cladus," nor "unranked_clade," nor "unranked_cladus," nor "unranked_superfamily," nor "unranked_superfamilia" works. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:31, 23 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insere "unranked_familia" (id, hoc casu, nuper feci ego). Huic regulae simplici (!) obtempera: si cladum ante "X" inserere vis, tempta "unranked_X". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:47, 24 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but it's printing above the superfamilia. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:31, 24 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago. Correxi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 25 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newfangled format for initial disputatio pages[fontem recensere]

(As I've remarked elsewhere:) Vicipaedia is now using a newfangled format for initial disputatio pages; its text is in English, and what it prints is unsightly (or at least ungainly). What's the magistrates' rationale for implementing this change? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:06, 23 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any change. I see the same as before when starting a disputatio page.

De tali mutatione nihil scio. Quando paginam disputationis incipio, eandem "fenestram" video quam antea vidi. [Re vera -- confiteor -- mutationem iam diu vidi et (meo casu) curavi ... quo facto, oblitus sum.] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 24 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilominus methodum medendi (an utilem?) in pagina disputationis Iacobi nostri proposui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:23, 24 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely new in the past few weeks. Somebody has done something. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:33, 24 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qui novam methodum paginarum disputationis creandarum reicere velit (sicut ego iam diu feci) potest

ad "modos" vel praeferentias suas ire (vide caput omnis paginae Vicpaedicae)
"edit screen" vel "recensere" seligere
ad pedem illius paginae, iuxta "Open the wikitext editor", in punctum imprimere
modos vel praeferentias suas, ita recensas, servare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 25 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De arte mediaevali[fontem recensere]

In Vicipaedia Latina quattuor paginae artem mediaevalem describunt, quarum binae idem tractant: opus francigenum = ars Gothica, opus romanum = ars Romanica. Praeterea est pagina ars Romana de arte Romanorum antiquorum. Sine ulla dubitatione res repurganda est, sed quomodo id fiat deliberari necesse est, scilicet utrum verbum "modernum" (Gothica, Romanica) an antiquius (opus francigenum, opus Romanum) praeferendum sit. Quamquam animo pendens ad "Gothica" et "Romanica" inclino, haec verba hominibus huius aetatis facilius intellectu iisdemque discrimen inter artem antiquam et posteriorem clariorem esse arbitratus. Utilo (disputatio) 15:19, 1 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commentariius de "opere francigeno" non est idem cum commentario de "arte Gothica": hic Gothic art," ille "Gothic architecture" est. Ambo inter illas 10 000 paginas magni momenti numerantur. "Opus romanum" = "Romanesque architecture," sed "ars Romanica" = "Romanesque art" (etiam inter illas paginas legitur). Omnes (quattuor) commentarii conservandi sunt. "Roman art" et "Ancient Roman architecture" sunt aliae res. De sex notionibus diversis hic disputamus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:29, 1 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago pro explicatione. "Roman art" apud nos est Ars Romana, "Ancient Roman architecture" Architectura Romana.--Utilo (disputatio) 16:46, 1 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio selectionis titulorum (si bene memini) haec fuit: "opus Francigenum" et "opus Romanum" sunt vera termina technica Latina in fontibus mediaevalibus vel recentioribus, praesertim de architectura, usitata. Certe nomina Latina in aliis fontibus reperta praeferere licet: si autem nomina Latina fontibus corroborata reicere volumus, nomina a nobis ficta substituentes, debemus pellucide explicare. Nomen "Gothicum" tardius introductum est, et, sicut scimus, historiae huius periodi aegre consonat -- aedificatores non Gothi fuerunt! Sed eandem rem de termino "opus romanum" dicere possum ...

~~An aliqui scriptores Latini verbum "Gothicum" sensu artistico iam adhibiti sunt, nescio.~~ Iam vidi citationem verborum "stilo Gothico" a pontifice scriptorum: ibi certe fontem habemus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:39, 2 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Id, quod velim, non est, ut certis verbis utamur, sed potius, ut verba lectori clare ac distincte communicent, de quo commentarius disserat. Ars Romana (aut opus Romanum) mihi ambigua esse videtur: De arte antiqua aut mediaevali agitur? Quid de commentario Architectura Romana? Si "Francigenum", ut videtur, "Gothico" praeferendum sit, fortasse et Ars Gothica "ars Francigena" appelletur. Praeterea ars Gothica cum opere francigeno aequatur (vide textum commentarii artis Gothicae) - hi duo commentarii autem inter se differant.--Utilo (disputatio) 22:18, 2 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio quomodo respondeam. Nonne necesse erit aut novos titulos proponere, aut primas commentationum sententias rescribere? Tu quid proponis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:17, 3 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Si "Gothicum" et "Romanicum" ut verba novata evitare volumus, hoc propono: Ars Romana (antiquitas) - Architectura Romana (antiquitas), Ars Romana (medium aevum) - Opus Romanum (medium aevum), Ars Francigena - Opus Francigenum. Ars Gothica sive Ars Francigena rescribenda est, ut a commentario Operis Francigeni differat, id est copiosius alias artes praeter architecturam describat.--Utilo (disputatio) 20:03, 3 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Si hoc opus incipere vis, consentio ego. Alii quid censent? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:14, 4 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assentior. Videat Utilo ut res uniantur et quam clarissime offerantur. - Giorno2 (disputatio) 17:11, 13 Augusti 2022 (UTC)

Mutationes facere coepi, sed tum et paginam Artis Praeromanicae esse animadverti. Quid faciamus?--Utilo (disputatio) 09:15, 20 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paginam brevem, sine fonte, sine fonte nominis, tibi licet aut augere aut cum alia quadam contribuere; licet etiam nomen melius dare. Quid proponis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:48, 20 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Fontem recensere"[fontem recensere]

When I click on this button, the typeface is no longer what it used to be. How to change it back? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:50, 17 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Utere calamo (Use the pen icon in the taskbar) BrightSunMan (disputatio) 19:14, 29 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunt scriptores Vicipaediae populus Romani seu homines hodierni?[fontem recensere]

Are our writers meant to be acting like the ancient Roman populous, or are we free to speak Latin in a modern way with neologisms? Basically, are we speaking Classical or Ecclesiastical Latin? BrightSunMan (disputatio) 19:38, 29 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget scientific Latin! The difference is much more of register and vocabulary than of grammar. The answer is that we aim at classical Latin (as writers of Latin have nearly always done) and if there's a choice of vocabulary we choose the classical word unless there's a reason to prefer a more recent technical term. But the whole of Latin (tota Latinitas), right up to 2022, is at our disposal for vocabulary when needed. That's how it was for our immediate predecessor -- Iohannes Iacobus Hofmannus, Lexicon universale (1698) ~. For more information see Vicipaedia:Fontes nominum Latinorum and Vicipaedia:De Latinitate. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:35, 30 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glossarium oeconomicum et computativum Latinum[fontem recensere]

Salvete. Ecquis vestrum scit de glossario aliquo quo vocabula ad oeconomiam et scientiam computativam pertinentia continentur? Martinus Vester (disputatio) 15:34, 31 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imago mensis Septembris 2022[fontem recensere]

Inscius, quo modo subscriptionem istam imaginis mutare possim, suadeo, ut corrigatur: St. Michael draconem interficit, --Bavarese (disputatio) 19:58, 2 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correxi, Vicipaedia:Imago mensis/Septembris 2022 Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 07:35, 3 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non opportet Sanctum Michaelem et Sanctum Georgium confundere! Secundum traditionem Sanctus Georgius draconem interfecit, sed Sanctus Michael Luciferum superavit et detrudit! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:03, 7 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sic, victus draconi minime similis est, sed viro cum alis et cornibus :) Daemon in descriptione Francogallica scriptum est, et ego sic scripsi. Fortasse et Lucifer ipse est, nescio (sed et ille daemon). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:45, 7 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

InternetArchiveBot[fontem recensere]

InternetArchiveBot is a bot, approved on over 100 wikis, that fixes broken links in articles and enhances references with links to external resources (such as periodicals or books) where available. The bot can be customized to adapt to Latin Wikipedia's citation and web archive templates (if applicable). Please let me know if you have any questions. Harej (disputatio) 00:55, 8 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, @Harej:, I have a question. Following your message, I went to the page you indicate, logged in, confirmed my email, reached the point where I could "Run bot > Fix a single page". I did this with the page Robertus Lowell. IA Bot reported that it had made one modification, marking a "dead link". So I went to the page Robertus Lowell, and in fact no modification has been made: the link is still there (it is dead, I confirm it) and it has not been marked "dead link". There's no new entry in the page history. So what went wrong? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:47, 8 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I tried it also at en:Robert Lowell, because that page has the same dead link. On that en: page, IABot worked! My first successful use of IABot! So I guess this happened because we have no "Dead link" template, so I need to create one. I'll try. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:19, 8 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a simple {{Nexus deficitur}} template, and linked it via Wikidata, but IABot still does the same thing: it reports that it has inserted the template, but in fact it has not done so. Something else is wrong: maybe you can help. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:36, 8 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't "nexus deficit" make better sense? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:43, 8 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think both forms work (cf. Cicero mulier abundat audacia, consilio et ratione deficitur) [and "defit" is not impossible], but if you feel "deficit" is best, go ahead and edit it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:24, 8 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dalby, the bot needed to be configured to recognize the new {{Nexus deficitur}} template. I have now done so, and re-run the bot on the page, and it worked! Harej (disputatio) 23:54, 8 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew Dalby, any other questions or concerns regarding InternetArchiveBot? I would like to begin running it on this wiki. Harej (disputatio) 17:55, 7 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, @Harej:, it works for me as well. You are welcome to begin to operate it. Tell me if any problem arises as you set to work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:59, 9 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina mensis / Abbatia Cremifanensis[fontem recensere]

I'm happy that my home town's monastery is Page of the Month - but right now the article isn't clickable, and I don't know how to change it. Utilo (disputatio) 09:16, 1 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias pro adiumento!

Die Seite über die Abtei von Kremsmünster ist wirklich in jeder Hinsicht hervorragend. Einfach würdig für diesen wunderschönen Ort! Eigentlich ist ja ganz Oberösterreich interessant... - Giorno2 (disputatio) 17:19, 12 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De facie paginarum[fontem recensere]

Sicut iam per paginam nuntiorum technicorum certiores facti sumus, diebus proximis facies paginarum nostrarum normalis a "Vector legacy" ad "Vector 2022" mutabitur. Ne timeamur! Ille, cui haec mutatio displiceat, aut per "Modos/preferences" aut ad marginem paginarum antiquam faciem statim eligere potebit.

Si scire utile sit: vocabulo Anglico "legacy" apud MediaWiki sensus "antiquus" attribuitur :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:16, 4 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enabling Content and Section translation tool in Latin Wikipedia[fontem recensere]

Hello Friends!

Apologies as this message is not in your native language, Please help translate to your language.

The WMF Language team is pleased to let you know that we will like to enable the Section and Content translation tool in Latin Wikipedia. For this, our team will love you to read about the tool and test the new Section Translation tool so you can:

Give us your feedback
Ask us questions
Tell us how to improve it

Below is background information about the tools and how you can test the Section translation tool.

Background information

Content Translation has been a successful tool for editors to create content in their language. More than one million articles have been created across all languages since the tool was released in 2015. However, the tool is not out of beta in Latin Wikipedia, limiting the discoverability of the tool and its use and blocking the enablement of the Section translation in your Wikipedia

Section Translation extends the capabilities of Content Translation to support mobile devices. On mobile, the tool will:

Guide you to translate one section at a time in order to expand existing articles or create new ones
Make it easy to transfer knowledge across languages anytime from your mobile device

We plan to enable the tools on Latin Wikipedia in the coming week if there are no objections from your community. After it is enabled, we’ll monitor the content created with the tools and process all the feedback. In any case, feel free to raise any concerns or questions you may already have as a reply to this message or on the project talk page

Try the Section translation tool

Before the enablement, you can try the current implementation of the tool in our testing instance. Once it is enabled on Latin Wikipedia, you’ll have access to https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ContentTranslation with your mobile device. You can select an article to translate, and machine translation will be provided as a starting point for editors to improve.

Provide feedback

Please provide feedback about Section translation on the project talk page. We want to hear about your impressions on

The section translation tool
What do you think about our plans to enable it
Your ideas for improving the tool

Thanks and we look forward to your feedback and questions. UOzurumba (WMF) (disputatio) 20:38, 4 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mea mente debemus cito respondere. Necesse erit nobis statuere, eandem fere legem statuentibus qua Vicipaediani Anglici: usoribus, qui iam apud nos viginti mutationes substantivas fecerint, licebit Content Translation adhibere; aliis usoribus non licebit.

Hanc legem propono quia editoribus Latinistis aliquibus hoc systema fortasse utile est, sed non-Latinistae, qui paginam novam e conversione machinali apud nos deponunt statimque abeunt rem omnino inutilem contribuunt.

Editores alios suadeo: cito respondete, aut mihi consentientes aut dissentientes! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 5 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should tell them, in English, that until the content tool itself produces (reasonably) correct Latin, the section-translation tool is worse than worthless: not only do the unedited texts it produces have no utility, but they deceive non-Latinists who value & propagate them, and they steal time from editors who contemplate them and magistrates who delete them. Far from helping readers, the translation tool, as it stands, almost appears to be an engine for subtracting from human knowledge & happiness. (Are the members of the pertinent team aware that just about every machine-translated text added to Vicipaedia by non-Latinists gets deleted?) I tried to make this clear by clicking a link but couldn't get to an appropriate page in the sixty seconds allotted for the task. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:42, 5 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone should, but in the meanwhile do you agree that I should tell them what I suggest above? A yes (or no) would really help! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:45, 5 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Whether twenty is the most appropriate number is debatable, but the general idea—that contributors of such texts shouldn't be utterly naive about what translation into Latin entails—is good and easily defensible. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:03, 5 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consentio; sine censu editionum nihil, nisi paginas Latinitate pessima compositas et delendas. accipiemus. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 12:46, 5 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non Contra machinalem translationem suffragium fero. Vicipaedia Latina verorum Latinistarum congressus esse debet eo magis quod nostra Vicipaedia ceteris numquam omnino similis erit. Haec machina probatae Latinitatis contributoribus tantum adeunda est qui textum postea emendare valeant. Nec intellego cur qui Latine nesciunt aliquid hic deponere cupiant. Nisi catalogum paucorum quibus hoc liceat facere cupias... --Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 16:16, 5 Octobris 2022 (UTC) Dum iterum quae scripta sunt lego fortasse eadem sentire atque Andreas mihi videorː sed quis de viginti contributionum utilitate et ubertate iudicabit? --Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus (disputatio) 16:54, 5 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consentio!--Utilo (disputatio) 12:36, 6 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@UOzurumba (WMF): In response to your message, we have reached consensus that the Latin Vicipaedia will impose the following rule, similar to the rule on English Wikipedia. Content translation is to be disabled for anonymous IPs and for users who have not already made 20 non-minor edits to Vicipaedia. Please don't deploy Content Translation or Section Translation to the Latin Vicipaedia, but please do help us to put this restriction into effect. Just wait ten minutes and I'll explain briefly our reasons as given in Latin above ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:35, 5 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty minutes. (My tomatoes and chillies have to be irrigated during the small gap between the end of the daily water restriction and the fall of darkness!)

Thank you for the message and the opportunity to respond.My reason is that content translation may be useful to some established editors who really know Latin, and if they want to use it, that's great! But it's a trap for users who do not know Latin: they create a meaningless page (or section) in what they believe is Latin, save it, and never come back. This is the case with about 99% of visible use of Content Translation on Vicipaedia. Such pages will always be deleted, but meanwhile they have wasted the time of the page creator, and of all the editors who puzzle over the page before finally deleting it. It is a trap for readers too: anyone who happens to see the page will conclude that Vicipaedia accepts meaningless nonsense instead of Latin, and that the Wikimedia project is no different from websites that are filled up with automatic translations. This is very bad for the Wikimedia project.

Others, above, agree with my reasons. Marcus Terentius Bibliophilus adds that Vicipaedia always differs from other Wikipedias, partly because it is a real collaboration by writers of real Latin. IacobusAmor's added comment is in English so you can read it for yourself! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:12, 5 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The exception that I suggested ("users who have already made 20 non-minor edits to Vicipaedia") needs more discussion, as Iacobus and Marcus suggest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:20, 5 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non credo probabile fore, ut instrumentum translatorium creetur, quod textus peregrinis sermonibus scriptos perfecte in linguam Latinam reddiderit. Egomet autem censeo, iis qui articulos ex lingua Anglica aliisve linguis in sermonem Latinum vertunt, quodam modo hoc instrumentum utile esse potest. In hoc instrumento namque in duobus columnis videmus textum Anglicum et Latinum; propterea versio Latina multo habilior est.--Martinus Vester (disputatio) 14:23, 6 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andrew Dalby and everyone, for your comments and the consensus.

The Language team would not Deploy the Content and Section translation tool to Latin Wikipedia since your community has objected.

For your request, we want to clarify that only logged-in users can access the Content translation tool. Also, the Language team would prefer to adjust the initial translation limits to evaluate users by the content they create and not by edit counts. The approach mentioned above has worked for Wikis with similar complaints, and we can try this with your Wiki and evaluate the outcome. Please let us know if the above is something your community would like to try.

Once again, thank you for your comments, and we look forward to your reply on adjusting the initial translation limits.

UOzurumba (WMF) (disputatio) 17:42, 6 Octobris 2022 (UTC) On behalf of the WMF Language team.[reply]

Diebus insequentibus quaerere volo quomodo Angli aliique regulas suas scripserunt. Sed si alii ante me quaerunt reperiuntque, optime! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:54, 9 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ne id quidem credo! Machinam translatoriam e lingua vernaculari in Latinum NUMQUAM utilem esse puto. Namque iam in sententiis verbisve maxime simplicibus tibi res falsas proponit et te in laqueos usus non correcti inducat. Giorno2 (disputatio) 14:50, 12 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Si de me scribam, tibi consentiam. Nunquam utor. Sed amicos habeo, tam Vicipaedianos quam saeculares (!), qui, linguam secundam bene cognoscentes, nihilominus translationem machinalem primo loco adhibent ad verba suggerenda. Postea versionem machinalem corrigent. Haud nobis necesse est machinam talibus usoribus interdicere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 12 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De magistratibus quiescentibus[fontem recensere]

Legem abhinc fere quinque annos statuimus, ratione securitatis nominum protegendae, ut a magistratibus, qui per sex menses nihil ad Vicipaediam nostram contribuerint, instrumenta sua (fasces??) pro tempore retrahamus (videte si vultis Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby#Inactivity policy nexusque ibi datos). Si postea reveniunt, instrumenta statim redduntur.

De hac re per tres fere annos nihil fecimus, at iam hic videmus novem magistratus inter sex menses nullam rem apud Vicipaediam Latinam fecisse, quorum sex (imprime "all wikis" in eadem pagina) ab omnibus Vicipaediis sex menses vel plures absunt.

Possumus periodum extendere ("duodecim menses" loco "sex menses"); possumus regulam mutare ("ab omnibus Vicipaediis absentes", loco "a Vicipaedia Latina absentes"). An tales mutationes vobis placent? Quo statuto, litteras (electronicas) ad magistratus absentes mittere atque (nisi reveniunt) instrumenta pro tempore retrahere debeo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:54, 9 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quaestio difficilis quid sit faciendum. Ego quoque multo plus in Latinis agere possem nisi identidem labore pro Vicipaedia Esperantica abstraherer! - Giorno2 (disputatio) 17:04, 12 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placita aliorum exspectavi: quibus nondum receptis, regulam emendo ("duodecim menses" loco "sex menses"). Ad magistratus, qui hac regula "quiescentes" sint, litteras electronicas hodie mitto. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:30, 20 Decembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Originem huius encyclopedia[fontem recensere]

Salve, et in antecessum pro typos paenitemus. Propositum scholae facio et originem Vicipaedia Latina investigandi habeo. Num quis scit quid prima editio? Deo gratias. --Mr Misterio2 (disputatio) 16:30, 12 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lege hunc commentarium in JSTOR? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:46, 12 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi valde! --Mr Misterio2 (disputatio) 23:05, 12 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Nexus deficitur": quid faciam?[fontem recensere]

Si, in pagina tibi cara, InternetArchiveBot nexum "deficientem" repperit, de tribus solutionibus meditate, o amici.

Si editor noster "verum titulum" paginae (etiamsi non Latinum) bene citavit, potes hunc titulum per Google quaerere. Fortasse enim pagina in interrete servatur, sed apud alium situm vel sub alio URL. [Hac ratione, quando his diebus nexum interretialem sub "Nexibus externis" vel in notis subiunctis addis, verum titulum paginae (si sit), quaqua lingua scriptum, cita! ... at potes versionem Latinam tituli insuper addere.]
Si pagina a principio apud situm, qui usque hodie floret, creata est, potes apud motrum quaesitionum illius situs rem vel hominem quaerere. Pagina fortasse sub novo URL interno servatur.
Si nexus viventes lectores nostros satis de re certiores faciunt, nexum deficientem delere potes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:07, 13 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus labor factus est, euge! Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:55, 14 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glossarium_computatrale, Protocollum interretiale, Systema internum, LAN[fontem recensere]

I tried to improve a bit (mainly from a grammar point of view):

By the way, were they machine translated? Could you please give me a feedback? / Thanks Luca Italy (disputatio) 14:01, 13 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the pages are better now. Thank you! Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:54, 14 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Elbe[fontem recensere]

I tried to improve Lilia Elbe. It looked very bad. Please have a look, I don't feel so sure of myself :-) Luca Italy (disputatio) 12:36, 15 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Very bad"? That's why it's marked –4. :) That level of Latinity = "Latinitas huius paginae corrigenda est. Si potes, corrige vel rescribe." Feel free to add one of the (seven) levels of Latinity to any pages you read. Etiam signum "{{dubsig}}" habemus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:45, 15 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I could try. But as a reference, just to understand the marking system, how would you rank the current version of Lilia Elbe? -1, -2, ... ? / Thanks Luca Italy (disputatio) 12:58, 15 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it up to –3. Though the grading reflects the Latinity, it can't help but be merged with a judgment about the content, which seems a little shaky here. Mind you, I'm not a professional classicist, and I've been known to mark my own efforts –2. Also, since I can't touch-type, when working in a hurry, I make typos. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:28, 15 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. Another point is that when one tries to improve a badly written page, and at least this is true for me, then it's always difficult to completely change the terms/expressions employed, for fear of altering the meaning by the original author. And this produces suboptimal results. By the way, I tried to improve it a bit more. Luca Italy (disputatio) 14:39, 15 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If one has time, the best solution can be to go to a better original (especially the English wiki) and start over. The original author's contribution will be preserved and easily found on the "Nuper mutata" page. ¶ Thanks for catching my typo (terto for tertio), and by the way, the mos Vicipaedianus is to capitalize the names of languages and other adjectives derived from proper nouns (like Hispanicus from Hispania). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:51, 15 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Does that mos originate from the corresponding English language usage? In "Italian" Latin I've never seen that. Luca Italy (disputatio) 16:11, 15 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious defense of this distinction is made by the following pair.

catholicus = universal, comprehensive; broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests

Catholicus = pertaining to the Catholic Church

A similar pair is

orthodoxus = right thinking, conventional, conforming to established doctrine or custom

Orthodoxus = pertaining to the Orthodox Church

Other such pairs may exist, and to the extent that "officially" defined geographic areas are pertinent here, they can come into play:

Africa septentrionalis = northern Africa (a general area, imprecisely defined, with imaginary hand waving)

Africa Septentrionalis = North Africa (a precisely circumscribed area, a technical term)

But some will quibble with such geographic pairings. English has convenient pairs in northern & North, southern & South, and so on, but all Latin can do to avoid polysemy is exploit its typography. A pertinent example might be Africa Australis, the republic, for which Africa australis would surely look odd. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:29, 16 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is close to English. More relevant, I think, it is close to the usual rules followed by writers at the Vatican and by modern editors of classical Latin texts published in Germany, France and Italy. To see (e.g.) "sermo latinus" in a printed Latin text would strike me as unexpected. Personally, however, I wouldn't have counted variants in capitalization as relevant to the estimation of "Latinitas". But I rarely do the estimation: Iacobus does a lot more of it :)

Like most kinds of grading, the process of estimation can include seat-of-the-pants judgments, which we might want to minimize, so I once tried to put it on a quantitive basis, but that method might waste so much time that correcting as much of the text as possible and then impressionistically picking a number for the Latinitas might be more convenient. For example, "Antlia" (analyzed quantitatively there) turns out to be a –5, but on rereading it now, I'd say it looks more like a –6. Improving it at least to a –3 should be a quick & easy task for anybody who's studied Latin in school for a few months, so why bother with the quantifying? @AndrewDalby @Luca Italy IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:04, 16 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that it is difficult to correct the Latinity of a text if you are doubtful about what the writer meant. Iacobus is right: sometimes a complete rewrite is the best method, but of course it takes longer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:36, 15 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I'm not so good with Latin, so I was certainly wrong on that point. Even if I studied Latin in the Italian high school, my recent Latin practice only consists in reading from time to time from the Vulgata Clementina. And I have no experience whatever in Latin writing! Luca Italy (disputatio) 16:58, 15 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By all means try your hand at it! The easiest kinds of articles to write (translating from other wikis) are probably biographies and entries on plants, animals, and geographical features—physical entities with predictable properties. Much rarer are articles built on abstractions, like "Advanced glycation end-product" and "Architectural design optimization" and "Credit risk" and "Self-organized criticality control," not least because they invite the use of technical terms not found in classical dictionaries. ¶ In case you don't know, the whole wikipedia project has produced a "list of 10,000 articles every encyclopedia should have," and in the current report, Vicipaedia lacks 2,485 of them. Most of the easy ones, such as the biographies, have already been started, though they remain deplorably unfinished. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:49, 15 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the translation from scratch of new articles, I've noticed that Google Translate has recently become good enough in translating from English to Latin. To speed things up, I'm wondering if going with a first pass through Google Translate and then hand-correcting the result could be a viable method. Luca Italy (disputatio) 07:18, 16 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's what Google Translate does to the paragraph above:

De translatione de integro novorum articulorum animadverti Google Translate satis nuper factus est in translatione ex Anglica in Latinum. Ad res sursum accelerandas, miratus sum si cum primo transire per Google Translatem et deinde manum emendandi eventum viable methodum esse posse.

Which might be translated back into English thus:

About the transferring of new articulations afresh, I've noticed that Google Translate has recently enough been mood in the transferring from English into Latin. To accelerate things upward, I've wondered if when at first to pass over through Google Translate 'Em and then a result a hoond of correcting can be a moothod that can be alooves [= 'that can be alive', multiply erroneous; see below].

The translation can be said to be giving us between 12 & 14 errors (of varying lethality, of course), so call it 13, and then by the formula attempted above, (1 – 13/41) = 68 = Latinitas of –5. Does that seem about right? [This viable is a double error: it should be feminine (not neuter) to match methodus, and it should be spelled viabilis. Or maybe it's a triple error, in that it's a back-formation from French and therefore might better be vitabilis, but that means 'something that might be shunned' (from vitare), more or less the opposite of what the text intends!] ¶ Also, 'method' in classical Latin (according to Cassell's) is likelier to be ratio, via, modus, ars (not methodus), but that's not much of an error, if it's an error at all. Similarly problematic is translatio, not technically wrong (Quintilian uses it), but not the usual classical way of conveying the idea either. Some things are not errors, but are "just not quite right" at the same time. Google Translate is probably going to spit out plenty of them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:03, 16 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my paragraph was in a quite colloquial style. Maybe Google Translate could provide better results if applied to the more formal style of English Wikipedia articles? Luca Italy (disputatio) 16:16, 16 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not! Behold what Google Translate does to the first three instances of viable that turned up in a search of Wikipedia:

A minimum viable product is a version of a product with just enough features to be usable by early customers who can then provide feedback for future. . . .

Productum minimum viable est versio producti cum tantum satis notis ut utibilia sint a primis clientibus qui tunc possunt providere feedback in futurum. . . .

Fetal viability is the ability of a human fetus to survive outside the uterus.

Foetae vim est facultas foetus humani extra uterum superesse.

Viable count is a method used in cell culture to determine the number of living cells in a culture.

Comes viable methodus est usus in cultura cellularum ad numerum cellularum viventium in cultura determinandum.

You've got to love the last one! "The Right Honourable John Doe, Viable Count of Oxbridge." :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:40, 16 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe together with a robust second hand-correction phase it could actually save some typing or some dictionary lookups for terms... Luca Italy (disputatio) 18:43, 16 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she's just a Danish painter to me... But I think you're doing well Luca! But concerning a deceased person, wouldn't it be more of a norm to use ...fuit pictrix Danica... instead of est? The Romans seems to have preferred fuit, but would it work anyway? Donatello (disputatio) 23:59, 22 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Switch to old look" . . .[fontem recensere]

. . . takes me to "Formae delectus" on my Praeferentiae page, with no indication of how to switch to the old look. What's to be done? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:33, 24 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hic "Vector legacy 2010" eligendum est. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:02, 24 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pellicula mensis[fontem recensere]

"Limes" est masculini generis! --> Limes GermanicUS!! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:24, 17 Novembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sine dubio, correxi. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 07:19, 18 Novembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Ford logo new" and the like[fontem recensere]

Dear 82.78.75.131, phrases like "Ford logo new" and "Fanta logo 2016-present," which you've been inserting into pages here, are in the wrong language. Would you mind going back and putting them in Latin? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:52, 21 Novembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for your favourite Wikimedia sound logo[fontem recensere]

Please help translate to your language

We are really sorry for posting in English

Voting in the Wikimedia sound logo contest has started. From December 6 to 19, 2022, please play a part and help chose the sound that will identify Wikimedia content on audio devices. Learn more on Diff.

The sound logo team is grateful to everyone who participated in this global contest. We received 3,235 submissions from 2,094 participants in 135 countries. We are incredibly grateful to the team of volunteer screeners and the selection committee who, among others, helped bring us to where we are today. It is now up to Wikimedia to choose the Sound Of All Human Knowledge.

Best wishes, Arupako-WMF (disputatio) 10:40, 17 Decembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]