Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 4

Latinitas inspicienda
E Vicipaedia

discretiva[fontem recensere]

I have a question about discretiva pages: How should they be named? Some of them look like Leo (discretiva), some like Caput. So should “discretiva” appear in the title of a page? I think it would be better without "discretiva" in the title. -Amphitrite 22:18, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both is possible. 1) The discretiva page with "(discretiva)" and one of the articles (the main article) without a phrase in brackets or 2) the discretiva article without a "(discretiva)" and all articles with a phrase in brackets. I think it is mostly better to have a main article (without a phrase) and a corresponding discretiva page with "(discretiva)". In this case the main article has the {{fn|disambig}} which points to the discretiva page. --Roland (disp.) 22:39, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Roland. Take Mus for instance. The animal is undoubtedly the more common usage. If you say "I saw a mouse" no one will think Mus computatralis. Here, too, I think caput meaning pars corporis is certainly the most common usage. I think if someone types "caput" they should go to the pars corporis page which should have disambig template which Roland mentioned above. Then Caput (discretiva) should discretize.--Ioshus (disp) 23:04, 4 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail notification on commons[fontem recensere]

E-mail notification is now possible on commons:. If you do not log in to your commons account regularly, it is a good idea to enable this: that way, you will be notified automatically when someone leaves a message on your commons talk page and/or when someone changes any other page you specified (e. g. the images you uploaded, such as proposing one of the images you uploaded for deletion).

To enable this feature:


Mythologia Nordica[fontem recensere]

Are there any reputable sources for the more obscure areas of Norse mythology? For now I have Latinised Ragnarok and Midgardsormr, and left them undeclined. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 19:43, 13 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crepusculum deorum maybe? And serpens terrae/orbis terrarum? LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 13:45, 14 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could e.g. Saxo Grammaticus have written on such things? Officially, he tried to write a 'secular' Danish history; but he does mix with some mythology, doesn't he? JoergenB 22:48, 15 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little late, I know, but do check out Religio Germanica. --Iustinus 03:20, 9 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the babel templates? LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 08:39, 17 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?--Ioshus (disp) 13:03, 17 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem not to use the babel templates, Ioshe. I do, and on my user page, like on LeighiOptimiMaximi, the output has shifted place and been 'augmented' by various short black lines. --JoergenB 14:38, 17 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere I read they have been "improved". E. g. {{Babel-6}} is not needed any more. {{Babel}} can do that. Does this solve your problems? --Rolandus 18:02, 17 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As always, we are a bit different than other wikipedias … ;-) {{Babel-6}} is no longer needed, {{Babel-X}} can do the job. --UV 01:34, 18 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are not different any more. {{Babel}} will do. --UV 00:28, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Loss of diversity for the sake of simplicity...sigh, I guess it's a fair trade... =] --Ioscius (disp) 02:20, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)[reply] I see. Yes, that would trouble me, too =].--Ioshus (disp) 20:41, 17 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I have copied the template that Usor:Christian Kotnik uses for babel, which is not affected (hope he doesn't mind). LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 22:11, 17 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the edit that had caused the trouble. --UV 01:34, 18 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 10:34, 18 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me paetinet![fontem recensere]

Quo modo convertitur "Maximilien Robespierre"?

Maximilianus Robespierre? Vicipedia saepe cognomen non convertit (vide VP:TNP). Vide Philosophia#Hodierna philosophia. LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 23:14, 17 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quippe Maximilianus.--Ioshus (disp) 23:45, 17 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Disputatio Vicipaediae:Categoria#About Categoria:Homines and Categoria:Biographia. --UV 11:44, 19 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a serious project or a joke?[fontem recensere]

The last option would seem more likely. User Rolandus seems to be engaged in a questionable hunt for "vandals". Needless to say, his behaviour would be severely dissaproved by the community of a serious project such as It could even be considered trollish. It is one thing blocking a user for removing his warnings and completely another blocking the user for removing any other content from his talk page and calling this vandalism. The funny thing is that this guy Rolandus did basically the same thing as the blocked user, that is removing comments from his talk page not to mention the fact that he issues bogus warnings for that. Eventually, he seems to have created something similar to the "long term abuse and vandalism" on wikipedia with the only difference that there is no long term abuse. Oh, and don't forget the way user Steve Irwin is cheerfully welcomed by the community despite his outrageous and disrespectful name. Of course, this username would be immediatly blocked on Does that imply that all the things that are not accepted on serious projects take refugee here? And there is more but the point is that here, on, the admins accept and encourage a behaviour considered unacceptable on (and on other wikis too. this would be the first wiki i know who not only does not apply the rules and guidelines of but also goes in a contrary way to them) which raises the question: what's its purpose? is it a playground or an encyclopedia?

  1. I have answered there: Disputatio_Usoris:Rolandus#Several_issues.

correction: you avoided an answer there.-- 20:00, 19 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Please read Vicipaedia:Destructor. Everything is explained there.
--Rolandus 19:35, 19 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very little is explained there and nothing of the current issues.-- 20:00, 19 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And ... please sign your postings. --Rolandus 19:36, 19 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done-- 20:01, 19 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see what his Vicipaedia:Destructor says:

  1. disclosure of personal information about an ip so that they are visible to anyone - nothing to support that.
  2. issuing bogus warnings (to warn a user if you do not agree with his comment) - nothing about that.
  3. blocking user from removing comments which are not warnings from his user page - nothing about that.
  4. admins are above the rules (that is they can do things other users are generally blocked for) - nothing about that.
  5. allowing offensive usernames - nothing about that.
  6. why should ips should be listed for minor issues - nothing to support that

By the way, look how Rolandus justifies posting those personal information: Read Whois, in case you do not know this tool. Letting aside the rudeness, this answer almost made be laugh. So is a joke after all.

Someone wrote: "Oh, and don't forget the way user Steve Irwin is cheerfully welcomed by the community despite his outrageous and disrespectful name." According to MSN's white pages, 141 persons named "Steve Irwin" have addresses in the United States. What's outrageous & disrespectful about their name? IacobusAmor 20:01, 19 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Steve Irwin is the name of a recently deceased personality. According to username policy, this username would be immediatly blocked. Look here. You see the difference between the admins and the ones? Could this be because is a serious project? If you cannot understand that example, let me explain it to you: that user tried to use his real name but he couldn't because it was also the name of a public person (even less known than Steve Irwin).


I am happy that you've found another topic to spend your time. --Rolandus 20:15, 19 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

shall i take it you are trying to turn this into a personal problem?-- 20:20, 19 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Rolandus 20:28, 19 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then you should avoid offtopic comments-- 20:43, 19 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sir. --Rolandus 21:12, 19 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formula:Tiro[fontem recensere]

We have a new template ...

Haec pagina scripta est a tirone, qui nondum Latinitate callidissima utitur.
Usor Latinitatis callidior textum inspiciat, errores corrigat resque auctori explicet.

See {{tiro}}. --Rolandus 22:42, 24 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bene! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:29, 25 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... it was made by Ioshus, I was just the herald. ;-) --Rolandus 10:11, 25 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles deleted[fontem recensere]

What about the articles Numeri Numeros and Verba principalia Palabras Basicas? they have been deleted--Daniel bg 16:11, 25 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They all have been moved to Wikibooks. --Rolandus 16:15, 25 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Rolandus 17:41, 25 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias multas :) --Daniel bg 15:31, 30 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to this Wiki[fontem recensere]

salvete omnes!

Every now and then I trip into your Recent Changes trying to grasp a snapshot of the status encyclopaediae (so sorry I can't collaborate... too much to do in normal life and in two-three wikis...). I just write this lines to greet and virtually shake hands with all those good-willed users who are making this project a serious resource. I'm not joking at all: my not so short experience in both Wikimedia and Latin language affairs lets me see that vandals and trolls are implicitly a "good" sign (interest rising and summoning both good and bad users, with the latter doing more "noise")... I'd like to point out however that until there are no big and blatant forgeries or damage a User should never bite a Sysop, normally engaged in dirty work or countervandalism. To Josh, Roland, UV (where is Tbook?) and to all the contributors of this wonderful Latin Encyclopedia my heartfelt congrats! - εΔω 14:53, 26 Novembris 2006 (UTC)

MOlto grazie, Edoardo!--Ioshus (disp) 15:48, 30 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look. --Rolandus 00:42, 27 Novembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pagina mensis[fontem recensere]

It's about time to discuss which articles should be featured on our main page in the upcoming months! This is the time to propose your personal favorites at Disputatio Formulae:PaginaMensis#proposed pages. Greetings, --UV 01:29, 2 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, UV you are right... what to do?--Ioshus (disp) 18:36, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formulas[fontem recensere]

Iustinus Vicipaedianis spd,

I've still been too busy to hang around much here. So I have trouble keeping up on current developments. So can anyone tell me if we have equivalents to en:template:fact, and/or it's relatives en:template:specify, en:template:citequote, and en:template:verify source? If not, that seems like a good project. It is certainly something that would be useful here. We might also want a template specifically requesting a citation for an unfamiliar but plausible Latin form, now that we are trying to keep such things referenced as well. --Iustinus 20:08, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iustine, the closest we have for quote check is "fontes desiderati" I think misnamed at {{fontes carentes}}. For unfamiliar but plausible we have {{dubsig}}. I agree with you that copying these templates is a very good idea. The more serious we are about it, the more serious our authors will be when writing articles, and the more seriously our readers will take us. Do we have a volunteer? I'm a bit swamped with Specialis:Allmessages at the moment....--Ioshus (disp) 20:37, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I have moved {{fontes carentes}}... =]--Ioshus (disp) 20:44, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will likely have a chance to get this started later today. Not only will this make our authors more serious, but it will also be a nice easy way to ask questions, and (in cases where we don't get answers) to draw attention to things we are uncertain about. It's onething to make up a makeshift translation, but it's an entirely different matter to imply that this should be an "official" translation! --Iustinus 21:00, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agreed. And, like usual, good to have you back (for however long). =]--Ioshus (disp) 21:26, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest to use this <ref>{{template}}</ref> style as with {{fontes desiderati}} not this {{dubsig}} style as in the English WP. I have added some usage hints to {{fontes desiderati}}. Even {{dubsig}} should be changed to that style, maybe. Because, if we want a citation (= ref), it would be a good idea to put the request into a footnote (= ref). --Rolandus 21:40, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case can and shouldn't we just put the <ref> command in the template itself? This would save us some work... on the other hand, <ref>-style footnotes don't show up if you forget to include a <references/> tag, which could argue against this method. Still... it seems like a good idea to me. --Iustinus 22:05, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fear this "ref/references" is a very basic (low level) feature and cannot be wrapped by a template. I played around with it some weeks ago ... I could not make it work ... maybe someone else can. If someone forgets to add the "references", someone else will add it, I hope. If this will not work or if we want to be sure that we have not forgotten a "references" tag, this could be checked with a little piece of software. One advantage of this ref-style is, that we can add as much comment as we want without affecting the layout of the article itself. And the users get used to use notes and references. I hope so. ;-) --Rolandus 22:24, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rolandus, Just to clarify, are you saying that you think it is a good idea in theory to include the ref-tags in the template, but that in practice you don't know how it can be done?
And needless to say, thank you to Ioshus for the welcome. --Iustinus 22:37, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the best solution. In the beginning I wanted to include the ref-tags in the template, but it did not work. Then I thought: Ok, maybe it is better not to include them, because it is more flexible, when you can add comments after the template tags. Or you may want to put more than one template into a single <ref>...</ref>. Other users can add their suggestions within the <ref>...</ref> and when we have got the requested information, we make a cleanup of the <ref>...</ref> and we have (automatically) got a valid reference to a source. I think we should start with the simple templates and add the ref-tags by hand. But I am not sure. --Rolandus 23:31, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I mentioned it in the above post, I figured I should say something here. I fully encourage any and all of you to visit Specialis:Allmessages and if you find a part of the interface that still needs translating, translate it on the MediaWiki Disputatio page (only sysops can change MediaWiki pages themselves) and let me know (or Usor:UV or Usor:Rolandus). I (we) will promptly make the change. Also, if there is anything that is incorrectly or could be better translated, tell me as well (for instance we were treating fasciculus as a neuter noun, and communia as a first declension feminine for a while). I'd like to have the whole interface translated, but it's a tedious project. Any and all help will be appreciated!--Ioshus (disp) 20:41, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there English instructions?[fontem recensere]

I'm OK enough in latin to read much of this stuff, and with a good dictionary and my wheelock's grammar at my side, I don't anticipate any troubles at all if I ever get down to translating some english pages, but I'm not all that keen on reading the "How how edit Vicipaedia" in latin themselves. Is there a simple place for getting the extreme basics taken care of in english? Specifically, is the markup language the same as english wikipedia? Do we have Vicipaedia naming and dating conventions? is it Anno Domini or Ab Urbe Condita? Even if we use AD for Anno Domini, BC isn't latin derived, so what do we use for that? Even some rules for the period of latin to be used would be nice... I was always taught that the genetive singular of "ius" words was just "-i" until around Augustus, but then became "-ii." do we stick with the ususal "-ii"? Is there any sort of "Training manual for those about to leap into Vicipaedia", or do we just immerse ourselves and figure it out as we go along? Thanatosimii 22:12, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be welcomed with {{salve}} ;-) This will answer some of your questions. I am quite sure, Ioshus will visit your talk page soon. ;-) Please ask, when you are missing something. We are using the same software here as in the English Wikipedia, but we do not have all of the templates (yet) and many of them have Latin names. --Rolandus 22:32, 5 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much of that helps; however I suppose it would still be nice to have an English reference in how to begin. Since I suppose noone here has Latin as their primary language, it does seem a little... "over the top", shall we say, to have documentation in Latin. But at least I get more practice trying to read it ;) Thanatosimii 00:51, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Usor:Iustinus/Translator's_Guide appears to be just what I need at the moment. So I think I'll do fine. Thanatosimii 01:14, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of service. In adition to the change you suggested, that page is badly in need of an update.
As for your question about what period of Latin to use, that's really quite flexible. In other wikipedias there is a tendency to use a style of language appropriate to the subject, e.g. when writing about cricket use Brittish spelling, when writing about American Football, use American spelling, when writing about poutine use Canadian spelling, and so on. I tend to want to base my Latin writing style on whatever seems most appropriate to the topic I'm writing about. That said, if you describe the Duenos Inscription in 6th century BC Latin, no one will understand it. Likewise, if you get too Plautine about Plautus, use quia-clauses instead of accusative-infinitive when writing about Biblical topics, people are likely to insist on classicizing it. So I would recommend using this guideline in appropraite doses ;)
And for the same reason, I would recommend genitives in -ii. --Iustinus 02:11, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're killing me, Thanatosimii! I have been working lately to provide more documentation in Latin. This is a Latin wikipedia, as I'm sure is abundantly clear. I agree with, that since no one here is la-N, we should have ample documentation in some of the world's main languages, English, German, Russian, Spanish, Italian (well, I guess the main languages whose ethnic speakers tend to study Latin), but part of the fun of working here is that everything is in latin (or at least is moving in that direction =]), and you can even hold discussion posts in Latin (you merely have to browse a few pages to see disputationes in latin). You'll get the hang of it real quick =].--Ioshus (disp) 04:23, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may get a slightly more English-like background simply by clicking 'praeferentiae meae', and there change 'Lingua tua' from the default Latin to English. (Don't forget to 'servare'!) JoergenB 14:19, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm getting used to the preferences in Latin anyhow, but let me say it's certainly an experience to work around here ;) Thanatosimii 16:31, 6 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are some pages in the Vicipaedia namespace, however, we need more. Most of them have interwiki links, so, in fact we have an English version of them, too. The specialities of this wiki you'll often find on the talk pages and they are mostly written in English. Sometimes someone makes a Latin translation or writes a Latin summary on the page itself. This is highly appreciated, because, as you said, reading this can give you new experiences. ;-) Please, if you have a question, look for an appropriate page in the Vicipaedia namespace where this question can be answered or create a new page if you think we needed this page. It is ok to use English, for example, but on the long run we should have translated these pages to Latin. Even this topic should get a page of its own in the Vicipaedia namespace. A page about what languages should be used here ... This discussion could be a start. --Rolandus 19:24, 7 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kkm, or Cchm? Improper though it is, I kind of favor Kkm as it is an international standard...--Ioshus (disp) 00:30, 7 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The word is chiliometrum, but the abreviation is Km. No weirder that Au for "gold", right? --Iustinus 02:11, 7 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; but the abbreviation is km, never Km. Upper or lower cases sometimes carry different meanings in the scientific measure naming system; e.g., M = mega (a million), but m = milli (a thousandth part).--JoergenB 03:10, 7 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you're right.--Ioshus (disp) 03:50, 7 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contribuenda[fontem recensere]

See Dialectos Langobarda: How could we handle material that should be merged into an article? I tried to manage it with the "div" tag ... --Rolandus 10:03, 10 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tituli Regum[fontem recensere]

Do we have a preferred form for names of kings? I ask because, in redlinks, I've been spreading the form Ricardus I Angliae Rex etc., based on some later English kings for which there is an entry. Meanwhile I see Usor:Massimo Macconi is adopting the form Franciscus I (rex Franciae), no doubt on equally strong precedent. I want to add some real articles for early English kings, now, so which form should I adopt? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:11, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we do not have explicit recommendations yet. But there was a discussion. I've put the links on page Vicipaedia:Titulus#Tituli_regum. --Rolandus 10:35, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. For the present I will adopt the standard of Gulielmus I Angliae Rex because

  1. It follows the precedent of Carolus I Angliae Rex
  2. It contains no parentheses, and really in Latin we don't need parentheses
  3. It follows the real-world precedent of titles as given on English coins

but I shan't mind if a decision is made later to change the standard! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the latter, myself, for the reasons you have mentioned.--Ioshus (disp) 15:08, 16 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. For reference. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica puts only the names in bold caps as the titles of the articles. It first has a short article on the name Charles itself, and this article indicates the order in which the various Charleses go. Then it has the articles. Vicipaedia should plan on eventually having all these Charleses—and more! Use the following as a template for a disambiguation-article if you like; the wordings copied below are quotes (except that small caps in the original are all caps here):
CHARLES II. called THE BALD (823–877), Roman emperor and king of the West Franks
CHARLES III., THE FAT (832–888), Roman emperor and king of the West Franks
CHARLES IV. (1316–1378), Roman emperor and king of Bohemia
CHARLES V. (1500–1558), Roman emperor and (as CHARLES I.) king of Spain
CHALRES VI. (1685–1740), Roman emperor
CHARLES VII. (1697–1745), Roman emperor, known also as Charles Albert, elector of Bavaria
CHARLES I. (1600–1649), king of Great Britain and Ireland
CHARLES II. (1630–1685), king of Great Britain and Ireland
CHARLES I. and II., kings of France. By the French, Charles the Great, Roman emperor and king of the Franks, is reckoned the first of the series of French kings named Charles (see CHARLEMAGNE). Similarly the emperor Charles II. the Bald (q.v.) is reckoned as Charles II. of France. In some enumerations the emperor Charles III. the Fat (q.v.) is reckoned as Charles II. of France, Charlemagne not being included in the list, and Charles the Bald being styled Charles I. <---That's the whole text of this article.
CHARLES III., the Simple (879–929), king of France
CHARLES IV. (1204–1328), king of France, called THE FAIR
CHARLES V. (1337–1380), king of France, called THE WISE <---then four more kings of France named Charles, and then:
CHARLES X. (1757–1836), king of France from 1824 to 1830
CHARLES I. (1288–1342), king of Hungary
CHARLES I. (1226–1285), king of Naples and Sicily and count of Anjou
CHARLES II. (1250–1309), king of Naples and Sicily
CHARLES II. (1332–1387), called THE BAD, king of Navarre and count of Evreux
CHARLES III. (1361–1425), called THE NOBLE, king of Navarre and count of Evreux
CHARLES [KARL EITEL ZEPHYRIN LUDWIG; in Rum. CAROL], king of Rumania (1839– )
CHARLES II. (1661–1700), king of Spain, known among Spanish kings as "The Desired" and "The Bewitched"
CHARLES III. (1716–1788), king of Spain
CHARLES IV. (1748–1819), king of Spain
CHARLES IX. (1550–1611), king of Sweden <---no Swedish kings Charles I–VIII mentioned
CHARLES XI. (1655–1697), king of Sweden
CHARLES XII. (1682–1718), king of Sweden
CHARLES XIII. (1748–1818), king of Sweden and Norway
CHARLES XIV. (1763–1844), king of Sweden and Norway
CHARLES XV. (1826–1872), king of Sweden and Norway
CHARLES (c. 1319–1364), duke of Brittany, known as CHARLES OF BLOIS and CHARLES OF CHATILLON
CHARLES, called THE BOLD (1433–1477), duke of Burgundy
CHARLES, called THE GOOD (le Bon) or THE DANE (c. 1084–1127), count of Flanders
CHARLES I. (c. 950–c. 992), duke of Lower Lorraine
CHARLES II. (d. 1431), duke of Lorraine, called THE BOLD, is sometimes referred to as Charles I.
CHARLES III. or I. (1543–1608), called THE GREAT, duke of Lorraine
CHARLES IV. or III. . . .
CHARLES V. or IV. . . .
CHARLES II. [CHARLES LOUIS DE BOURBON] (1799–1883), duke of Parma <---no Duke Charles I mentioned
CHARLES [KARL LUDWIG] (1771–1847), archduke of Austria and duke of Teschen
CHARLES (1525–1574), cardinal of Lorraine, French statesman
CHARLES [KARL ALEXANDER] (1712–1780), prince of Lorraine
CHARLES (1270–1325), count of Valois, of Maine, and of Anjou
CHARLES (1421–1461), prince of Viana, sometimes called Charles IV. king of Navarre
CHARLES, ELIZABETH (1828–1896), English author
CHARLES, JACQUES ALEXANDRE CESAR (1746–1823), French mathematician and physicist
CHARLES ALBERT [CARLO ALBERTO] (1798–1849), king of Sardinia (Piedmont)
CHARLES AUGUSTUS [KARL AUGUST] (1757–1828), grand-duke of Saxe-Weimar
CHARLES EDWARD [CHARLES EDWARD LOUIS PHILIP CASIMIR STUART] (1720–1788), English prince, called the "Young Pretender" and also the "Young Chevalier"
CHARLES EMMANUEL I. [CARLO EMANUELE] (1562–1630), duke of Savoy
CHARLES MARTEL (c. 688–741), Frankish ruler
2. A stylistic point. Note that most of these articles begin with a sentence having this structure: name (born–died), appositive of highest social rank or other claim to fame, . . . (Sobriquets are sometimes thrown in, in various locations.) The sentence then (not shown above) goes on with a verb that is often not a form of 'to be'. This plan avoids the dullness of making the first sentence of nearly every article say A est/erat/fuit B. I recommend it. IacobusAmor 11:23, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Andrew Dalby writes: "and really in Latin we don't need parentheses." I used to be of this mind as well, but I eventually chenged over, at least for the majority of such pages. The reason is that parentheses allow for wikipedia shorthand: if you type [[Carolus IVs (Nephylococcygiae Rex)|]], the link will automatically come out as [[Carolus IVs (Nephylococcygiae Rex)|Carolus IVs]], which at times can be a real life saver. --Iustinus 02:57, 19 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Id nunquam scivi! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:29, 19 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
News for me, too. I wonder where I was supposed to pick this up, and how many other 'life savers' I have no idea about :-(
Another reason for the parentheses is the fairly fixed extra names or nicknames in some cases. E.g., Carolus X Gustavus Sueciae Rex or Carolus X Gustavus, Sueciae Rex, IMO is more clumsy than Carolus X Gustavus (Sueciae Rex). (Besides, I'd prefer the non-capitalised 'rex'; but this may be an effect of my republican POV:-). However, Encyclopaedia Britannica uses 'king', not 'King'; vide supra.) Georgius B 21:33, 20 Decembris 2006 (UTC) (nota bene meum agnomen latinum novum)[reply]
Tiny point (which I should point out): I don't recommend the tradition of putting a period after Roman numerals (which, as you see, the old Britannica does, and German still often does).

For the (often hidden) titles of the articles, I recommend parentheses, as Georgius B suggests, not least because that's already the style for many, many disambiguations; however, for the display text of all but the shortest articles, I prefer the style of the Britannica, as copied above. Note that only birthyears & deathyears are given in parentheses: the full dates follow, later in the article. If a complete text is never going to be more than two or three sentences (because that's all the information that history provides, as with many early popes), then maybe the whole dates should go inside the parentheses, but all readers need at the start of ordinary articles is the years. Except for a few quirks (the capitalization of the titles of the articles, the period after Roman numerals), the style of the Britannica looks eminently readable while remaining tersely informative. IacobusAmor 22:22, 20 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going to do some early English kings tonight. Iustinus's point is a good one (as usual) so, following Massimo's example, I will adopt the parenthetical style (rex Angliae). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:41, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have created entries from Alfredus (rex Anglorum) to Henricus VI (rex Angliae) inclusive. All they have at the moment is simple succession boxes and Interwiki links, but at least they are there. I will put some words in gradually (unless others do it first!) The different form (Anglorum/Angliae) distinguishes the Saxon kings from the Norman and after: this is actually the title that Alfred took and that his successors used, so it seems appropriate.
For the Saxon kings, spelling is a problem. I took the most Latin-like form in the text of en:William of Malmesbury. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:36, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, more information on the "lifesaver" is given at en:Help:Pipe trick. There's a lot in there that, like Georgius, I had no idea about. --Iustinus 22:01, 2 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we start to move numbers into one page. Roman numerals shall redirect to Arabic. Arabic numbers shall cover both year, and any relevant mathematical/trivial data. We shall ordain a proper order for the presentation of year and said other properties. This is consistent with our policy on Numeri Romani, and avoids the embarassing gaps in the current system. What do y'all think?--Ioshus (disp) 05:34, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter to me. How would you go about it though? Alexanderr 05:37, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me reword some of that...look at 1, I, Unus. Here's what I think should happen:

  1. Shall disclaim about the year and link first to unus, then to I
  2. Shall talk about the year, natales, mortales. natales and mortales.
  1. If it happens to be a letter of the alphabet, ie V,X,D,L,C,M, etc will first say that they are what cardinal numer in the alphabet and whether they are a consonant, vowel, semivowel, whatever.
  2. The Roman numeral this represents with links to Arabic and spelled out forms.
  3. Any other abbreviations.
  1. Shall disclaim about the number, and have links at top redirecting first to year, then to Roman.'
  2. Can't hurt to keep declension for unus, duo, and tres.
  3. Mathematical properties.

--Ioshus (disp) 16:30, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would be ok for me. It seems to mirror the actual consense. --Rolandus 22:59, 27 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See {{deanno}}, {{denumero}}, and {{denumeroromano}}.--Ioshus (disp) 23:03, 27 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking over it, maybe we should make a difference between 0, 1, 2, 3, ... 500, ..., 666, ... 1964.
  1. The page with the Arabic number should always be about the year (we have a consensus abut this), years should always be written in Arabic numbers, not in Roman numbers (that's the consensus).
  2. The Roman numbers below 2000 should generally (there are some exceptions) redirect to the Arabic number because they mostly indicate a year.
  3. For the exceptions the Roman number might be a discretiva page or a redirect to a discretiva page: I, V, C, MM, MMM, ...
  4. The page about the year (it is Arabic), should mention the Roman number as well, but that Roman number should not be linked on that year page.
  5. When we want to tell more about an Arabic number, we should use the postfix "numerus", like 1 (numerus), 2 (numerus), 666 (numerus), ...
  6. When a Roman number could be a littera, we should use "littera", like I (littera), D (littera), ...
  7. An Arabic number plus "annus" should be a redirect to the Arabic number, but mostly we will not need pages like 1776 (annus).
  8. When we want to have a page about a Roman number, maybe about how "M" developed, we might write M (numerus). We do not need "(numerus Romanus)" here. This might be a "real" page or just a redirect to 1000 (numerus).
  9. For consistency, when we have several pages, we should always have a discretiva page with "(discretiva)". Then we needed just one type of disambiguation template: This page is about the year/number/letter/... xxxx. For other uses see xxxx (discretiva).
  10. For the users convenience we can additionally have the proposed templates {{deanno}}, {{denumero}}, ... because they save some mouseclicks: In fact it is the content of the corresponding discretiva page.
  11. The discretiva page can become complicated sometimes, since it should cover all the variants. I mean, the logical variants. So 500 (discretiva) should also mention D (numerus and maybe even D (littera) (in section vide etiam). Same for D (discretiva).
  12. This discussion should be moved to the Vicipaedia namespace. ;-)
--Rolandus 10:46, 28 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See 1000 as an example. --Rolandus 11:27, 28 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Roman numbers automatically be included? {{Decennium|7|VII}}? --Alex1011 22:38, 28 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Alex. See Disputatio Usoris:Amphitrite.--Ioshus (disp) 22:42, 28 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian names, Medici in particular[fontem recensere]

I ask me if is not better to let the italian name (cognome), because italians names are already relics of an old genitive (e.g Marchetti from "figlio di Marchetto" in Latin filius Marchetti), therefore it makes no sense to translate them in Latin. See Gerhard Rohlfs, Grammatica storica della Lingua italiana e dei suo dialetti, vol. "morfologia", nota n° 1 pag. 8: about the origin of the italian names "l'autore si pronuncia qui per un genitivo nato e consolidato nel linguaggio degli avvocati", the author believes that it is a type of genitive created in the language of lawyers". Should we move the pages i.g Silvio Berlusco to Berlusconi? Ciao --Massimo Macconi 11:04, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC) P.S I reproduce the page on wiki taberna[reply]

I have created Vicipaedia:Coining that might - a bit - fit to that topic. ;-) --Rolandus 11:14, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many Italian surnames have Latin forms attested in the Renaissance and later. See my comments on Laurentius Medices (Lorenzo de' Medici) elsewhere. Aren't there hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of ecclesiastical records—baptisms, weddings, burials, etc.—that attest Latin versions of Italian surnames? IacobusAmor 11:33, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Città capoluoghi di Provincia in Italia/Urbes quae sunt capita Provinciarum italicarum[fontem recensere]

Segnalo un'imprecisione riscontrata nell'elenco delle città capoluoghi di Provincia italiani. Laus Pompeia - che fu Municipum romano e poi libero Comune medioevale - NON corrisponde all'attuale Lodi, capoluogo dell'omonima Provincia in Lombardia (Italia), bensì a Lodi vecchio. L'antico Municipium fu DISTRUTTO nell'Aprile 1158 dalle truppe del Comune di Milano. La città fu poi RICOSTRUITA nell'Agosto del medesimo anno VARI CHILOMETRI A EST, sulla riva destra dell'Adda, per ordine dell'Imperatore Federico I Barbarossa: la nuova edificazione prese il nome di Laus Nova, poi passato semplicemente in Laus e di qua nell'italiano Lodi. Perciò, Laus Pompeia, anche in Vicipaedia, NON può essere considerata l'odierna Lodi: i due centri sono di fondazione differente, esiste fra loro una marcata discontinuità ed attualmente formano due Comuni territorilmente distinti. Perciò, a mio parere, nella lista dei capoluoghi di Provincia italiani («urbs-stipula») andrebbe sostituita la voce Laus Pompeia con Laus Nova (tutt'al più con semplice Laus). Comprendendo che la mia asserzione vada comprovata, segnalo che la distruzione e la ricostruzione del 1158 (con la segnalazione dei due diversi siti dei due diversi insediamenti), è descritta nell'opera di OTTONE MORENA, Cronaca, a cura di FERDINAND GÜTERBOCK, nella collana Monumenta Germanie Historica, Scriptores, Nova Series, 7, 1930, reperibile anche fuori d'Italia. Si consultino anche le voci «Lodi» e «Lodi vecchio» su Wikipedia italiana. Rimango a disposizione dei curatori di Vicipaedia per ulteriori chiarimenti e/o fornitura di referenze bibliografiche. Grazie a coloro che collaboreranno.

Translatio in lingua latina:

Signum facio de errore in tabula urbum quae sunt capita Provinciarum italicarum. Laus Pompeia - quae Municipum romanum fuit, deinde Mediae Aetatis Comune - NON est hodierna Lodi, hodie eodem nomine Provinciae caput in Langobardia italica regione, sed Lodi vecchio est. Antiquum Municipium anno 1158 a Mediolanense exercitu DELETUM est. Post haec, urbs mense Sextile eiusdem anni RURSUS AEDIFICATA est in sito ALIQUOT MILIBUS Oriente distante, super Adduae dexteram ripam, Imperatore Federico Primo Barbarossa iubente: nova aedificatio LAUS NOVA appellata est, deinde Laus hincque italice Lodi. Ob eam rem, etiam in Vicipaedia Laus Pompeia hodierna Lodi reputari NON potest: duae urbes differentes sunt sub iudicio fundationis, continuationis etiamque hodiernae loci distinctionis. Mea igitur sententia, in tabula urbum quae sunt capita Provinciarum italicarum («urbs-stipula») Laus Pompeia nomen in LAUDE NOVA (aut summum simpliciter LAUDE) emendandum esset. Cum mea verba cumprobandam reputarem, refero ut de anni 1158 deletione rursumque aedificatione (cum loco de differentium urbum differentibus sitis) mentionem facit OTTONIS MORENAE, Cronaca, curata a FERDINAND GÜTERBOCK, in serie Monumenta Germanie Historica, Scriptores, Nova Series, 7, 1930, quae etiam extra Italia reperitur. Paginae quoque «Lodi» atque «Lodi vecchio» in Wikipedia italica utiles sunt. Vicipaediae curatoribus praesto sum pro explicandibus et/aut librorum locis demonstRandibus. Gratiae auxiliaturis.

--Davide Tansini 18:18, 17 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What language should messages on talk pages/public discussions be in? I noticed that this page's messages switched between Latin and English, but is one language preferred over another? Thank you, PullToOpen 02:43, 18 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debeo Latine scribere, sed Anglice scribo. Even on other Wikipedias, talk page messages are sometimes in unexpected languages, so I hope it's forgivable if that happens here too sometimes ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:23, 18 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Debes cui scribeas gnoscere. Eg, si vis mi scribere, Latine libenter scribe, et Latine responsum dabo. At omnes non possunt, et credo plures bene Anglice loqui quam Latine. Immo re vera, sunt qui Latine loquuntur, non Anglice. Ita, saepe si nuntium habeo quem ut alii legant volo, Latine Angliceque scribo.--Ioshus (disp) 01:08, 19 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The unofficial policy has always been (and I assume still is) that on talk pages and the taberna you can use whatever language you want (though obviously you should pick a language your correspondant can read!). The vast majority of such discussion is in English and Latin. --Iustinus 03:01, 19 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serissississimum esse[fontem recensere]

Currently in Vicipaedia:

Sanctus Thomas Morus Anglice More, Anglicus advocatus, eques, inclytae civitatis Londinensis civis et Vicecomes, Angliae regni Cancellarius, Utopiae auctor, vir civilis, doctus et politicus, amicus Erasmo, amabilis pater, sanctus et martyr, homo omnium horarum erat.

After all those appositives, what my ear expects is a nonstative continuation, perhaps something like: ". . . homo omnium horarum, natus est die [blablabla]." Where are these late placements of forms of esse coming from? IacobusAmor 22:35, 18 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found to have been added by usor to Vicipaedia on 22 December 2006:

Pupa (etiam pupula ) crepundia, quae humana videntur et ad puellas ludendas fiunt, est.

Why does this placement of copulative esse seem like plausible syntactic rhythm? IacobusAmor 13:05, 23 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Latina[fontem recensere]

In recenti fasciculo "Vocis Latinae" quiddam Udalricus Volfgangus Richter de vicipaedia Latina benevolens refert, sed etiam dicit: "Non omne lemma mendis liberum et excellenter scrpitum est." --Alex1011 10:38, 19 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Udalricus ille est Usor:Lupambulus noster. Paene eam commentationem cum illo conscripsi, sed proh dolor non potuimus inter se litteras commutare, aliqua re computatrali obstante. Commentationem illam legere debebo! --Iustinus 00:16, 21 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad disputationem usquam habitam:

Romani tempore perfecto constativo usos esse videntur sicut: Albertus rex fuit (exspectes "erat" imperfectum durativum). Haec exempla inveni apud Cornelium Nepotem de viris illustribus:

II. Themistocles: Pater eius Neocles generosus fuit.
III. Aristides aequalis fere fuit Themistocli.
IV. Pausanias magnus homo, sed varius in omni genere vitae fuit.
V. Cimon duro admodum initio usus est adulescentiae.
VI. Lysander magnam reliquit sui famam.
XIV: Datames primum militum numero fuit apud Artaxerxen eorum qui regiam tuebantur.
Et alia. --Alex1011 19:26, 22 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same in (literary) French. If you're writing about the life of a dead person, you normally write "il fut", not "il etait" (sorry I can't be bothered with the accents on this laptop). But if you are saying "at a particular date he joined the army, and at that date he had black hair", then, for the second verb, you'll use the imperfect: "il avait les cheveux noirs". Just the same in Latin. I think. (Now someone will correct me.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:24, 24 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That agrees with my instinct to differentiate these kinds of thoughts:
Ille fuit praeses Mexici.
Ille erat praeses Mexici ab 1988 ad 1994.
But I await further evidence. (As a sideline: strong prose mostly avoids esse, because passages that boil down to "A is B; C is D; E is F; G is H" make us want to stop reading.) IacobusAmor 16:45, 24 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8000 paginae[fontem recensere]

Have a look at Historia Vicipaediae Latinae. :-) --Rolandus 16:55, 26 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will need to start working on a fancy 10,000 article Vicipaedia picture for the top left corner, soon...--Ioshus (disp) 19:28, 26 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TOO LATE! --Iustinus 20:39, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Numerals[fontem recensere]

You know, since the issue of Roman Numerals keeps coming up again and again, perhaps we should put a warning right in the edit-box text. --Iustinus 20:39, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.--Ioshus (disp) 22:04, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Names[fontem recensere]

For ages I've been meaning to work on pages on the Latin equivalents of vernacular given names. The main reason I've never done so is: I have no idea what the criteria should be for which names I include. Making a list of every name and its Latin equivalents would be a real headache, both to create, and to monitor afterwards. But if I only pick "important" ones, how do I chose which ones make the cut and which don't? This is especially complicated when one consideres the question of different languages: it makes sense to have separate pages for each vernacular language, and which names are important will naturally vary from one to the other. Anyone have any bright ideas for how to organize such a page, or how otherwise to make the project manageable? --Iustinus 20:39, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Disputatio:Index nominum covers some aspects of this question. We could even have a list of 20.000 names. It might be organized on subpages AA to ZZ(= 676 pages). So it is technically possible to maintain 20.000 elements. The list should have just links to the pages, the information should be at the target page. If we decided for this Wikipedia that information about "names" is "relevant" we will not have these annoying relevancy disputes which other Wikipedias have. I think etymological information is very important for this Wikipedia, this is a point where we are different. Maybe not the etymology of common words like "domus", "rex" etc. but the etymology of first names or names of cities, countries, places etc. We should avoid that one user creates an article about the name of a city and another user deletes it because of minor "relevancy". We should state that names are relevant for us. Such pages might get a special category and might get a special template. It should be ok to have a page which says "XXX" ist the old name for "YYY" even where we never will have a page about "YYY". For names where we will not have a page, we could add the etymology to the list entry. However, when we ever create a page for that entry the etymological information should be moved to the page. Just to avoid redundancy and to make it easier to maintain the information. Common terms from other languages could be written in italic and should refer to the Latin entry/page. As said on page Disputatio:Index nominum we should simply start and then we will find out the best strategy for maintaining such information. The most important point: We should clearly say that we want such information here. Even if people from other Wikipedias might think that it is "irrelevant". --Rolandus 17:19, 6 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I definitely agree. This information is very valuable and very relevant. Futue alias Vicipaedias! =]--Ioshus (disp) 17:25, 6 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was a major debate here a couple years ago. Where were you then? ;) --Iustinus 16:19, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with having 20,000 names is that it would be impossible to control. It would be nice to use names that are supported by either historical figures, Egger, or... er... people at the Conventiculum ( ;) ), but if the list becomes too long it's invariably going to end up attracting uncorrected (and maybe iven uncorrectable) junk. Furthermore, as the list stands now, it is not designed to equate Latin forms with vernacular equivalents (and even less the converse) --Iustinus 16:19, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this list should be just a collection of entry points to articles about names. We need not to care much about the correctness of the various entry points, because they should point to articles where we find the information with the sources. Just the articles are important and each article will cover many of the entry points. BTW: A redirect should tell nothing. If there is a redirect from AAA to BBB, this should not mean anything. What it means should be explcitly mentioned on Page BBB. AAA might be a typo etc. In the long run we should have articles about each topic we want to have. Then we will not need such lists, because the names will shop up in category "Nomina". It is just easier to start with this list. Users can add names (= questions) and according to the question, the link will be the answer:
  • Correct Latin names will link to an article about this Latin name.
  • False Latin names will link to the correct name and the wrong name will not be mentioned on the target page.
  • Names from other pages will be redirected to the article about the Latin name and the name from the other language will hopefully be mentioned on the target page.
  • Variants of names will redirect to the main article about this name and the variants will hopefully be mentioned in the main article.

At least every name which is mentioned in this Wikipedia should have either a page or a redirect. I do not suggest to maintain this huge list for correctness, just the referred articles should be exspected to be correct. When these articles about names will be of value, we will have more users who will use and monitor them. At the moment it would be hard to monitor so many pages. But I think if it's of value, it will be used and attract users who will monitor these pages. I think this could be a special field where we could archieve competence. If it works, we will have the helpers to do this task. And I think, we will not have 20.000 entries very soon. But I understand what you mean. This is just an idea for a solution. It is based on the idea that the number of competent users will grow. Maybe we will have to semi-protect these pages, to protect them against overeager vistors, but I think the registered users will keep these pages accurate. --Rolandus 17:48, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roland, I don't begrudge you this project, but I'm not really sure I understand it. Many of the name pages you have created are very poor Latinizations. I understand that in your vision such pages would link to the correct name, but you're not really able to do that yourself, and when do you think the rest of us will get around to it? Sorry to sound critical, it's just that I can barely find the time for wikipedia nowadays anyway, and I worry this will never get dealt with. Plus, pages like that might give incorrect names undue legitimacy in the eyes of tirones. Another issue is that I have generally put east Asian names in their traditional order (surname first, given name after), and on those pages you have pretty consistantly interpreted the surname as a given name. And should such names get their own articles anyway, given that they are not really Latin? --Iustinus 17:29, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a project. Not my project. Just the attempt to improve the correctness and maintainability of Latin names for men and women. I collected names which have been used here or which are listed in the Victionarium. They might be wrong. But they are in use. I thought, making a list would be a first step towards correcting the mistakes. The second step would be creating pages for the list entries. The third step would be cleaning up these pages: providing interwiki links, redirecting wrong spellings to the correct page, providing sources. When we do not have a primary page where to look for the correct spelling, people - especially tirones - might take any random page as source and might even introduce errors again that have been corrected before. I do not believe that the entries in the list are correct and I do not believe that the given examples are correct: They are in use. That's all. The created pages make mistakes more obvious, but this is intended. The created pages provide a talk page for discussing the errors and someone might provide sources there. As I said, this list does not legitimate a name. Even the creation of a page does not legitimate a name. Just sources or an explicit note might do that. When someone trusts an information which lacks sources, this is his own risk. It should be clear that such a page is work in progress. We might even use a template to stress this. Ok, Cano is wrong, you told me that. So I moved it to Zigoro. Jintao should be a given name after that. I cannot see more East Asian names in the list. At the moment this list covers most of the names which are currently in use. The list does not make any statement about the correctness of these names. Sometimes a star indicates that it might be a foreign name. Some of the created pages are linked via vide etiam. They might need a {{contribuenda}}. Concerning the question whether foreign names should get their own article, I'd say yes, in case we use them. The page could tell, that a latinization is not possible or appropriate. — Now, what shall we do with that list and those pages? (Btw, in the discussion above - the 20.000 entries - I was not talking about names of people, but about names of locations.) --Rolandus 23:29, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't have time for a full response, but yeah, a template seems like a logical answer to my concerns. --Iustinus 00:31, 16 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goethe[fontem recensere]

Hello, I would like to write a new, much longer article about Johann Wolfgang von Goethe translating the German article. But I don't know how to decline the name "Goethe". For example if I wanted to say "Goethe's father", should I say "pater Goethiani" or "pater Goethensis" or do you have a better idea? Tell me your ideas, please.

For that reason, I think, you have "Ioannes Goethe" so you can decline Ioannes Goethe, Ioannis Goethe, Ioanni Goethe etc. --Alex1011 20:15, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And remember that you can refer to the famous man using a form of ille (and other locutions) if necessary. Often in prose, the subject is obvious (being marked in the verb), and doesn't require even that much reiteration. For "Goethe's father," you can say merely pater, unless somebody else's father is also in play (in which case suus pater and eius pater can distinguish between the fathers). IacobusAmor 20:22, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to IacobusAmor's points, I feel sure that I have seen modern Latin authors add an oblique case termination to a foreign name even if they wouldn't add a nominative termination. Thus Goetheum, Goethei, Goetheo would be OK in the text, even if we don't give his name as Goetheus. Can anyone else confirm this? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:54, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless we have a source in latin on Goethe (and there must be!), that would be in violation of VP:TNP, which, until now, we have been enforcing, or trying, rather strictly (it's a good thing there's no VP:Don't use runon sentences =]). I think Ioannes/Ioannis is the best policy. The other suggestions aren't bad, either. Iacobus' suggestions are good, too.--Ioshus (disp) 22:27, 14 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I am introducing a red herring. OK, it's no doubt better not to follow the practice I mention unless we have a specific example, already in print, to cite. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:01, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any of the following: Pater Ioannis Goethe, illius Goethe, Domini Goethe, and so on. Andrew is right about some later neo-Latin sources introducing declention to otherwise indeclinable names, but Ioshus is also right that we shouldn't do that ourselves without good reason. --Iustinus 17:29, 15 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your ideas. Now, I`ll try to write the article.

Pagina Mensis[fontem recensere]

Since the Wikipedia is getting larger is it possible that we can have a page of the week or half month (fortnight for those of you who live in the UK)? Alexanderr 21:02, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vote would be against this: we already have trouble finding 12 articles worthy of front-page inclusion as it is. I mean, perhaps the added pressure would create more brilliant prose, but I'm inclined to think it woudl have the opposite effect. Afterall, I'm sure all of us have "real life" concerns to deal with as well. In fact, it is most likely that I will have to force myself not to work on Vicipaedia from around January 10 until late March. Argh! --Iustinus 21:11, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of mixed opinion. I would like to have a page of the fortnight, but at the same time I agree with Iustinus that we really don't have a ton of FA quality material. Remember, 2800 of our pages are years!! =] --Ioshus (disp) 22:06, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, right this moment there isn't a page, not even a bio-stipula, for Saddamus Hussein (who, if CNN is to be believed, has fewer than five hours to live). IacobusAmor 22:21, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saddamus Hussein, olim dux Iraquiae, mox suspendendus.--Ioshus (disp) 22:53, 29 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decennia pages[fontem recensere]

Rodrigobeltransuito asked, whether we should create these Decennia pages. Other Wikipedias have them. On the long run we should have them too. Are you ready for about 200 new pages? ;-) --Rolandus 15:44, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have all the days of the year, too? This is 366 pages... =]--Ioshus (disp) 16:03, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have. I had the missing days on page Vicipaedia:Paginae desideratae until some weeks ago. --Rolandus 16:21, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, Rolande! Not all of them... 29 Februarii. =] --Ioshus (disp) 16:34, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You were speaking of 366. Now we have 367 pages. ;-) --Rolandus 16:39, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...only 200? ;-) -Amphitrite 20:01, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...done --Amphitrite 14:42, 1 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow ... thank you! --Rolandus 15:26, 1 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking first names[fontem recensere]

Would it be a good idea to link first names? See Georgius Christopherus Lichtenberg. The advantage: A blue link would indicate, that the latinization is correct. The disadavantage: The lemma is not black any more. --Rolandus 17:47, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the lemma to be black, personally. Furthermore there are some names that have several latin names (sure we can have redirects) but soundness of latin will not be assured by blueness. it seems cluttered to me.--Ioshus (disp) 17:50, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More accurately, a red link won't assure the unsoundness of latinitas. I'm wary of this idea.--Ioshus (disp) 17:52, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe it's better to cleanup the index nominum. ;-) --Rolandus 19:24, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other remarks aside: Technically, blue boldface is perfectly possible and simple to achieve: Georgius Christopherus Lichtenberg.--Georgius B 21:09, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a list of all pages we have in category "homines" and attached a red background to it. Some inconsistencies in naming our pages can be seen now. This temporary list might help in improving our list of first names. --Rolandus 18:30, 30 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the homines-list to Usor:Rolandus/temp/Index paginarum hominum. --Rolandus 15:28, 1 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a template for pages where the content is "in dubio" or "corrigenda". Analoguous to our templates that deal with the latinitas of a page. See Nissa. --Rolandus 15:56, 31 Decembris 2006 (UTC)[reply]

en:Template:Roman[fontem recensere]

... calculates Roman numbers, see Vicipaedia:Numeri_Romani#Nexus_externus. --Rolandus 15:40, 1 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See {{Roman}}. --Rolandus 17:21, 2 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calendarium 2007[fontem recensere]

Someone would have to fix the calendar templates to have the properly Orodo dierum, it is still in 2005!! -- Rodrigobeltransuito

Just copy/paste or handmade? At least contribuenda ... --Rolandus 07:10, 3 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columnae typographicae[fontem recensere]

Seeing the columns in the article "Ich bin ein Berliner" reminds me of something I've been wanting to say for a long time: the main textblock used for articles is way too wide for comfortable reading: in this typesize, forcing the eye to jump from the far right to the far left while dropping down exactly one line strains the eyes. For centuries (according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica), English & Continental typesetters have maintained that the most readable linewidth, in any font, is around "two and a half alphabets,"


This is only a little wider than the ideal Roman textblock, which, if I remember rightly, approximated the length of the hexameter:


Vicipaedia's current textblock is about seven alphabets wide:


By the standards of traditional typography, this isn't merely bad: it's hideous. Is there a way of giving users the option of putting text on their screens in any number of columns, especially from two to four? or the option of, say, tripling all typesizes? IacobusAmor 12:41, 3 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, and to approach the situation from a different angle, look at newspapers, which live or die by the number of readers they attract. They have a powerful motive to make their typography pleasing to the eye and their texts easy to read. The Wall Street Journal is set in four to six columns. Here are the first lines of paragraphs in yesterday's paper, laid end to end, first from a four-column page and then from a six-column page:

Their peaceable parting marks a triumph of|During this time, Meghan, now 23, has been|Many eating-disorder advocacy groups re-|In an effort to get insurance carriers to cover
By focusing on catching the|The focus on detecting the|While accurate data are hard|When insurance runs out,|Advocacy efforts also appear|However, various versions

As you see, the entire width of the newspaper is less than that of the textblock of the current Vicipaedia—yet it's divided into four to six columns. Newspapers are in the business of attracting readers. Paying attention to their design could help attract readers to Vicipaedia. IacobusAmor 13:08, 3 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the user decides the actual width of the textblock by adjusting the window size. Therefore, if as you say the maximum width is 7 alphabets, that leaves the user free to choose any text width up to that maximum. In addition, via the browser a user can change the typesize. That's much better, and more "accessible", than having the decisions made by Wikipedia. But perhaps I have misunderstood your point? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:52, 3 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succession box[fontem recensere]

I need a two-to-one succession box. I don't think we have this template yet, have we? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:19, 3 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created one: {{Arca successionis duo ad unum}}. Greetings, --UV 23:04, 3 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How nice to have someone around who can make templates! Thanks Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:06, 4 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the 10,000th Article?[fontem recensere]

I can't find a Vicipaedia:Legatio (Wikipedia:Embassy) page here like the other Wikipedias have so I'll ask here: What was the 10,000th article? Thanks in advance. -- 23:13, 3 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be anticlimactic, but I think it was a year page... There were many that day. It was something that had needed to be done a long time. All wikipedias have that stock 3500 articles or sol years from 1000bc-2100ad, days, decades, months. We just created ours last week, instead of when we started up...--Ioshus (disp) 05:40, 4 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now we have a Legatio.--Ioshus (disp) 01:20, 9 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language name[fontem recensere]

Can we move Lingua Scotica to Lingua Gadelica Scotica? It needs a magistrate to do this, apparently. The reason for doing it is that the term lingua Scotica is really needed for en:Scots, for which we don't yet have an article (though we do have a userbox, Formula:Usor sco-3, which is at present wrongly linked to the redirect page Lingua Gadelica Scotica). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:58, 4 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted Lingua Gadelica Scotica which redirected to Lingua Scotica. Now you can move Lingua Scotica as intended. --Rolandus 17:07, 4 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias tibi ago, Rolande! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:25, 4 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This move was wrong, and based on ignorance of actual Latin usage. Bede or Adomnán anyone? Fordun? Bower? Medieval charters? In this encyclopaedia supposed to be a Latin encyclopedia, or an English encyclopaedia in Latin? Mr. Tickles 02:12, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bring in the Bede, Adomnán, Fordon, Bower, and Medieval charters. We love getting good citations, and they will definitely improve the articles. But I'm not entirely sure what you mean by ignorance of anctual Latin usage. If you mean that gadelica is not a word, I suggest you try these links: [1] [2] [3]. If, on the other hand, you mean that lingua Scotica has traditionally refered to Gàidhlig rather than to "Doric," well then I would counter that no matter what you do there are two Scottish languages, and at least one of them is going to need a disambiguating Gadelica or Anglica, so what does it really matter which one? Honestly, the more I think of this, the more it seems like maybe they BOTH should be disambiguated. --Iustinus 02:51, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Gadelica or Gaedelica is in use, but it is a neologism. Scotica was the medieval term (sometimes Albanica was used, e.g. in the Life of St Kentigern). Readers should know that virtually every use of the word Scotica before the modern period will denote Scottish or Irish Gaelic. If there should be a dab, it should be to make clear that it could refer to Scottish and Irish Gaelic collectively period they were separate concepts. Bede, HE 1.1:
Haec in praesenti, iuxta numerum librorum, quibus lex diuina scripta est, quinque gentium linguis, unam eandemque summae ueritatis et uerae sublimitatis scientiam scrutatur, et confitetur, Anglorum uidelicet, Brettonum (Welsh) , Scottorum (Gaelic) , Pictorum (Pictish) et Latinorum (Latin) , quae meditatione scripturarum ceteris omnibus est facta communis.[4]
Or HE 3.6:
Denique omnes nationes et prouincias Brittaniae, quae in IIII linguas, id est Brettonum, Pictorum, Scottorum, et Anglorum, diuisae sunt, in dicione accepit.[5]
Just do word searches to see further usage of the word. Or look to Adomnán, VC, 1.1:
Sed et hoc etiam non praetereundum videtur, quod ejusdem beati viri per quaedam Scoticae linguae laudum ipsius carmina, et nominis commemorationem, quidam ...[6]
or VC 1.14:
Prophetia beati viri de filio Dermiti regis qui Aidus Slane lingua nominatus est scotica[7]
Or VC 3.23:
In illo namque monasterio quod Scotica nominatur lingua Cloni-finchoil, quidam homo erat sanctus, senex Christi miles, qui Lugudius vocitabatur, filius Tailchani, justus et sapiens.[8]
Or centuries later in Fordun (late 1300s)-Bower (1440s):
Mores autem Scotorum secundum diversitatem linguarum variantur; duabus enim utuntur linguis, Scotica videlicet et Theutonica, cuius linguae gens maritimas possidet et planas regiones, Scoticae vero montanas inhabitat et insulas ulteriores.[9]
As for charters, could go on forever, but try Registrum episcopatus Moraviensis p. 16:
... ad locum qui dicitur Wardelau, Scotice Balabrach[10]
Or the Liber S. Thome De Aberbrothoc, v. 2, p. 539:
cum terra eiusdem ecclesie que Scotice abthen vocatur[11]
Or else, Liber Insule Missarum, p. 62, :
... in propria perfona perambulaui scilicet a petario de Rossy qui Scotice dicitur Pethach[12] ...
And that I think is enough for now. Mr. Tickles 04:11, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is great stuff, Mr. Tickles. We'll want to incorporate it somehow or another into the articles. Now, this raises the question: do you know of any Latin references to Scots English? --Iustinus 07:28, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cool! I just followed a link from en:Scots language. There are some Latin references to Scots quoted in Lingua Nostra Vulgari: Scots as a European Language 1500-1700, including one which uses the words "Scotico sermone" (Note that the article was obviously scanned in, and contains numerous OCR errors, especially in the Latin). This is as I suspected: if a language is called Scotica you don't have any way of knowing which Scottish language is being refered to. If you can prove me wrong, honestly I will be pleased. --Iustinus 07:39, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, calm down Mr. Tickles, if you have good info, we'll be sure to listen. But it helps if you don't go calling people ignorant, then they may not be so eager to help... We have plenty of people around here who are extremely knowledgeable in many fields. Certainly because we have not studied the niche on the particulars of the two Scots languages in the Latin tongue does not make us ignorant, surely =]. --Ioshus (disp) 03:06, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No-one was called "ignorant", Ioshe. Phrase used was "based on ignorance of actual Latin usage"; one is offensive in English, one isn't. Here knowledge of English is useful, and I mean no offence by that sir. Mr. Tickles 04:11, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, let me teach you an interesting fact about language: in addition to literal meanings of individual words and expressions, sentences also have things called "tone" and "subtext." For an example, take my last sentence: there was nothing offensive in the literal meaning, yet it was totally condescending, and conceivably insulting :p
Rest assured that, like you, I mean no offense either, sir. And I really mean this: it is clear that you know your stuff, and we like people who know their stuff. But you seem to be coming accross as rather brusque, at least to me. Perhaps once we've gotten to know each other this will be less of a problem. --Iustinus 07:28, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After all the excitement, what's happened to the brief article about Scots? Has it been made to disappear? At present lingua Scotica, though listed as a Germanic language under linguae mundi, is redirected to the article about Gaelic.
Ah, now I've got it. It's at lingua Scotica (Anglica). I don't think that title will do in the long run, because it may appear to be POV; though admittedly it depends whether you understand Anglica to mean "English" [POV] or "of the Angles" [historically correct].
I agree with Iustinus that both titles will need clarification, if using lingua Scotica for Scots is controversial. I still think that "lingua Gadelica Scotica" is the best and most intuitive way of specifying Scottish Gaelic/Scots Gaelic (as it is often called in English). The obvious parallel term for Scots would be "lingua Germanica Scotica", and I did wonder about that originally, but thought it unnecessarily complicated. Other views? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:18, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can see that the Fordun/Bower passage uses Scotica for Gaelic and Theutonica (medieval Latin for "German") for Scottish English. References to Scottish English as "Scotica" are rare, late and the product of taking from the vernacular to Latin. Scotica, on the other hand, was originally a Latin - meaning Gaelic, from Scotus (=a Gael, or "Irishman") - word borrowed into the vernacular. It is arguable that Lingua Scotica could be a dab page, but it cannot be argued that it should point to what in English is now called "Scots", since this is in direct contradiction to the usage of the principle Latin authorities. The real question is, should reflect actual classical and medieval Latin usage, or should it just reflect the usage of one modern language (nb. fr:Écossais). My suggestion for Scots should be Lingua Scotica (Anglica), Scottish English as Anglica Scotiae, and Gaelic as Lingua Scotica; theoretically, though, there is a significant period of time, to 1000 perhaps, where Scotica meant the Irish language also, or Goidelic in general. Lingua Gadelica Scotica is possible, but I'm not a fan of neologisms such as "Gadelica" or "Gaedelica". Mr. Tickles 21:07, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally if a word is attested, especially if it is more than once, we consider it fair game here. The fact that Gadelica does not have the history Scottica does, does not ipso facto disqualify it from Wikipedian usage. In fact, I often find myself using more neologisms in the titles of Wikipedia article than I would when speaking Latin at a Conventiculum or the like. The reason is precisely that when there is both an ancient term and a later term for the same concept, typically the earlier term has a wider range of meanings, and the later term refers to a more specific subset. Inasmuch as we do have attestations, you are correct that we shouldn't model our titles solely on English usage, but we do need to deal with the problems of ambiguity and such.
Slight excursus: how do we distinguish "German (Deutsch)" and "Germanic (Germanisch)" in Latin? At the Lexington Conventiculum there are basically two schools of thought on this. One, represented by Stephanus Berard, prefers to use Germanica to mean "Germanic", and Theodisca for "German." David Morgan, however, says that historically Theodiscus has only been used in specific ways, and never for the language. The German language, he says, was traditionally, Lingua Germanica, and the name of the language family was Teutonica. In this debate I am inclined to side with David: David's main qualification to make this pronouncement is that he is a lexicographer, and has been composing a Latin dictionary using primary sources from all eras. Stephanus' main qualification here is that he is a Professor of Germanic Studies. In a sense, this argument recapitulates the discussion we are having here: do we follow modern usage of one or more languages, or do we go with the actual attested uses?
Now, let me point out that the use of Theutonica to mean Scots lines up exactly with David's explanation. Also, it avoids the thorny issues Anglica might bring up. So this may be the way to go. Perhaps even Lingua Scotica (Gadelica) vs. Lingua Scotica (Teutonica). --Iustinus 21:33, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me; all the better that, as Mr. Tickles points out, the term Teutonica (albeit with added h) is already suggested by Fordun/Bower. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:50, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lingua Scotica (Gadelica) and Lingua Scotica (Teutonica) is I guess a decent compromise, though I still think Lingua Scotica should be Gaelic, esp. as "Teutonica" here is not necessarily regarded as a language rather than a dialect. If Lingua Scotica becomes a dab page, it should be made clear that in actual historic Latin usage Scotica is the standard term for Gaelic language of Ireland and Scotland, the languages now called either Old/Middle Irish or Old/Middle Gaelic. BTW, you should tell David Morgan to check out the Strassburg oaths for one of many uses of Teudisca to mean the German language. Mr. Tickles 18:15, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to doing Gaelic under Lingua Scotica and Scots under Lingua Scotica (Teutonica) if you really want to do that, but I think it is better this way. Even if they are more recent, we do have attestations of Scots also being called Lingua Scotica. --Iustinus 18:24, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence, although Mr. Tickles is quite right that lingua Scotica was originally unambiguous (and englobed Irish as well as Scottish Gaelic), it is ambiguous now. It's the kind of problem we face often, because of the enormous time depth of the language we're writing in. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:21, 1 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrating the king lists[fontem recensere]

I have added a series of images of selected emperors to Imperatores Constantinopolitani. Since a list flushes left, it seems simple and neat to have a series of such images all down the right margin. Before I do this with any other king lists, can anyone see an objection to this kind of layout? Question 2: if (as with Anglo-Saxon kings) suitable images are at present in the English Wikipedia (but not on Commons), is there a nice simple routine to get them into Commons? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 6 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Illustrating is cool, Andrew, go for it. I've often wanted to something similar, and have balked, fearing my wikipowers too weak.
  2. Yes, unless for some reason they are fair use images, which commons has a hard time with. If not, there is an importer function, lemme see if I can find Commons helper. --Ioshus (disp) 14:04, 6 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also think it is nice to illustrate such lists. When I do it myself, I try to find illustrations of elements (here kings) where we do not have an article yet. However, there might be better strategies for selection the images ... ;-) Such lists should look nice, this will animate users to work with them. I personally think, it is not such important what images we use because each article should have the "relevant" images again, and when we do not have relevant images for the articles, I think we should "illustrate" the articles as well. When someone has a strategy for selecting the images, it might be useful to add a hint to the article. Maybe "The illustrations on this page show a selection of the most important XXX in this list." This will keep me from adding just "nice" images. --Rolandus 16:10, 6 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Incidentally, I am trying to select images that are contemporary or almost-contemporary. English Wikipedia has far too many modern fantasy images of ancient and medieval people. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:57, 6 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea to look for pictures from the same time period as the person depicted. Still, most images lack a good description (who is the painter, when was it painted, …) See IacobusAmor's call at Vicipaedia:Taberna Fornicus 1#Diagnoses (vel descriptiones) imaginum. --UV 23:50, 6 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Highly desirable, I agree. My first thought was that these royal images might well eventually be used twice, once in the list, once in the substantive article, and in that second location a fuller caption would be wanted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 01:03, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I support that if it illustrates the king in the list, so should it in the article.--Ioshus (disp) 02:34, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons-Formula[fontem recensere]

Vicimedia Communia plura habent quae ad Taberna/Tabularium 4 spectant.

I think the grammar of this form should be discussed. Originally we had "communia plura de aliquo habent." Some user changed that to "habent in" - "aliquo"? aut "aliquid"? And I have not found in the dictionaries an expression which fits to our intended meaning. So I suggest either:

I'm thinking Communia plura habent quae ad aliquid spectant --Iustinus 23:14, 6 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iustinus' proposal. --UV 23:51, 6 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assentio. Tum nobis in formulam verbum paginae casu accusativo inserendum est. --Alex1011 00:37, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ita. Possumus id facere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 00:57, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to ask how one would say "Saint Peter's Square" in latin. We don't have an article yet so I'm stuck. Thanks, Alexanderr 00:41, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One possible Latin word is platea (origin of piazza and place). Platea Sancti Petri. But someone may have a better answer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 00:52, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, "platea" -> plazza, but: Classical Latin would be "area Sancti Petri", Stowasser gives "area Vulcani" "Vulcan-place". "Platea" with the ancients was only road, little road, alley. --Alex1011 00:57, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both Alexanderr 01:15, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "square" is normally rendered as forum (platea never means plaza in Classical Latin). Again, though, this is one of those things where we really need to research the Official Latin Name. --Iustinus 06:42, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forum is market-place, which is not the same as place. --Alex1011 23:55, 7 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a source: David Morgan's notes give the following:

901 square, piazza (open area in city) area, ae f. (Egger D.L. 25), spatium, i n. < Platea normally (always in antiquity, according to the Real-Encyclopädie) refers to an wide street, an avenue or boulevard. Egger R.A. 125-6: "Area Petriana ... minus apte quidam 'forum Sancti Petri' appellant, siquidem forum mercaturae, rei iudiciariae, contionibus publicis erat destinatum." Spatium: "a public place or square" (LS I.B.2), "lieu de promenade, place" (Gaffiot).

Egger's R.A. would be Roman Aeterna, his guide to The City, of which I, alas, do not own a copy. But it looks like he recommends Area Petriana, but also knows of Forum Sancti Petri. It would be nice to know a little more about the attestations of those terms. Alexanderr, I woudl recommend you mention both of those names. --Iustinus 04:06, 9 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stowasser has platea = Straße, Gasse i.e. street, alley. Menge-Güthling has Platz sensu unbebauter, freier, öffentlicher id est no buildings, free, public as "area", "campus", "locus publicus". --Alex1011 20:53, 9 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitaker's Words[fontem recensere]

Anyone know why Whitaker's Words isn't working today? Alexanderr 03:18, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest to blank this page, then put {{iocus}} on it and semi-protect it. This will help against spam. --Rolandus 18:43, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected the page. This page had to be deleted seven times in a little more than two months. --UV 23:57, 8 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

si lingua quam latina alia loqueris...[fontem recensere] vis opes dare, nome inscribe in nostra legatione.--Ioshus (disp) 01:22, 9 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation[fontem recensere]

I'm sysop in the spanish wikipedia ( es:Usuario:Antur ): working on the article about es:Francesco Borromini I've found the latin text of the epitaph, but I´m not able for translating it to spanish. (to english would be the same for me) . Below is the latin text, without worring with the building´s names, anybody would be so kind to help me? . Thanks in advance. Please write me to es:Usuario Discusión:Antur. Many thanks in advance, and sorry for the off-topic :-) . --Antur 04:44, 10 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]


"Francesco Borromini of Ticino, Knight of Christ, who, being an architecht of imperishable memory, turned the divine power of his art to the decoration of Rome with magnificent buildings, among which [were] X, Y, Z, the restauatation of the Lateran Archbasilica, A, B, C, the one called S. Andrea delle Fratte (or S. Andrea called "delle Fratte"), D, E, but this very temple he decorated with a very large altar, not far from this stone, near to the mortal spoils (?) of Carlo Maderni(?), his neighbor, townsman, and rival. He rests in the peace of the Lord." --Iustinus 06:17, 10 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bene, Iustine! I think it wants a period after "altar" and a comma after "rival". He was buried "not far from this stone", and I guess adjacent to the "mortal remains" of his neighbour and rival. Similarly, in the Latin, there should be a period after DECORAVIT.
Building "E" looks like the "Office of the Inquisition" to me. Keep away from there if possible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:46, 10 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I missed "mortal remains" (which IacobusAmor also pointed out.) For Antur's sake, let's give that last sentence in full now: "...but this very temple he decorated with a very large altar. He rests in the peace of the Lord, not far from this stone, near to the mortal remains of Carlo Maderni(?), his neighbor, townsman, and rival." --Iustinus 15:44, 10 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Carlo Maderni(?), his . . . townsman" = Carlo Maderno, also of Ticino; see: en:wikipedia. IacobusAmor 15:52, 10 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's the first time I read Vicipaedia. I think it's very interesting. Let me tell you "ARA MAXIMA" is not a "very large" altar. It is the High Altar, that's to say the most important altar in a big church (which is supposed to have many smaller chapels and many altars). -- 15:24, 21 Februarii 2007 (UTC)

I thought that I would create this article, as the idea of the world's third biggest religion not having an article is disgraceful (in fact, Latin wiki is pretty weak on all religions except ancient ones and Catholicism, which may be understandable).

I came accross a difficulty with the Latin names. For specific concepts like Karma, and Brahman, I thought it best to give tranliterations, however, I am not sure about the Latin name of the religion itself. Should it be Induica or Hinduica? Are there accepted translations for terms like Hindu (adjective), Hindu (follower) etc. ? LeighvsOptimvsMaximvs 12:15, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at Disputatio:Religio Induica --Iustinus 19:09, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rank game[fontem recensere]

See Vicipaedia:Pagina_desiderata#The_rank_game. --Rolandus 12:24, 13 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translating English articles[fontem recensere]

I've sought this answer from a few different pages to no avail. How is translating articles from the English to this Wiki viewed? Is it allowed, scarcely allowed, or forbidden? I would like some practice translating and am more than happy to use that as an opportunity to increase the deposit of knowledge here in this wiki, but if each wiki needs to have its own creative process, I'd understand that too.

Frustra hanc rem in paginis diversis petebam. Licet articula de vicipaedia linguae Anglicae hinc ad linguam Latinam transferre? Aut articulorum creatio diversa secundum linguam esse debet? Transferre cupio (si licet mihi) ad ingenium meum exercendum. scripsit Usor:Magistermagis

Feel free to translate articles from other wikipedias but not from nonfree ("copyrighted") sources. and note that the Latin word articulus does not mean "article", see Vicipaedia:Articulus ;-) Greetings, --UV 00:24, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's allowed. Alexanderr 00:25, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is encouraged ;) --Iustinus 00:58, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord we'd barely be existent without it! We even have a page Vicipaedia:Translatio hebdomadalis...I apologize profusely for not maintaining it well, it was kind of my project...--Ioshus (disp) 04:28, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add that although wikipedia articles may be freely used, their authors need to be given credit (the GNU Free Documentation License – GFDL requires this). Therefore, if you translate an article from the English wikipedia, be sure to indicate your source (e. g. "from the English wikipedia, [[en:Article name]]") in the "Summarium" summary info textbox below the article editing textbox. Greetings, --UV 23:46, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Grave[fontem recensere]

Via Iohannes Austriacus I have discovered a website called Find a Grave. This could be very useful: for many famous personages the best source for a Latin name will be tomb inscriptions. Granted, in some cases the inscription may date to a later era, with a different Latinization, but this brings into play an entirely new source for attestations! Unfortunately, it won't let you search by first name only, which is too bad: maybe we could find a Dwight or something ;) --Iustinus 22:57, 19 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, Iustine! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:08, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started looking through this, moving its members to more specific categories where appropriate (as it usually is, I think). Having done 6 of them, from A and B, I'd better pause to see if others agree ... Two particular questions:

  1. Am I right to take people out of Categoria:Biographia and Categoria:Homines when something more specific exists? Or is that not approved?
  2. Will we eventually want to categorise all (or most) writers both by language and by civitas, or is that too complicated and only worth doing in rare cases?

Any other opinions? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:08, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We had talked a while back about Categoria:Biographia being movenda ad Categoria:Biographiae and it's content changed to articles about actual biographies. I like this idea, but I don't remember where this discussion was nor the consensus reached.
As for your second point, though I don't muddle with this category too often, my two cents would be that yes, certainly by language is a useful way to further categoriz(american z =])e authors.--Ioshus (disp) 16:51, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can be Britishlike and write -ize too, as long as you call the Z "zed." :) The Oxford [N.B.] English Dictionary, s.v. realize, has a trenchant comment on why writers in English should prefer -ize to -ise. IacobusAmor 17:30, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I can't find that in the online version, Iacobus. Has it been removed in the new edition, or am I just not looking hard enough? --Iustinus 17:41, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's under -ize, an article that has a long etymological discussion (which you might enjoy), and then it goes out of its way to make this observation: "But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gk. -ιζειν, L. -izāre ; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic." (It adds that it itself spells all -ise/-ize words as -ize.) So unless you follow British newspapers or the style common at Cambridge University, feel free to accept that the British spelling is -ize: that's what the OED recommends for English writing everywhere in the world. IacobusAmor 18:14, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Absolutely. A while back a push started to make sure that every page had at least one category. The people who worked on that project, being swamped by the huge number of uncategorized pages, often put pages into very high categories, reasoning that they could be changed to more sepcific ones later.
  2. The English wikipedia does this (and so presumably others), but until la: is that big, it seems pointless to me: in most cases I would rather just see a category for munus and a separate category for nationality. I did create, if memory serves, the category Scriptores Neograeci, but I would consider that an exceptional case. --Iustinus 17:41, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I strongly favor removing Categoria:Biographia always and Categoria:Homines whenever there is a more specific subcategory, see Disputatio Vicipaediae:Categoria#About Categoria:Homines and Categoria:Biographia.
  2. In my view, eventually every article about a person should indicate via its categories the vocation and the nationality of the person. This can be done via separate categories (e. g. Categoria:Scriptores and Categoria:Itali [which is a subcategory of Categoria:Italia]) or by categories which indicate both a vocation and a nationality (e. g. Categoria:Scriptores Graeci Antiqui). I would suggest to create new combined categories only when there is reasonable chance that we will soon put there a minimum number of articles (5? 8? 10?), otherwise I would suggest to pick separate categories for vocation and nationality. --UV 21:06, 22 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for these reactions. As a result I see how to continue, now. I quite agree with aiming for a minimum number of members of such categories. Following Justinus' comments at Disputatio categoriae:Scriptores fabularum, would a kind admin please move that category, if possible, to Categoria:Scriptores mythistoriarum (meaning novelists or fiction-writers). It has only one member at present, but it will have more! I apologise for making work in this way, but the new name is better chosen than mine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:49, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, you don't need to be an admin to move a category, you just change the category in this case on Danielis Brown, and make a new category, in this case Categoria:Scriptores mythistoriarum. But since you asked so nicely... =] --Ioshus (disp) 17:16, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I get it. And thanks ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:15, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote, opossum, raccoon[fontem recensere]

For reference: posted by B. T. Raven (Eduardus) today in newsgroup alt.language.latin: "Things like "coyote" really are difficult and it's probably best to bite the bullet and come out with "coyotlus" [coeotlus, cojotlus??] from the get go. But for "racoon" procyon and for "oppossum" didelphis." IacobusAmor 14:04, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further possibility to keep in mind, for animals and plants, is to make use of the Scientific Latin term. It's a special form of Latin, but it is Latin. For coyote the term is Canis latrans. If not to use it throughout, at least in brackets after the first mention. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:22, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, procyon and didelphis come from the scientific nomenclature, as does lotor, which I think I hear more for raccoon than procyon. But Canis latrans is precisely the example I usually give of why we CAN'T always just plop down the binomial name: it means "barking dog." How does that suggest coyote?? In fact, my understanding is that the scientific name was originally Thos latrans "barking jackal", which makes a hell of a lot more sense, but eventually for reasons of biology rather than linguistics, thos and canis were merged, leading to the present state. This only serves to illustrate another problem with using systematic names: they change an awful lot. They are especially in flux now with the invention of genetic methods, and cladistics theory (or rather the slow repercussions thereof). Scienfici Latin is deffinitely a good source, but it has to be used with a certain amount of care, and it has to be assumed that Latin, like any other language, will have "common names" for animals too.
Coyote is currently under coiotes, which is, I confess, a neologism coined by Stephanus Berard and myself (he had previous suggested coiote -is, but I countered that maybe it shoudl be in the same paradigm as feles, meles, vulpes, and so on, rather than in a neuter declention class). I suppose if I wanted to make it a bit more respectable, I could claim it was from Vita Nostra, because it will surely be mentioned there when it is published. The only Renaissance source I've been able to find so far only lists it in an unlatinized Nahuatl form: ''Coyotl seu vulpes Indica". --Iustinus 19:23, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that the coyote is already with us. I like your Coiotes much better than the Coyotlus hypothesised above! Yes, I agree with your first reason for not liking Canis latrans (and in fact this is exactly why, having discovered what the name was, I quietly backtracked to the suggestion of merely adding it in brackets after the first mention of the creature). I don't altogether agree with your second reason (that these names change). It is pretty easy to discover the currently approved name via authoritative websites, and keeping up with future changes is not the most difficult of the things we expect to be doing on Wikipedia (all those population figures and names of city mayors in infoboxes!) Still, I really just mention scientific Latin as a possible source, not a universal solution. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:40, 24 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WIth the second reason, I wasn't suggesting that it was too difficult for us to keep up with the changing names. More that the instability made them unsuitable common names in Latin. --Iustinus 23:17, 27 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The names certainly do change... but for the most part it's the hierarchy that changes—AIUI the appellative is supposed to stay the same unless, say, one species is found to be the same as another. When the appellative is a noun, like lotor, it's understood to be the name of the creature [except when it's synonymous with the genus and not itself Latin, like Ursus arctos] and it isn't so bad when it gets moved (Procyon lotor still makes sense even though it isn't Linnaeus's Waschbär Ursus lotor) though when it's an adjective, like for the coyote, it can end up... well, like the coyote. Of course, bigger problems are when the scientific names actually are or become wrong: Linnaeus, sensibly, listed the walrus as the first species of Trichechus (italice: tricheco, ‘walrus’) but the animal was later evicted, and now manatees are the only walruses; the soybean was named max by Linnaeus who confused it from the beginning with the ‘mash’ or urad bean, Vigna mungo, though it was later more sensibly moved into the genus Soja. I'm all for the use of taxonomic names—I think a good strength of Latin compared to other minority languages is we have an official, if occasionally silly, name for just about every creature there is—there's just a few minor kinks in the system. —Mucius Tever 23:22, 27 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I always wondered where that "max" came in ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 28 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow missed this part of the conversation. So Linnaeus thought that the soybean was an urad, and that the urad mean was mung? Man, he was confused. It's funny, because lately I've been telling people "I live in fear that someone will come up and say da mihi mungonem, and I won't know whether they want urad or mung." Scientific names are a great source, but they are frought with peril. The appellative may stay the same, btu sometimes there's more than one of them: I have a hell of a time looking for spikenard at herbalists' for example. And seriously, what do we do in cases like mungo and max? I don't mean to say that scientific names are useless, just that you can't automatically plop a binomial name in Latin and expect it to work. --Iustinus 05:25, 31 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and apparently there was a Latinized form of the word ‘coyote’ that got lost in this magic shuffle... I hadn't known about Thos latrans, but googling that led me straight to the good word, which is apparently cagottis [13]. —Mucius Tever 23:22, 27 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Vicipaedia:Pagina de Chilia. --Rolandus 21:19, 27 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from locatives[fontem recensere]

I just made a redirect from Londinii to Londinium. It seemed to me the same idea as the redirects from language adverbs, e.g. Anglice to lingua Anglica. Is it OK to do this with locatives that we are likely to use often, or is there a reason against? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 28 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as long as we don't get carried away. I've wanted to make redirects for a few things, like Civitatibus Foederatis Americae and Civitatum Foederatarum Americae. As i said, I think we should not get carried away, but Londini is fine, at least for me...--Ioshus (disp) 17:36, 28 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems logical to me. --Iustinus 18:30, 28 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since Latin does have a kind of grammar which is rather different from e. g. the English one, the ideal solution might be something rather different. Perhaps, we should teach la:Wiki to find the basic word form from a declined one, if the declined one is achieved by some standard rules. (Such a solution could of course be of use also in e.g. fi:Wiki.)
I don't think this would be impossible; but it might demand some new project policy decisions, and it would mean some hard work; unless there is a really good Latin inflected words analyser package under GPL around somewhere, which moreover is compatible with the basic Wiki software (whatever that is). In the meantime, we might consider some rather short template, with a one or two letter name (say N), and taking three arguments, expanded like this:
{{N|xxx|yy|zz}} → [[xxxyy|xxxzz]]
whence {{N|Londini|um|i}} would be expanded to [[Londinium|Londinii]]. (The similarity with the Latin dictionary style is by intent.)
Such a simple macro would not fix the language adverbs; nor other forms of multiword expressions like Civitates Foederatae Americae (although a somewhat more complex template with a flexible number of arguments migth do.) Still, probably a large part of 'declined links' would be to one word articles. What do you think?--Georgius B 16:14, 29 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful. Nexus Formula:N. (Formula:n) —Mucius Tever 11:52, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice!--Ioshus (disp) 13:30, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is approximately what I was thinking – but Mucius Tever has done more, and something better and simpler! Really nice!--Georgius B 17:04, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid. Much better than making redirect pages and quicker than piped links. I shall use this often. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:46, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think information about this and some of the other templates which are somewhat tailored for the Vicipaedia Latina (e.g., {{tiro}}) should be collected at Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (latine), or at a new subpage named e.g. Vicipaedia:Instrumenta auxilia pro editione (latine)? Or is there already such a page somewhere, which I haven't found yet?--Georgius B 17:04, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly Georgi, that whole section of this vicipaedia needs cleanup. Just about everything that deals with tirones both to Latin and to Wiki needs better organization and simplification. We would all be grateful if you took initiative in helping with this section of Vicipaedia. I will help where I can, and as soon as I tidy up a few other things around here, I will give you a hand in earnest.--Ioshus (disp) 17:15, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have Vicipaedia:Formula and there a link to Vicipaedia:Index formularum Vicipaediae Latinae. --Rolandus 18:03, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.U.C. ?[fontem recensere]

Are dates from the founding of Rome, the beginning of the common era, or the birth of Christ?

Not auc. Some prefer CE, but a/pCn seems to be the mos noster.--Ioshus (disp) 17:36, 28 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And for those who prefer CE, the Latin is Aera Vulgaris (EV for short, apparently). —Mucius Tever
Awesome, Muci. We've been wondering for a while what the mot juste was...--Ioshus (disp) 03:03, 29 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I just saw that recently. Probably should have said something. Well, presumably the same rule will have to apply as on en:, namely that once an article is written with one of those, it should not be changed to the other without a good reason. Muke, do we have attestations for AEV? --Iustinus 04:51, 29 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
aerae vulgaris seems even to appear in Kepler. —Mucius Tever 11:37, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[14] "aer.vulg. aera vulgaris" and following other googles it is a synonym for Christian era (=CE!?). --Alex1011 16:04, 29 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Common era is a synonym for AD. Coincidental dates and secular, one religious.--Ioshus (disp) 20:45, 29 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria: carmen publicum (hymnus nationalis)?[fontem recensere]

Est nobis categoria "Carmen publicum"? (Exempli gratia, vide Vexillum Stellis Punctatum.) Rem de carmine publico Samoano mox scribam. IacobusAmor 18:02, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quaeso te ut novam subcategoriam categoriae Categoria:Hymni creas. Iam est disputatio huius rei: Disputatio Categoriae:Hymni. --UV 22:25, 30 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De praemiis[fontem recensere]

Ceterae Vicipaediae praemia dant alicui pro meritis in eisdem. Nescio si habemus hoc, sed credo optime praemia Vicipaediae Latinae facere. Ego mereor nulla, sed certe ceterae vicipaedistae!--Medievalista 12:29, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quippe hoc putavi prius. Loco modo paginam usorum optimorum visitabam, nuntium iucundum et congratulatum inscribens. Laetus ero si praemia inceperis facere.--Ioshus (disp) 13:26, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ecce, vide Disputatio usoris: Medievalista--Medievalista 16:13, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Macte! Non est tempus mihi corrigere, ut liberi meum cubiculum intrant. Docere sit melius, nisi tanti liberi!!!--Ioshus (disp) 16:33, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have a look here: Vicipaedia:Praemia Vicipaedianis. And the first nominee has to be voted! --Medievalista 23:58, 5 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Communia Franciae[fontem recensere]

I wanted to make some articles for French towns. In preparation I've tried making an infobox Formula:Commune-Franciae on the basis of the existing Formula:Urbes-Franciae. I wanted to omit a few changeable and less-important items and also (rather important) to add the French name of the place, which, I believe, that existing formula didn't allow space for.

I haven't yet put it into use, so if anyone wants to point out a problem with it or suggest how to improve it, please do! It would be nice to allow for an optional picture, but I'm not sure how this kind of formula deals with optional items. I have built into it a Categoria:Communia Franciae. Is it OK to do that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like templated categories.--Ioshus (disp) 22:56, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optional picture is now possible. Integrating the category in the template is a great idea. --UV 23:39, 2 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the picture line. You can now see it in use at Calviniacum and Castrum Heraldi. Very nice, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:49, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arrondissment - how to relatinize it? Somewhat experimentally I tried "arrotundimentum", ad litteram would be perhaps "arrotundissimentum". Maybe there is an attested form for "arrondissement"? --Alex1011 18:23, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe (whatever it is in Latin) it's conceptually equivalent to the English concept of ward or borough. This is related to my question about hamlets, villages, etc., posted below. I wonder if such terms can be ranked hierarchically. IacobusAmor 18:29, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Paris, yes, it corresponds to the "boroughs" of London and New York. But elsewhere in France it is a medium-sized rural area, ranking between département and canton. On Vicipaedia at present you can find arrotundimentum and arrotundissimentum: following Alex1011, I preferred the shorter form (though of course the formula could be changed in a moment), just because it's shorter and because the -issi- corresponds to a feature of French conjugation which has no Latin equivalent.
There is also the question of what word to use for département. I saw departimentum and departitio already in use but didn't specially fall in love with either (they are redlinks at present); I preferred praefectura, which existed in late Latin and has already been used on Vicipaedia for administrative divisions in Greece and Japan. It seemed logical for France too since the fellow in charge is called a prefect.
All the hits on Google for all these words, perhaps unsurprisingly, lead back to Vicipaedia.
Perhaps Ricardus, who has done some work on Francia and French cities, will comment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:00, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Praefectura" pro " département" mihi videtur incommodum ( sum gallus ).Praefectura( préfecture) enim significat urbs praefecti. Est etiam nomen "sous-préfecture", urbs sub-praefecti. Potius propono partitio( = divisio) vel departitio in memoria praefixi "de" in "département". Arrotundimentum mihi videtur melius quam arrotutundissimentum quia "suffixus " iss" est sermoni gallico, non latino.Licet uti "approximata" ( non scribitur pars) quia arrondissement ex etymologia significat approximatio( e.g arrondir un nombre=approximare numerum)Pro verbo "canton" , propono districtum vel cantonem qui non existit. Ergo
  • commune= urbs
  • canton= districtum vel canto, onis m
  • arrondissement =arrotundimentum vel approximata,ae f
  • département = partitio,onis f vel departitio,onis f
  • préfecture ( urbs) manet praefectura
  • sous-préfecture= sub-praefectura
  • région manet regio
  • --Marc mage 00:05, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commune: cur non commune,nis n? "Urbs" non me satisfacit quia multa communia sunt valde parva! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:06, 15 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coelestinus aut Caelestinus?[fontem recensere]

Video inter pontifices paginas nominatas Caelestinus I, Caelestinus II, et coetera et coetera.

In mea memoria, nomen correctum "Coelestinus" est.

Google ipse confirmat.

Quis fontem praeclara citare potes, ad dubium dirimendum?

--Lou Crazy 03:28, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levels_of_latinitas[fontem recensere]

Please have a look at Vicipaedia:Latinitas#Levels_of_latinitas. --Rolandus 13:44, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlets, villages, towns, cities, etc.[fontem recensere]

Could someone with an interest in demography & geography propose a means by which we may rigorously distinguish among Latin terms for human settlements? Terms that come to mind (and there may be others) are:

viculus, vicus, villa, pagus, oppidulum, oppidum, urbiculum, suburbium, urbs, metropolis.

Can we distinguish among these terms? English, for example has hamlet, neighborhood, ward, dorp, village, town, municipality, suburb, borough, city, metropolis, each with connotations of its own. Can we distinguish the Latin terms merely by population (if so, what are the limits of each)? or by some other criterion? Or do they overlap too much (as presumably some would with colonia and perhaps castrum and legal concepts like municipium and civitas) for anybody to bother? ¶ I ask because I sometimes find a place that I'd have called a vicus or a pagus called an oppidum or an urbs or whatever. IacobusAmor 18:23, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago I started a list there: Urbs#Termini. (Now I remember that terminus is the wrong word ...) --Rolandus 18:38, 3 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In archaeology we make the following distinctions:

vicus- small rural settlement, could be a farmstead or a little village. It could also be subordinated to a villa

villa- is a countryside mixed building, that controls a track of land which is used for production of goods and foodstuffs used by the dominus. It has a pars rustica (rural part, where the oil presses, kilns, ovens were) and a pars urbana (the residence of the dominus, with all the commodities of an urban house or domus)

oppidum- is used for any non-Roman settlement in the west, but also is used for settlements with urban planning, political structures (curia, eg) and is a walled settlement.

apart from those, it is much left for the historical tradition...--Medievalista 17:46, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Disputatio:Gulielmus. --Rolandus 18:43, 4 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potestne imagines ex en.wikipedia uti? si potest, igitur cur? - Secundus Zephyrus 18:12, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not possible. You can just use pictures from Commons (Communia). But you can upload the pictures from the English WP to Commons. More infos: {{imaginibus}} and Vicipaedia:Imago. --Rolandus 18:16, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formula:Non latine[fontem recensere]

Please see {{non latine}}. --Rolandus 10:27, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki[fontem recensere]

Hic interwiki sunt.

Columnae geminae?[fontem recensere]

Is it possible to set text in double columns? Without knowing any special html codes, all I can manage is a long dash to separate the columns, like this:

Tagaloa e, taumuli ai,——O Tagaloa, qui gubernat,
Tagaloa fiamalolo;——O Tagaloa, defessa adsum.
E mapu i le lagi Tuli mai vasa;——Quiesco in caelo Tuli e mare;
Ta lili'a i peau i lalo.——Vertiginem mihi faciunt fluctus.

I'd like to set the text so the Latin is in its own column, with each line to the right of the matching line in the original (and obviously, with the left-hand side of the right-hand column justified). Any chance of that? IacobusAmor 20:26, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it here: [15] et vide etiam disputationem paginae primae [16], ubi id iam factum est. --Alex1011 20:35, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or tables, method #1:

Tagaloa e, taumuli ai, O Tagaloa, qui gubernat,
Tagaloa fiamalolo; O Tagaloa, defessa adsum.
E mapu i le lagi Tuli mai vasa; Quiesco in caelo Tuli e mare;
Ta lili'a i peau i lalo. Vertiginem mihi faciunt fluctus.

Tables, method #2:

Tagaloa e, taumuli ai, O Tagaloa, qui gubernat,
Tagaloa fiamalolo; O Tagaloa, defessa adsum.
E mapu i le lagi Tuli mai vasa;  Quiesco in caelo Tuli e mare;
Ta lili'a i peau i lalo. Vertiginem mihi faciunt fluctus.

--Rolandus 20:43, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, bene! Gratias, amici! IacobusAmor 22:39, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A slight adjustment : is it possible to insert another space or two between "vasa;" and "Quiesco"? They look just a little too close together. IacobusAmor 13:08, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I get that effect by adding    (i.e. thin-spaces) after the longest left-hand line. It works in either method, at least, it works in my browser. But maybe there's a better way. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:50, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try the thin spaces. Thanks! ¶ Next question: how do I widen the margin to the left of the left column? I'd like to indent the textblock (that is, shift rightward both columns together). IacobusAmor 17:14, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thin-space idea didn't work. More suggestions? Or fix it yourself at Tangaloa. IacobusAmor 19:29, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tried adding a "padding" to the right of the longest left-hand lines. --UV 23:03, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can use HTML-attributes or CSS. I have added cellpadding="40" to the first table. See m:Help:Table. With CSS you can do more, see en:CSS, e. g. the padding-left attribute. --Rolandus 18:29, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

populations[fontem recensere]

Propono numerum incolarum non inscribendum nisi cum datis ab censu. Modo contribui sententias ab Buenos Aires ad Bonaeropolis. Illa dixit numerum incolarum esse 3,000,000, illa autem 12,000,000... quid faciam? Sini citatione, inmundumst hoc. Aliquis dissentit?

I move that populations should not be listed without a census as a reference. I just merged data from Buenos Aires to Bonaeropolis. One said 3,000,000 incolae, the other said 12,000,000... what am I supposed to do with that? Without a citation, this is sloppy. Does anyone disagree?--Ioshus (disp) 05:02, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Rolandus 07:01, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too. But if you look at the infobox at Bonaeropolis it seems to offer a suggestion; two populations are given, the difference between city and metropolitan area.
We have to admit that Vicipaedia pages about places in the modern world will usually be translated from other more authoritative Wikipedias. I think, rather than search for population sources ourselves (when we have better things to do), we should tacitly accept the local Wikipedia (the Portuguese one in this case) as authoritative. With this kind of problem in mind, I include, when using the infobox for French towns {{Formula:commune-Franciae}}, an interwiki link to the French Wikipedia, where a fuller infobox and more official details are found. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too; however, it may not be possible in all cases, especially for out-of-the-way hamlets—unless recent censuses are online. Are, for example, the latest censuses for Botswana? Nepal? Guyana? Wallis & Futuna? Fiji? IacobusAmor 17:18, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How true. ... Myanmar? Laos? (I think I'll have a go at a southeast Asian city or two.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:51, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Myanmar appears to be the name favored by the current regime ; the name favored by supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi appears to be Burma : onomastics = politics ! IacobusAmor 19:35, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My real thing is the lack of a cite. If we go with a local wikipedia, we should cite it, and say the date it was retrieved/copied. I think we should certainly do our own research, if possible, for example I don't think official numbers on Buenos Aires would be that hard to find. I also may be preaching out of turn, as I do not generally create places pages. I just want to avoid confusion in examples like the one I mentioned, when 2 articles differ in their estimation by 9 million, neither with a cite of any sort telling anything about the area containing said millions, or the year in which it was that many millions, or anything else remotely useful...--Ioshus (disp) 22:12, 12 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese cities[fontem recensere]

As foreshadowed above, I am doing some. I have a problem -- no sources for Latin names. If someone can find real Latin names I shall be very happy (the usual sources don't seem to cover Burma/Myanmar). See Category:Urbes Birmaniae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:34, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable approach in the absence of attestation would be to set up a strict system of Latinization. Here's what the Finns have done, at Lingua Finnnica:
Latinizatio solita nominum Finnicorum:
Finnice -o → Latine -o, -onis
Finnice -a → Latine -a, -ae
Finnice -i → Latine -i, -is
Finnice -en → Latine -en, -is
Also, see my Polynesian attempts above. Of course, since Burmese is tonal, just writing words in the Latin alphabet has already wiped out many important distinctions; nevertheless, the Burmese can do it and can read the result, so something systematic must be going on.
For reference: en: says: "There is no official romanisation system for Burmese. There have been attempts to make one, but none have been successful. Replicating Burmese sounds in the Latin script is complicated. There is a Pāli-based transcription system in existence, which was devised by the Myanma Language Commission (MLC). However, it only transcribes sounds in formal Burmese and is based on the orthography rather than the phonology. Several colloquial transcription systems have been proposed, but none is overwhelmingly preferred over others. ¶ Transcription of Burmese is not standardised, as seen in the varying English transcriptions of Burmese place names." IacobusAmor 19:46, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for this. Yes, I am trying to follow a consistent Latinization. Unlike Finnish, however, Burmese has no cases -- no regular terminations. I think it better, unless there is evidence for a particular Latin name, to treat transliterated names as indeclinable. That's what I'm doing for the moment, anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:27, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with indeclinability is that it could overwhelm the language. At the moment, Latin has (let's guess) not more than 20,000 declinable placenames & personal names. If to these we add about 2,000,000 available indeclinable names and another 2,000,000 indeclinable words for other things & concepts, the declinability of the language may come under severe strain. IacobusAmor 21:39, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True. But more than one indeclinable name will seldom occur in any one sentence, unless it is a list! I'll try a few more and see how it looks. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:57, 14 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case I think your 4,000,000 may be a worst case scenario! I'm talking about a particular language and a place about which little has ever been written in Latin. When it comes to India (for example) there are more authorities available to us and words are natively declinable, so we may find reason for adopting a declension system as has been done for Finnish. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:13, 14 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these rules for Finnish are apparently the ones employed by Finnish Latinists, or at least Tuomo Pekkanen implies that is the case in the introduction to his Kalevala Latina. My point is that they do have some authority behind them, they weren't invented by us. --Iustinus 06:26, 14 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Paginam vacuit"[fontem recensere]

Why does the system automatically say "paginam vacuit"? My dictionaries put vacuo in the first conjugation ; hence the phrase should be "paginam vacuat," or 'paginam vacuavit," or "pagina vacuatur," or "pagina vacuata est," or "pagina vacua," or whatever. What am I missing ?! IacobusAmor 20:01, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should say vacuavit. The idea is that the usor is the subject, so "IacobusAmor paginam vacuavit." Should probably be lowercase, too...--Ioshus (disp) 20:16, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Factumst.--Ioshus (disp) 20:30, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most excellent! IacobusAmor 22:13, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dei et deae[fontem recensere]

Wiki en: has a category that's a list of deities, sorted by culture. If la: wants to have one, it would be useful if someone would set it up. We already have articles on Polynesian deities or godlike figures (Nafanua, Saveasiuleo, Tangaloa), and probably on other such entities, and more articles may be coming ! IacobusAmor 22:09, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea! Like you said we are pretty occidento(catholo)centric here in our treatment of religions, so this will be a great jumping off point for people wishing to consider other religions in their articles.--Ioshus (disp) 14:03, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you - from a non-occidentocentric point of view - list one, three, or a multitude of deities for catholicism? For hinduism? Georgius B 17:05, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would list at least 3 deities for catholicism. I never understood all that trinity jive, myself. Then there are scores of demi-god ("deified") saints... As for Hinduism, I must plead occidentocentric ignorance... I know there are many, but I haven't counted them all.--Ioshus (disp) 17:41, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you gotta grant the Abrahamic religions their one god each ; and Christian & Islamic saints should be listed separately, possibly with their Roman secular counterparts, the "deified" dead. (Same cultural concept?) :-/ And articles on Christian saints should not call them Roman Catholic saints if their lives preceded the Reformation (because they belong to the Anglican Communion too, and perhaps the Eastern churches, so restricting them to the R.C. church is mere propaganda). As for the number of gods in Hinduism, see Infinitas. :D IacobusAmor 18:01, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point about Hinduism is that I've heard claims that Hinduism actually 'in truth' be monotheistic. According to this claim, all seemingly separate Hindu deities actually are thought to be 'aspects' of the one and only god or godlike principle (Brahma), by the learned Hindu theologs. I really cannot guarantee the truth of this. Georgius B 20:28, 19 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Croissant....[fontem recensere]

Crescentulum aut Cornuculum Latin? Does anybody have any ideas? Salvete! --Alex1011 13:58, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Andrew will have a suggestion =] --Ioshus (disp) 14:06, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Secundum Alanum Rey croissant est nomen recentissimum (1863), Hörnchen multo antiquius, usitatum a tempore cladis Vindobonae anno 1683. Ut historicus, praefero cornuculum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias ago! --Alex1011 14:32, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Croissant" gallice significat "crescens" . venit a forma "crescentis" lunae quae dicitur Gallice "croissant de lune". cur non "Crescens" ? --Marc mage 17:12, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possumus; sed haec cuppediae inventae sunt ab Austriacis, non a Francis! Ergo suggessi nomen translatum a lingua Theodisca. Quand même, les meilleurs du monde se trouvent dans la boulangerie française où j'en ai acheté hier. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:05, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In Icelandic it's called brauðhorn or bread-horn.... so.. Cornuspanis? Meh.. -- 19:05, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics[fontem recensere]

We have new statistics: Vicipaedia:Census#Plurima_data. --Rolandus 22:37, 19 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non stipula[fontem recensere]

Please have a look at {{non stipula}}. --Rolandus 21:24, 20 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist[fontem recensere]

Please see MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Rolandus 21:47, 22 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to turn off redirection from Vigornia to Vigornia (America) ?[fontem recensere]

I recently moved Vigornia to Vigornia (America) but redirection from Vigornia to Vigornia (America) makes it impossible that someone can make a page for Vigornia (in the UK). Is there a way to turn off the redirection or request it?Rafaelgarcia 07:25, 23 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to either edit or delete the redirect page. To get to the page can be tricky, but it can be done. Anyway, I took care of it or you. --Iustinus 07:58, 23 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a special case like this, one option is, having made the move, to edit the resulting redirect page so as to turn it into the new page you think should exist (for Worcester in England). You can always reach it, from your newly moved page, by going to "Nexus ad paginam" (what links here) and clicking on the old name directly from that list; having got to it, you can then edit it like any other page. If you do it this way, your final move must be to check the links to that page and, wherever necessary, edit so that they point in the correct direction.
Unless anyone forestalls me, I'll get round to making an English Vigornia later today. We need a Vigornia (discretiva) too ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:52, 23 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a Formula?[fontem recensere]

I was trying to make a something liks {{Formula:Hispania Visigothica}} like the one in the French vicipaedia, saying something like Haec est pagina de Hispania Visigothica or something similar and using an image, maybe this one or . Anyone can help me?--Xaverius 10:27, 23 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... Formula:Hispania Visigothica. Just go there, and type what you want!--Ioshus (disp) 12:58, 23 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

zona horaria[fontem recensere]

The question has come up in Disputatio:Neapolis as to what time zone we should prefer. Should we talk about events in terms of the time zone in which they occurred? Or in UTC, as is the custom of Wikimedia? Personally I vote for UTC for consistency's sake. Plus what about weird events, like the first lunar landing? Do we use UTC, or do we EST because Kennedy Space Center, the epicenter for the Apollo 11 flight, is in Florida? Cf the sentence at en:Apollo 11: Apollo 11 was launched by a Saturn V from the Kennedy Space Center on July 16, 1969 at 13:32 UTC (9:32 A.M. local time).--Ioshus (disp) 15:51, 23 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, for the reader, consistency is not very important with system timestamps but with the topic in question. This should be obvious in most cases, although talking about lunar landing, UTC is the most adequate, of course. Launch of Apollo 11 could be noted in local time, too, I can’t see any problems with that. That is more natural, at least to me. I never think about getting up at 6 o’clock CET, but simply 6 in the morning. Maybe it’s because in Hungary one timezone is way enough to describe time matters. :) cerasusvoca! 16:34, 23 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That could be. In America, we have to think of everything in terms of 4 time zones... 6 if we want to include Alaska and Hawaii, and 7 if we want to include our island territories. Eh, I don't know, I'm still for UTC.--Ioshus (disp) 17:06, 23 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that spacecraft normally have a "mission clock," which provides the "official" time for purposes of the expedition. I believe the time is normally synchronized to that of the "mission control," whatever that may be. This has come up, for instance, in Jewish and Muslim discussions of how to handle calendar-based religious requirements while in space. --Iustinus 18:55, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forcellini[fontem recensere]

Forcellini's famous Totius Latinitatis Lexicon is now available online. Unfortunately it's not free: each volume (I don't know how many there are, but there are several) costs €5, no small sum! --Iustinus 18:55, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference. If it's per volume it's quite good value: they are big volumes. But are you sure of that? I didn't feel sure, from the "Buy now" pages, whether I was being led on to buy a volume or a page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:03, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The Grex Latine Loquentium email from which I initially heard about this did seem to think it was by the page, and the site's phrasing seems a bit ambiguous. --Iustinus 22:26, 26 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone on a newsgroup said or implied that it's €5 per lemma, and didn't think that was a bargain. IacobusAmor 13:13, 5 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huius rei periculum modo feci: solvendi sunt nummi Europaei quini IN SINGULAS PAGINAS. Misi ipse nummos, accepi paginam trecentesimam duodecimam, nihil aliud. Qui rem ita paraverunt sunt verberandi. Quasi antiquae philologiae cultores soleant divitiis affluere. Utinam alicuius vel academiae vel instituti rectores lexicon Forcellini in rete edendum aliquando curent, primo quia est omnium quae exstant utilissimum, deinde ut nebulones isti Theotisci lucro cui inhiant prorsus priventur. David Morgan, 13 Feb. 2007.

Gratias tibi agimus, o David, qui periculum in loco nostrum feceris. Sed quid, amice, Vicipaediam hac matutinissima hora recenses?? Vale! --Iustinus 08:08, 14 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina Mensis etc.[fontem recensere]

Due to the page rating project, the recent changes page has been a bit unuseful lately. So I thought I would post here the following requests for comment:

If anyone else has pages needing comment they may wish to make the request in this thread. Rolandus would like a special page just for comment requests, but for now this will have to do. --Iustinus 22:55, 27 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and Disputatio:Apium please. --Iustinus 04:04, 2 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...And Disputatio:Safranum.
Rolandus, maybe there should be a "request for comment" temlate/category, instead of a page? The problem with any of these solutions is that requests are unlikely to be read except in the Taberna. --Iustinus 00:47, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Disputatio Vicipaediae:Communicatio. We should have such a template, but it will not cover the chronological aspect. --Rolandus 09:59, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina_prima_in_grey[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio:Pagina_prima#Pagina_prima_in_grey_.28silver.29. --Rolandus 14:13, 3 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting attention[fontem recensere]

Please see Disputatio Vicipaediae:Communicatio. --Rolandus 10:25, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A growing number of edits[fontem recensere]

See (from page Disputatio Vicipaediae:Communicatio). --Rolandus 14:14, 4 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogatio... Schola Neapolitana?[fontem recensere]

This may not be the right channel to post my question, but I really need to find out about a school near Naples, Italy, where you can spend a whole college term taking classes on Latin language, culture, literature, et caetera, EVERYTHING IN LATIN. Is there such a place? Where can I find some info? Believe me, I've spent many an hour looking for it in Google... and Villa Vergiliana is the most approximate result I get, but they don't seem to be quite what I heard of this school. --Orbilius 02:31, 5 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vivarium Novum, official website Good luck! --Iustinus 02:42, 5 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hercle!!! That is just it, gratias multissimas!!! I want in now! --Orbilius 03:14, 5 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I visited them in fall of 2004. Their location was beautiful. Since then, I heard they might have to move from their locus amoenus, but am unclear as to whether they did or not. --Iustinus 04:00, 5 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sanskrit literature[fontem recensere]

I've begun adding a few articles about Sanskrit texts and authors. Since the transliteration of Sanskrit is very standard I have been following it (though I am not using diacritics, except once for each name)). This transliteration makes a difference between c (palatal) and k (velar); so, since k is available (although we discourage it, I know) I have been using k in Sanskrit names. I may have to use j sometimes, too. No w or z. Hope nobody minds ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:22, 9 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea to me, and I'm now leaning toward doing the same thing with Austronesian languages (some of which make your palatal-velar distinction), and not least because ce and ci invite church-Latinists to make horrible mispronunciations if they stand for [ke] and [ki] respectively. IacobusAmor 20:31, 9 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could ask you guys to craft pages similar to Iustinus' Translitteratio linguae Graecae and Translitteratio linguae Hebraicae?--Ioshus (disp) 20:38, 9 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice idea. Actually I did this in print once, for Cambridge University Library -- a table covering all Indian scripts. I'll see what Unicode can manage. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:38, 9 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the difference between Greek & Hebrew on the one hand and Indic & Austronesian languages on the other, is that the former group have pretty well established ancient systems. For Indic we'll be doing the universal system, rather than a Latin-specific one, and for Austronesian, we've been content to use Iacobus' homebrewed system. Another difference: the former group is done based on how the Romans heard the langauges, whereas the Indic (and presumably the Austronesian too) is according to a more letter-for-letter system, a "transcription" I suppose. Notice that when it comes to Hebrew I use the ancient transliteration system in some contexts, and a more scientific transcription in others. Depends on what exactly we're doing. --Iustinus 21:08, 11 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castella et Aragonia[fontem recensere]

The crown of Castile is not the same as the kingdom of Castile! The Crown of Castile was created in 1230 when Ferdinand III joined the kingdoms of Castille and Leon. In the same way, the crown of Aragon is not the same as the kingdom of Aragón, because the crown of Aragón was created when Petronila de Aragon married Berenguer of Barcelona and both kingdom and county were joined! Hence, Regnum Castellae should not redirect to Corona Castellae, nor should Regnum Aragoniae (Regnum Aragonis) redirect to Corona Aragoniae (Corona Aragonae) (Aragoniae, not Aragonis or Aragonae). Can the redirection be solved?--Xaverius 09:28, 10 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the redirects (by clicking on a link to them, then going back to them from the small link under the title of the page you reach, then clicking on edit). All you need to decide, then, is what should those two redirects do? (a) redirect to something else, or (b) become stubs and eventually articles. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:58, 10 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be better to create two new stubs then... Cheers!--Xaverius 14:09, 10 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vide Disputatio usoris:Andrew Dalby. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:22, 10 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a new template, closely resembling the nice neat existing template {{Nexus carentes}} {{Nexus desiderati}} (--Rolandus 14:03, 11 Martii 2007 (UTC)).[reply]
The idea is that we use Nexus desiderati on pages which have no interwiki links but we suspect they are waiting to be discovered.
We change this to the new formula {{Nexus absunt}} when we have looked for interwiki links and are confident that there are none (i.e., for the moment, Vicipaedia has the only article on this subject). The idea is to record the fact that we have actually searched for interwiki links; and also (see Category:Nexus usque adhuc absunt) to have a list of articles for which Vicipaedia is currently the only wikipedia source.
There is a third case -- a topic so special to Vicipaedia that we expect there will never be any interwiki links. This possibility is already covered in the comments on Nexus desiderati, which say "In that case, do not use this template". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 11 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! On Pagina prima we should point our visitors to Category:Nexus usque adhuc absunt. This an added value of the Latin Wikipedia. --Rolandus 14:03, 11 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vide Disputatio formulae:Fontes desiderati#Two cases. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:04, 13 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made {{Citatio desiderata}}. This is for use when a statement ought to be supported with a citation. {{Fontes desiderati}} still exists, and is to be used for the specific case when we need evidence of a Latin name. Both of them are intended to be formatted as footnotes; thus, when a later editor wants to add a citation, all that's needed is to delete the formula and to insert the citation in its place. See also Vicipaedia:Fons. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:10, 16 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ut credo ego, Malachites (ab User:Stattloch1 addita) est pagina Vicipaediana numero 12,000. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 15 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gratulationes! Vicipaedia augetur! --HerbaDulcis 19:42, 15 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gaudeamus igitur! Vicipaedia nostra est quotidie maior et utilior! --Alexis Hellmer 20:08, 15 Martii 2007 (UTC)[reply]