Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 2

Latinitas inspicienda
E Vicipaedia
Disputationes antiquae ex Vicipaedia:Taberna.
Pro disputationibus antiquioribus vide Vicipaedia:Taberna/Vetustiora.

signum "movere" in pagina praecipua[fontem recensere]

Signum "movere" cum prematur indicat "motare paginam" vice "mutare paginam" aut "movere paginam"

signum "permanent link" in pagina prima[fontem recensere]

Mea opinione, "permanent link" traducendum est

Cogito "Nexus permansurus" bonum esse. --Denwid 13:29, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Permansurus" haud male dictum est, sed alia fieri possunt, e.g. stabilis, perpetuus, etc. --Iustinus 18:01, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In sententia permaneo ut "stabilis" verbum nimis universum sit, non utile nos, quod verdum temporem describientem indigemus. Ergo verbi "permansurus" et "perpetuus" manent, inter eos "perpetuus" eligo, quod "permanere" "sustinere" paene aequat. Translatio anglice:
After I read this i think i'll write it in english too, just to make sure everybody understands. It's quite complicated. Here we go:
In my opionion "stabilis" can be used for erverything that doesn't change, so we can't use it, because we need something that says: it doesn't change over time. Now "permansurus" and "perpetuus" are left. Between those two, i'd take "perpetuus" because "permanere" means something more like "to bear up against something" (not quite exact, I know, but i hope you got the picture). --Denwid 18:56, 30 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please revert Liberia. Thanks --Roland2 15:09, 25 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. But you can "manually" revert pages by going into the history and editing a previous version.

Collaborative Projects - Pagina Mensis[fontem recensere]

I recently suggested we start a featured article candidate list to encourage people to make more articles worthy of Pagina Mensis status. Revolutio suggested we start a collaboration of the week. In a private IM, Myces similarly suggested a weekly or monthly article for cleanup.
I think these are good ideas, but don't really have the wiki-fu to impliment them. Do other users like these suggestions? And if so, can someone besides me start implimenting them? ;) --Iustinus 20:23, 25 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The collaboration of the week is a good idea. How about implementing this in the Tabula Rasa field on Porta communis? --Misericordia 13:05, 14 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would Vicipaedia:Candidatus pagina mensis be ok? --Roland2 15:03, 1 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, the discussion takes place on Disputatio Formulae:PaginaMensis. --Roland2 21:38, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality levels[fontem recensere]

I support this idea [i. e. Collaborative Projects - Pagina Mensis]. Moreover there should be a system of fine granulated quality levels with corresponding categories. Most of the articles are stubs and so maybe a category not-a-stub would be helpful ;-) Of course there should be nicer names for the e. g. following levels:

  1. alpha - an article with nearly nothing: a sentence, categories and maybe interwiki links
  2. beta - an article with more than one sentence, at least a category and hopefully interwiki links or external references
  3. ok - we could leave this article alone
  4. correct - sufficiant content and approved Latin
  5. better/nice/...
  6. good
  7. very good
  8. excellent

For each level there should be a corresponding category "candidate for", e. g.:

  1. candidate for alpha ;-)
  2. candidate for beta
  3. candidate for ok
  4. candidate for correct
  5. candidate for better/nice/...
  6. candidate for good
  7. candidate for very good
  8. candidate for excellent

And for articles which are becoming worse:

  1. former beta
  2. former ok
  3. former correct
  4. former better/nice/...
  5. former good
  6. former very good
  7. former excellent

The advantages of this system:

  • Each article could be tagged with a fine granular yet easy selectable (I think so) quality tag.
  • Everyone can tag an article as "candidate for xy" without asking others. Then there will be the discussion (on the article's talk page).
  • Everyone can tag an article as "former(ly) xy" and we know what articles are getting worse.
  • There should be such many levels that there is not a big gap between two levels (to avoid long discussions).

Articles can even have two tags. For example an article can be a "former excellent" and a "candidate for good". We should try to avoid that this becomes true ... of course. ;-) --Roland2 15:30, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems a lot to expect from this wikipedia ;) --Iustinus 18:02, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I for one think we should do it, maybe with an extended stay for the featured article though - say a week. It would promote good articles. The only thing is I think the featured article has to have at least one decent picture. Alexanderr 07:25, 9 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoria:Incepta publica[fontem recensere]

Some of the templates I've recently created add the page to Categoria:Incepta publica, which I intend to list pages that especially need attention. Currently it lists the current week's Translation of the Week, and all the pages that are on the queue for Page of the Month. Translation of the Week could of course always use a bit of help, and any article which is going to be featured on the front page should be picked over with a fine tooth comb. So I am hoping you will agree that this is a good idea.

One thing though: on En: it seems to have become the custom that templates identifying classes of articles (e.g. featured, on front page, article of the day, etc.) should go on the talk page. But I think in many cases it may make more sense for us to put the template on the page itself. For instance, it would be nice to have the "Future Pagina Mensis" warning nice and conspicuous on the article itself, and as I stated elsewhere it makes sense to me to put the "Current Translatio Hebdomadalis" warning on the page, so people know it's a work in progress. It is especially inconvenient that if the template is on the talk page, it will be the talk page that is listed in any categories (the best once can do to change this is to alphabetize based on the page title). --Iustinus 16:08, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intersect[fontem recensere]

There is a new tool which I have described at Usor:Roland2/Intersect:

Intersect is a tool for selecting articles by intersecting categories and categories/templates. It can seek down a given level of categories (i. e. a recursive search).

BTW, it might even be a substitute for the stubs by topic cause someone can make e. g. a recursive intersection of Categoria:Urbes and Formula:stipula and will get a list of all urbes which are tagged as stipulae. --Roland2 11:44, 25 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sunt 3,995 articuli[fontem recensere]

Is there a nice article which wants to be number 4000? ;-) --Roland2 18:20, 27 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm working on Barchochebas right now. We're at 3,998 at this moment. If the timing works out, I'll go for it. --Iustinus 02:52, 28 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quomodo scribere nomina?[fontem recensere]

Non certus sum, num unum ad omnes nomina vel solum nomina civitatum et personis cum litteris magnis scribere debeo. --Denwid 11:36, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mos noster usque adhuc est "nomina propria" (proper nouns) cum littera magna incipere sed non nomina appellativa (common nouns), ut in plurimis linguis vernaculis (praeter Germanicam).

Categoria:Australia[fontem recensere]

Categoria:Australia and Australia should be split up into:

  • Australia the continent and
  • Australia the region, containing Australia the continent, Oceania, ...

Categoria:Nationes Australiae are the nations of the region Australia (and Oceania, ...) which is not clear without this disambiguation. --Roland2 12:18, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoria:Australasia[fontem recensere]

Do we need Categoria:Australasia? What articles should go there? --Roland2 13:01, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we need it. To me it seems like there are enough categories for Australia/Oceania available. --Denwid 13:12, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continentes and Oceania[fontem recensere]

I tried to match the Latin article Continens with the corresponding articles in German and English and it is not clear to me what concept of continents we are following here. There is even a contradiction between the German and the English article. Especially the question, whether Australia is a continent or part of Oceania.

Secondly there seem to be inconsistencies between the list of civitates in Oceania and the list in Formula:Oceania. E. g. Iaponia belongs to Asia, I think.

--Roland2 22:37, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposing Categoria:Territoria Europaeae[fontem recensere]

I'd like to propose a Categoria:Territoria Europaeae(?). Then we would have Categoria:Europa containing

  1. Categoria:Nationes Europaeae and
  2. Categoria:Territoria Europaeae (Gallia, ...)

Seems to be clean. There is already a formula using these terms. --Roland2 14:03, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am indifferent as to whether or not there should be such a category (but it couldn't hurt I suppose). However it would be Categoria:Territoria Europaea. I've also heard terrena used to mean "territory" but it doesn't seem to be in teh l&s, so it may not be classical. --Iustinus 18:01, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The terminus is from formula {{Europa}}. It seems the intention is that nationes corresponds with the modern countries and territoria with the ancient regions. BTW: regiones and provinces ... is this the same? See also Disputatio:Armenia. At least urbes seems to be clear. ;-) --Roland2 18:25, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geographical items[fontem recensere]

Any volunteers for starting an article about something like Geographical items with examples explaining the terms? ;-)

Just a speculation ...

Where should these go:

What are:

--Roland2 12:42, 31 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template for welcoming new users[fontem recensere]

Do we have a template for welcoming new users? --Roland2 14:44, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think so.-- 15:56, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. We probably should, but we don't have that much good welcoming material. What we do have is generally poorly written and/or incomplete. Getting these things up to scratch might be a good project, because it woudl sure help get new users contributing constructively more quickly. --Iustinus 18:01, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe just saying something like "You are welcomed ... would you like to come on to the taverna and say hello to the others?" The material can be added later to the template. --Roland2 18:13, 29 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have started such a template at {{salve}}. I've also created the (apparently necessary) {{experimentum}}. --Iustinus 17:37, 11 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tabula rasa[fontem recensere]

Is there an ulterior motive with this blank tablet on the pagina prima which I do not understand? ;-) --Roland2 17:28, 30 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to ask again ... ;-) What is the intention of Tabula rasa on page Vicipaedia:Porta communis? --Roland2 11:41, 4 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoriae Alimenta et Cibus[fontem recensere]

I followed the interwiki links and added others. Now Categoria:Alimenta and Categoria:Cibus have the same interwiki links. Is this corect? --Roland2 18:35, 30 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Alimenta" should include drinks as well. At least that is the intention. --Iustinus 04:09, 31 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving the introduction from Taverna to Porta communis[fontem recensere]

I'd like to propose moving the introduction section (the tables) from Vicipaedia:Taberna to a new page Vicipaedia:Porta communis. Reasons:

  • then Vicipaedia:Taberna would appear more familiar to the users
  • technically the page were more "robust"
  • the two functions "talking/asking" and "looking for information" would be better separated
  • then Vicipaedia:Porta communis could be easily expanded without making the Vicipaedia:Taberna more complex
  • the first three headers in Vicipaedia:Taberna would disappear ;-)
  • it would better correspond to other Wikipedias
  • then Vicipaedia:Taberna would be just what the name says: talking, wine and music ;-)

--Roland2 19:00, 30 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pro! --Denwid 21:48, 30 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good. You might want to include a link there from the top of taberna, though. --Tbook 18:24, 1 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I moved the top of taberna to Vicipaedia:Porta communis. Tried to make as few changes as needed so that an eventually revert would be easy. The menu entry Porta communis should point to Vicipaedia:Porta communis and maybe a new menu entry Taberna would be nice. At least this entry would sound promising. ;-) --Roland2 21:08, 4 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove poculum-stipula[fontem recensere]

If it was a joke then it doesn't matter anyways if it will be deleted, and if it wasn't, I guess is going to explain what else it was. --Denwid 21:25, 30 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also in general... is there another way to say "this article should be deleted" except of going to the taberna and open a new section? --Denwid 12:19, 31 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems you have just found the {{delenda}}. However, I'm missing the discussion as well. Not missing in the sense of I'd like to have ;-) but there is no ongoing discussion on page Vicipaedia:Deletiones_Propositae about the tagged articles. I am sure there are reasons ... ;-) --Roland2 12:55, 31 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, but now i'm confused. If I wan't to add a {{delenda}} to a page I first have to ask at Vicipaedia:Deletiones_Propositae, and then I can add the tag, or can I just add the tag? And if the latter is true, what for do we have Vicipaedia:Deletiones_Propositae? And when are the articles, which are {{delenda}} actually deleted? --Denwid 15:34, 31 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since la: is such a small wiki, we don't usually bother with debating things like this, {{delenda}} is basically a way for non-ops to ask ops to delete the page. Consequently, in my opinion, you don't need to ask permission to put the tag on a page, but it's probably a good idea to remark either in the edit history or on the talk page what makes you think the page should be deleted. I tend to ignore {{delenda}} if I can't immediately see why the page has been tagged. --Iustinus 16:38, 1 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uncategorized pages[fontem recensere]

At the moment we have less than 1000 uncategorized pages, which means, someone can get a complete list of these pages (the list is limited to a maximum of 1000 pages).

If you intend to categorize the one or other page, don't be disappointed. You'll not see the success of your efforts immediately: The list is generated from a cache and the cache will be automatically refreshed within some days.

--Roland2 13:59, 31 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This does not mean that we really have just 7 "uncategorized" pages: The several {{stipula}} templates do a categorization as well and put the pages into the Categoria:Stipulae, for example. --Roland2 16:52, 25 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tables in Vicipaedia:Taberna[fontem recensere]

As you can see in the history, I slightly changed the tables to make all columns 50 % wide. It seamed to work, however, I did not understand why. Then, when I clicked on the links Vicinuntii and Nuntii pluris... I did not get the exspected result. So I reverted my change but these links don't seem to work.

So I tried another form of formatting on page Usor:Roland2/temp and there even the links seem to be ok.

I guess the table structure of Vicipaedia:Taberna is trickier than necessary. If you like, I could try to change the tables in Vicipaedia:Taberna according to my simplier code in Usor:Roland2/temp.

However, since Vicipaedia:Taberna is a very popular page, I'd like to ask before. Shall I try to make a cleanup of the code?

--Roland2 23:54, 27 Decembris 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(I've moved this section from the talk page to here. --Roland2 10:15, 1 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Sounds good. You might want to check with Usor:Revolucion; I believe he wrote them. --Tbook 18:22, 1 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go ahead. ;-) Revolutio (disputatio) 03:02, 5 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Hopefully improved but the page needs more. --Roland2 14:17, 6 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graesse: ORBIS LATINUS[fontem recensere]

What about a category like [[:Categoria:Orbis latinus]] (similar to [[:Categoria:De Viris Illustribus]]) for locations which are referenced in ORBIS LATINUS, Dr. J. G. Th. Graesse (1909), which seems to be - in an updated version - online at Graesse seems to have been used for some articles like Aballo. --Roland2 11:43, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good. The De Viris Illustribus category is also lacking most of the articles taken from that book. --Tbook 16:25, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tbook: if you can fix that problem, please do. I've been trying to get Drengur to cite his articles with Fontes Vicipaediae templates, but don't seem to have much success. As it is not always readily apparent where he gets his texts, I haven't been following him around adding templates.
Roland: I'm not sure that's necessary, if the only text the article incorporates is the Latin form given in Graesse. Now, it might be nice to have a template, or maybe even a stubs category, for articles which are ONLY citations of Graesse with nothing (or little) else in them. --Iustinus 17:47, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have some arguments in mind. E. g. this tag would be a minimal proof of quality: At least the Latin name would be explicitly marked as verified. However, I do not know much about the coverage of Graesse. If most of the names can be found in this list and most of the names of the list are already articles, my argument might not be aplyable. If there is a discrepance between Graesse and Wicipaedia, adding articles according to the Graesse list would be a good start for Latin beginners who want to contribute. (BTW: Is the Graesse just a list of names or does it keep additional content as well?) --Roland2 18:14, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, I would recommend either using the {{ref}} and {{note}} templates to create a footnote (cf. Encaenia), just listing OL as a souce in the bibliography, or adding the reference to a ==loci== section (cf. the 1861 entry at Bagdatum). Alternatively we could create a template analogous to {{dubsig}} that would mark OL names with an asterisk leading to an explanatory page. The problem with that is that Graesse, while an excellent source, is far from the only source on placenames. You do have a point though: it is nice to know when contributors have a source on stuff, and when they are making it up.
And Graesse is not just a list of names, but it is ALMOST just a list of names. --Iustinus 19:18, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahah, here we go: this is what a Graesse stub looks like. --Iustinus 18:36, 15 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking of also incorporating the text of some of Isidorus Hispalensis' notes from his Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX. Of course, much of it is not in accord with modern natural science, but it is still an interesting historical source. Any thoughts? --Tbook 18:43, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Isidore's stuff needs to be used with care. He can be very good when it comes to defining terms, or the differences between things, and his etymologies can be at least entertaining, but he is generally difficult to adapt into an actual article in the way, say, De Viris Illustribus might be used. Note e.g. how I used Varro in tribulum. A quote like that might work well. Sometimes such a quote might even be incorporated directly into the text, with or without citation, if it is especially apt. --Iustinus 19:18, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transliteration[fontem recensere]

Is there in Latin any standard of transliteration from the languages with non-Latin alphabets (like Russian or Ukrainian) or using "modified" Latin letters (like Czech)? How should we transliterate the letters denoting sounds absent in Latin and denoted in different ways in the languages having Latin-based alphabets, e.g. English "sh" - German "sch" - French "ch" - Polish "sz"? -- Александр Геращенко - Alexander Gerascenco/Gerashchenko/Geraschtschenko/Gerachtchenko... 17:05, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No ;)
My opinion is that when transliterating foreign names and words, it is best to italicize them and render non-latin sounds with diacritics, e.g. boršč. I am less certain of how family names should be transliterated for page titles. --Iustinus 18:13, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can do as the Greeks do - use "s" for both "s" and "sh", "ts" for both "ts" and "ch"... But in that case some different names (e.g. Chaplin and Tsaplin) will look the same. I suggest using a Polish-like transliteration at least for names of Slavic origin, because it is widely used in Latin texts concerning Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. In that case "ch" of "which" will be "cz" and "sh" of "English" - "cz". (See also: Disputatio:Tzekia, Disputatio:Victor Yushchenko). --Alexander Gerascenco 19:09, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would not recommend using the modern Greek transliteration system wiki-wide. Egger's overreliance on it is one of my major quibbles with Lexicon Nominum Locorum. If indeed the pseudo-Polish system is in common use in Latin texts, I like your idea of using it, at least for Slavic surnames in article titles. I do not like the idea of using it for non-Slavic names, nor for citing incidental common nouns in texts. For the latter type of situation I would prefer something like: "Russi iusculum ex betis faciunt quod борщ (boršč) nominant" --Iustinus 19:44, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for transliteration, there is no apparent standard. But if it comes to making a standard I would suggest either using a Greek-style spelling either in part (Iustsenco, which I'd be half inclined to turn into Iuscenco anyway) or in full (Giustsenco, which may be pushing it) or using an ISO standard transliteration, which would give us the somewhat unusual but technically valid Ûŝenko.
As for "modified" Latin letters the practice seems to be: either keep or drop the diacritic (you might find onca or onça for onça) or revert to some standard-alphabet equivalent (e.g. Groenlandia for Grønlandia).
As for sounds not present in Latin and spelled with letters and combinations strange to Latin, the most usual seems to be to just use the original spelling.
Of course for all these cases if a different spelling has/had already entered what passes for common use, it should be used instead. Iustinus' points are good too. —Myces Tiberinus 19:55, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the information!
The usage of diacritics seems to be a good way out, but it is not always convenient - sometimes it's impossible to depict all the specific symbols...
Using all the principles of modern Greek transliteration in Latin is not the thing I would suggest. I just pointed out its ignoring the difference between "ch" and "ts" and the like. So, the surname of the president of Ukraine may look as "Iustsenko" (but never "Giustsenco": Modern Greek "γιου" is not "giu", it's "yu" - the sound denoted in Greek by "γ" (gamma) is no longer "g", it is rather like voiced "h", like in Ukrainian, and becomes "j" ("y", not "dzh") in some positions).
I know about the pronunciation of modern Greek—but we are talking about transliteration, i.e. the carrying over of letters, not of sounds; in this case there is the basic idea that there is a very long-standing mode of transliterating the Greek alphabet into Latin, regardless of the sound of the letters, which even in the later Roman periods were distinct from their reconstructed/Erasmian values. Of course the full use of this for words not originally Greek (or at least describing Greek ideas, such as brycolax) would be a little extreme, as I mentioned. —Myces Tiberinus 06:02, 3 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see... -- Alexander Gerascenco 04:30, 5 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for Polish-like transliteration, of course I suggest its usage only when it seems to be of some tradition. It seems logical to use a Slavic language system of transliteration for Slavic languages. And Polish is less inclined to use diacritics than, e.g., Czech (the disadvantages of diacritics have been decribed above). The problem here is the distinction between "tz" (hardly Polish - the Poles use "c" for "ts", but widely used to denote both "ch" and "ts" in East-Slavic toponyms) and "cz" - their interchangeability is the thing I dislike. And what to do with "zh" (French "j")? Polish uses "ż" for this sound...
As for the sound denoted by Cyrillic letter "щ" and similar to long and soft "sh", which is present both in my surname and in the surname of the president of Ukraine... I like the variant "Iuscenco" (as well as "Gerascenco"), despite it will be read as "Yuskenko" according to classical Latin pronunciation (as for me, I use the traditional one, in which "c" is read as "ts" before "e", "i", "y"), - it looks the most "Latin-like" of all the variants suggested. The consonant cluster "sc" can be taken for "šč" (one of the widespread ways of transliterating "щ") without diacritic. Moreover, "sc" (before "e" and "i") is used to denote this sound in Italian (so, if the surname written as "Iuscenco" were Latin, its pronunciation would have been developed in Italian to something similar to the Ukrainian one). --Alexander Gerascenco 21:47, 2 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, should the article about the Ukrainian president be renamed once again? -- Alexander Gerascenco 04:30, 5 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. I'm not sure I agree that this is the best system, on general grounds.
  2. On a side note, in Italian, and thus in the "Church" pronunciation of Latin, sce' /še/, i.e. closer to ш than to the idealized pronunciation of щ (though I am aware that in modern Russian щ is pronounced more like /šš/ than /šč/)
--Iustinus 19:27, 5 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess here we are dealing with different understanding of Italian sounds in their comparison to the sounds of our native languages. In Russian textbook about Italian I've read that "sc" before "e" and "i" is read like "щ" (the example was: "scienza['''щ'''енца]"). And English "sh", as far as I can judge, "stands in the middle" between Russian "ш" and "щ" (Ukrainian "щ" is not so soft as Russian one), being softer than the former and less soft than the latter.
One more fact: "щ" ("shch" in English - but I suspect it's clear to you, that "щ" is one special sound, not "sh"+"ch") before patronymic suffix "-enko" is traced back to "sh"+"k", i.e. the surname "Yushchenko" is considered to originate from "Yushka" - a diminitive form of name "Yukhim" ("Ioachim"?). And "Gerashchenko" has its origin from "Geraska" - a diminitive from "Gerasim" (Greek "Gerasimos"). So, if we read "-scenco" as "-skenko", it won't be etymologically wrong.
Certainly, I'll gladly use any other way of transliteration (e.g. Polish "-szczenko", or better "-szczenco") - if we agree upon its rules. (Differentiation of "tz" and "cz" as "ts" and "ch" is one of the main things referring to this matter that I care about - should "Tzar" be mainly "Czar" or "Tzechia" be "Czechia"?) -- Alexander Gerascenco 05:17, 8 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the specific case of Tsar, I think we should use the Latin word whence it came, caesar.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:18, 3 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's really interesting. I wonder what it is about the Italian /š/ that makes it sound closer to щ. Italian normally distinguishes long and short consonant sounds, but I guess I've never heard of a long /šš/ (which I suppose would have to be spelled %lt;ssci>. Your comment on the etymological pronunciation is also interesting. --Iustinus 21:47, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly speaking, I myself would have never characterised "щ" as a long sound if I hadn't been told on the lectures of linguistics that this sound should be written in transcriprion as long and soft "ш"... -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:15, 11 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? What would your instinct have been? --Iustinus 16:28, 11 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being greatly influenced by Russian spelling, I would have considered ш and щ to be 2 different sounds, of which the former "never has soft vowels after itself" (i.e. is never soft - it was the university where I learnt that consonants, not vowels, are to be divided into hard and soft in Russian), and the latter is always soft. One of the difficulties for Russian learners of English is pronouncing English "sh" softer than Russian "ш", without turning it into "щ" at the same time. -- Alexander Gerascenco 09:09, 12 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I also would not have characterised "щ" as "long sound" (what could have been the opposit to it, i.e. "short sound"?) -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:53, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As diacritics can't be always used (and not always recommended for using) in Latin texts, I suggest forming a system of digraphs to indicate sounds, absent in Latin. "Z" seems to me a good "modifier of pronunciation" of letters for Latin (something like "caron", but placed after, not above the letter) - it is not of wide use in this language, the digraphs like "sz", "tz", "cz" are not found in words of Latin origin, but are already used for transliteration of Eastern Slavic proper names in Latin texts. I'd prefer "h" as such modifier, if, e.g. "ch" did not already exist in Latin with the pronounciation, different from English "ch".

So, I suggest using "tz" for "ц" ("ts"), "cz" for "ц" ("č", "ch"), "sz" for "ш" ("š", "sh"), "szcz" for "щ" ("šč", "shch") and, possibly, "Zsz" for "жž" ("zh"). How do you think? --Alexander Gerascenco 05:51, 9 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really like it. Unless we have some beautifully authentic system it makes more sense to me to use the "carons." It is true that this will not show up on all browsers and systems, but then neither will Cyrilic letters. --Iustinus 21:47, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, let's wait until specialists, better than ourselves, make an agreement on this matter (or the information about such agreement already made becomes known to us)... -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:15, 11 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One more question: should I always use "c" as the letter for denoting sound "k" in Latin, or letter "k" is preferrable in some cases, e.g. Kaliningrad or Caliningrad(um)? -- Alexander Gerascenco 09:09, 12 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And what about "z" and "s"? Is Casan "better", i.e. more suitable for Latin, than Cazan (Kazan)? -- Alexander Gerascenco 13:53, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would incline towards keeping z. It is true that it was not considered a "native" Latin letter, but come on, it was extremely common in transcriptions of forreign names.
As for k vs. c, that is a very involved question. As you know my preference is that if there's a preexisting form we should use it, but you are of course talking about situations where it is necessary to coin new ones. The problem is that the Romans would have spelled any /k/ with a <c> (or <ch> if it was aspirated), but a huge number of Latinists (yourself included) do not use classical pronunciation. When new words are coined, different Latinists use different strategies to solve the problem:
  1. Some just ignore it.
  2. Some (notably Caelestis Eichenseer) take the Italian solution: c in all cases, but ch before front vowels. The problem then becomes what to do with g, since gh is so un-Latin-looking.
  3. Some (notably Egger) use a more German solution: c normally, but k before front vowels. This also looks un-Latin, and I have no idea what heppens to g.
  4. In former times people just spelled the word as it would be spelled in their own language, or in the case of the Jesuits, as it would be spelled in Spanish. This results in words like Nanguinata. The problem with this is that unlike <ch> and <k>, <qu> will not be pronounced the same way by all Latinists!
Ne multis (as Cicero might say), I would recommend you go with #3 in your case. I would bet that's what a lot of the sources you've found on the Slavic world do as well. --Iustinus 16:29, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are some guidelines on this as (formerly?) recommended by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for use in Latinizing names for taxonomic purposes. They're not all entirely agreeable (they do not particularly aim for Romanity or Italianity, especially in recommending sh and deprecating c), but are the closest thing to a transliteration standard for Latin that I've seen so far and thus perhaps worth quoting here, at least as a suggesting point. —Myces Tiberinus 03:21, 15 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
>> The geographical and proper names of nations that employ the Latin characters should be written with the orthography of the country in which they originate.
>> The geographical and proper names of countries that do not employ the Latin alphabet, have no true alphabet, or have no written language, should be in orthographies that take into consideration the following paragraphs. By means of the letters given below, an attempt should be made to represent as exactly as possible the local pronunciation without trying to give a complete representation of all the sounds that are heard.
  1. >> The vowels a, e, i, and o should be used to represent the sounds that they express in French, German, Italian, and Spanish. The e should not be used with the value of a mute vowel.
  2. >> The French sound u should be represented by the German ü (written as ue).
  3. >> The French sound ou should be represented by u, as in German, Italian, Spanish, etc.
  4. >> The French sound eu, pronounced as in jeu, should be represented by oe.
  5. >> The consonants b, d, f, j, k, l, m, n, p, r, t, v, and z should be used to represent the sounds that they express in French.
  6. >> The letters g and s should represent only the hard sounds, as in the French (English) words golfe (gulf) and sirop (syrup).
  7. >> The sound expressed in French by ch (as in chambre) and in English by sh (as in shot) should be represented by sh.
  8. >> Kh should be used to represent the harsh guttural and gh the soft guttural of Arabic.
  9. >> Th and dh should be used to represent respectively the sounds equivalent to the soft th (as in path) and the hard th (as in those) of English.
  10. >> Aside from such employment (7, 8, 9) of the letter h modifying the letter that precedes it, h is always aspirated.
  11. >> The semivowels w and y should be used to express the phonetic value that they have in the English words will and young.
  12. >> Complex sounds should be represented by letters or groups of letters, such as d+j, t+ch, t+sh, which express the basic sounds, as in Matshim.
  13. >> The sound expressed by the Spanish ñ should be represented by gn, pronounced as in the French seigneur.
  14. >> The letters x and c should not be used, since they are duplicates of other letters representing the same sounds.
  15. >> The letter q may be used to represent the Arabic qaf. The combination qu should be used to represent the sound that it expresses in the English word quote and the French word quoi.
That is very interesting (and you should send it to Gloss, btw), but man is it poorly written... even taking into account that it's obviously written by/for for French speakers. --Iustinus 04:18, 15 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is Cyrillic in Latin, btw? I've been meaning to add to abecedarium--Ioshus Rocchio 18:18, 3 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patronymics[fontem recensere]

How to latinize East-Slavonic patronymics? Their main part, i.e. fathers' names themselves, certainly are to be put into their Latin form. The main problem is what to do with the male suffix "-(ov)ich" and the female ones "-ovna", "-ishna"?. E.g. should Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov (i.e. John John's son John's descendant) be Iohannes Iohannovicz Ivanov, Iohannes Iohannovicius Ivanov, Iohannes Iohannides Ivanov or...? (See also:Disputatio:Vladimirus Lenin) -- Alexander Gerascenco 04:14, 5 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My recommendation would be Iohannes Iohannis Filius, unless you can find more authoritative sources that do otherwise. BTW, regarding the name Ivan, note what Egger says in his Lexicon Nominum Virorum et Mulierum:
Ivanus, i, m. Est quidem quod ad originem attinet, idem nomen ac Ioannis ..., a Russis praesertim usurpatum (Ivan); sed, ita ad sermonem Latinum conformato praeclari Latinitatis cultores (cf. Ivanus Müller) eodem usi sunt.
In other words, imho, we can use both Ioannes and Ivanus. --Iustinus 19:11, 5 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for authoritative sources, I've recently succeeded in finding Herberstein's "Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii..." in the Internet. This source has much in common with your recommendation - "Basilius Ioannis" is given for "Vassili Ivanovich" (i.e. Basilius III, magnus dux Moscoviae), "Ioannes Basilii" for "Ivan Vassilyevich", "Demetrius Michaelis" for "Dmitry Michailovich" and the like. Moreover, patronymics (their old variant, ending in "ov", not "ovich"), as far as I know, trace back to the old form of genetive case in Russian. So, should I start changing, e.g. "Victor Andriyovych" (Yushchenko) to "Victor Andrei", etc.?
As for "Ivanus"... Well, I consider that it can be used to make redirect links, but let's better use one form of the name in the main articles. But "Ioannes" or "Iohannes"? --Alexander Gerascenco 08:32, 6 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool. It is certainly not unheard of to do patronymics with bare genitives in Latin. I think the filius is USUALLY included, but in this case I would go with your source. And I've also heard that -ov was originally a genitive, though it's odd that it looks like a genitive plural!
"Looks like a genetive plural"? Right you are: "-ov" is (not only "was originally") a suffix of genetive plural of the 2d declension of masculine nouns in Russian. In singular it is found in "posessive adjectives", connected with genetive case and translated with its help, e.g. old official form of patronymics: "Ivanov syn" (John's son) - Ioannis filius. -- Alexander Gerascenco 04:49, 8 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My feeling on names as a general rule is that if the person in question has chosen a Latin name, we should honor that. So people who actually went by Ivanus should be listed under that name. For an extreme case, check out Pytho Montium. Pretty much all the proper nouns in that article are taken directly from a Latin text published by Monty Python themselves. Ionis is not how you normally say "John" in Latin, but if I ever write an article on John Cleese, I will surely put it s.v. Ionnis Cleeseus (though probably with a note sive melius Ioannes Cleese ;) ).
Since the tradition of Latin is not as strong in the Eastern Slavic world as it historically has been in the rest of Europe, we probably will have to make up a lot of names. I am not adverse to preferring Io(h)annes over Ivanus in such cases. It makes sense to me. As to whether we should write it with or without an h... well as a generall rule I am still undecided on this. Where possible I check how the man himself wrote the name. Where this is not possible, or where both forms appear... I don't know what we should do. HOWEVER, in your case the answer seems obvious: the form "Ivan" is conspicuously closer to Ioannes than to Iohannes (this is of course because Russian got the name from Greek, not Latin!), so I say go with the h-less form. --Iustinus 17:47, 6 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Ioann" is known in Russian as a high-style old-fashioned form of "Ivan" - especially in names of monarchs, e.g. Russian empress Anna's patronymic is used either in form "Ivanovna" or in form "Ioannovna", "John the Lackland" is "Ioann (never "Ivan") Bezzemel'ny" in Russian. So, I suppose, using "Ioannes" instead of "Ivan" is OK, unless a person introduced himself as "Ivan(us)" in Latin. -- Alexander Gerascenco 15:13, 7 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, if both Иоанн and Иван exist, doesn't that at imply a distinction between Ioannes and Ivanus? Still, I don't object to your preference for the more classical Ioannes. --Iustinus 21:47, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Members of an order[fontem recensere]

We have the following categories: Bendictini, Carmelitae, Dominicani, Iesuitae, ... shouldn't we have a parent category for members of an order? --Roland2 10:31, 8 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoria:Religiosi would be the appropriate one. cf. Religiosus. --Tbook 19:35, 8 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Categoria:Religiosi is now a subcategory of Categoria:Homines. --Roland2 19:05, 9 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convention for {{discretiva}}[fontem recensere]

Moved to Disputatio Vicipaediae:Discretiva. --Roland (disp.) 12:42, 30 Octobris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urbes Sueciae[fontem recensere]

There are some articles about Swedish cities. Would Categoria:Urbes Sueciae be the correct category? --Roland2 21:07, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. --Iustinus 21:47, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Moved 11 articles. --Roland2 23:18, 10 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange Wiki Behavior[fontem recensere]

On our Pagina Prima, Adiutatum points to: Vicipaedia:Adjutatum. On many other pages, it points to Wikipedia:Adjutatum. Anyone know how to fix that? --Tbook 15:59, 11 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ars grammatica / Grammatica Latina[fontem recensere]

We have two categories describing Latin Grammar - Categoria:Ars grammatica and Categoria:Lingua Latina, with some duplication of content; eg. Ars grammatica / Grammatica Latina. While grammar is a more general subject that could apply to any language, it seems odd to have one page for nouns in general, and another for nouns in Latin. I was thinking of making Ars grammatica a subcategory of Lingua Latina, and combining all the grammar articles there. Does anyone have an other idea? --Tbook 16:09, 11 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Categoria:Lingua Latina is more than just Categoria:Ars grammatica. Into Categoria:Lingua Latina I'd put teachers of Latin, great poets, etc.

My favourite solution (maybe not the correct terms, just to show my intention):

  • Lingua > Lingua Latina > Grammatica Latina
  • Lingua > Grammatica (if this is a correct term, it would be better than Ars grammatica) > Grammatica Latina
  • Roma antiqua > Lingua Latina

It mirrors the concept with cities:

  • Urbes > Urbes Europaeae > Urbes Austriae
  • Europa > Austria > Urbes Austriae

If "Grammatica" were a correct term I would prefer "Grammatica" over "Ars grammatica". I thought "Ars grammatica" means more than just grammar, maybe Linguistics.

--Roland2 20:57, 12 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After looking at the articles, it seems like there could be a separate Categoria:Grammatica Latina for latin specific things. I will add that. --Tbook 18:33, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

civitas / natio[fontem recensere]

which one should be preferred when talking about a country? Revolutio (disputatio) 18:37, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Natio. The meanings of civitas are quite broad, thoujgh I suppose it is the perfect word to describe countries of just one city (i.e. city states), such as Singapore and the Vatican. I did use civitas to describe Israel, but that was for linguistic reasons: the normal word used for "State" in Hebrew is m@dina (sorry, I'm on my laptop so I can't do unicode), which is cognate with Arabic madina "city." The original meaning was of course "city state." Also, Natio Israelis could still mean the biblical "Nation of Israel" i.e., the Jews (or whoever else has coopted that expression) as a whole. --Iustinus 23:26, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have similar questions, see section Geographical items (some sections above). There are also reges / imperatores. In German we have de:König, de:Kaiser and the more general de:Herrscher (Latin?) and de:Staatsoberhaupt (Latin?). de:Regent seems to be derived from rex but in German it is a general term for the first person in a monarchy (kings, imperators, ...). --Roland2 19:01, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, well let's see... so far as I can tell the equivalents would be as follows:
König = rex
Kaiser = caesar, imperator
Herscher = monarcha
Staatsoberhaupt, Prinz, Fürst = princeps (unfortunately this word has severl meanings)
Regent = monarcha, regens, interrex (depending on context)
--Iustinus 23:26, 14 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errors in article names[fontem recensere]

How should I mark a possible error in an article's name? Is it sort of {{reddenda}} or shouldn't be there a special template? Such articles should then be listed in a subcategory of Categoria:Latinitas corrigenda. Examples: Titus Quinctius Faminius, Placentia. BTW, I think maxcorrigenda and reddenda should also get their own subcategories below Categoria:Latinitas corrigenda. --Roland2 09:33, 15 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template meant to mark questionable Latin in an article title, which may or may not be repeated when mentioned throughout the article, is {{dubium}}. (And the template to mark a word you're not sure about the translation of in the body of an article is {{dubsig}}. These, which end up in Categoria:Latinitas dubia, should probably also be subcategorized under Categoria:Latinitas corrigenda.) —Myces Tiberinus 14:48, 15 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Auxilium pro ... + en/de/... subpages[fontem recensere]

We have

  1. Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione ... technical issues (about the wiki software)
  2. Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (latine) ... specialities of the latin Wikipedia
  3. Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (anglice) ... translation of the language specialities

Maybe we should rename these pages.

Suggestion 1:

  1. Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (vici)
  2. Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (lingua)
  3. Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione (lingua)/en ... subpage is a translation of #2
  4. Vicipaedia:Auxilium pro editione ... is a {{discretiva}} page
  5. Vicipaedia:Auxilium ... lists the above pages and some other useful pages

BTW, wouldn't it be a good idea to generally put non-latin content on subpages like "latin pagename/en" or "latin pagename/de"? Those subpages should start with a translation of the Latin title of course ;-) and there might be redirects from an "english pagename" to "latin pagename/en". With this strategy we had a "clean" Latin-only Vicipaedia on the one hand and on the other hand a convenient access for people with mother tongues other than Latin. Maybe user pages and the taberna should be exceptions. --Roland2 11:08, 15 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is already a page Auxilium which keeps a Lexicum computatoris linguae. I'd propose

  1. to move Auxilium to Vicipaedia:Auxilium since it is meta information and
  2. to move the table then from Vicipaedia:Auxilium to Vicipaedia:Lexicum computatoris linguae.

--Roland2 21:55, 16 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paginis auxilium pro editione ... revera nomina nova danda censeo; nam pro non est verbum aptum seu proprium. Quidni: Auxilium editioni .. aut Auxilium editionis .. aut Auxilium edendi ..? W. B. 14 Kal. Febr. 2006 / 20.48 (UTC)

I'm with W.B. on this one. --Iustinus 00:05, 20 Bold textIanuarii 2006 (UTC)
Amen on this one. Ne usi simus "Auxilium edendi", quaeso. Puto nos iam scire quomodo nobis manducandum sit cibum... melius erit "Auxilium editionis" aut "Editionis auxilium". - εΔω 08:39, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that problem might be solved by switching to recensendi, which is probably a more à propos word anyway: edo really means "publish" more than "edit." --Iustinus 02:30, 23 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering if it might be possible of someone here with above average latin skills to make a news page like the En:wikipedia. It doesn't have to be verry long, just updated frequently. I'm not sure if it's possible, but if it is it would be great - all the other latin news things are updated once a week or two weeks it seems. Alexanderr 17:28, 15 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe Usor:Revolucion was talking about this a few months ago. The problem is finding someone to update it. --Tbook 22:14, 16 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Provinciae Liberae or Provinciae liberae[fontem recensere]

What is correct: Provinciae Liberae or Provinciae liberae? --Roland2 18:15, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I like capitalized proper names, so I would redirect Provinciae liberae to Provinciae Liberae. --Tbook 19:04, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I've made the redirect. --Roland2 21:33, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Roman military terms[fontem recensere]

Does Vicipaedia have a page corresponding to en:List of Roman military terms? --Roland2 23:51, 18 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No.-- 01:24, 19 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is preferred: Campus Bassus or Campobassus? --Roland2 17:07, 19 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would go with Campus Bassus --Iustinus 19:13, 19 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've put a redirect into Campobassus and have moved the information to Campus Bassus. Maybe Campus Bassus needs a cleanup. Please, could you have a look at it? Thanks --Roland2 19:38, 19 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(discretiva) or (disambiguatio)?[fontem recensere]

What is the correct postfix: (discretiva) or (disambiguatio)? Examples: Albania (discretiva), Georgia (disambiguatio). --Roland2 18:53, 19 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discretiva is, imho, vastly superior. First of all, it's a real, attested Latin word. Second of all, Latin prefers adjectives to abstract nouns. --Iustinus 19:15, 19 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've renamed the pages from disambiguatio to discretiva. --Roland2 14:32, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Litteratura and Litterae[fontem recensere]

There is a Categoria:Litteratura which has a main article Litterae. Is there a difference between Litteratura and Litterae? --Roland2 16:10, 20 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • litterae means "Letters of the alphabet," "A postal letter, epistle," "Literature", and a couple other things.
  • litteratura means "writing, alphabet," "grammar," "learning, erudition"
So it seems to me "litterae" would be better.

Actual hierarchy[fontem recensere]

  1. Categoria:Ars
    1. Categoria:Litteratura
  2. Categoria:Societas hominum
    1. Categoria:Libri

Version 1[fontem recensere]

  1. Categoria:Ars
    1. Categoria:Litterae
      1. Categoria:Litteratura
        1. Categoria:Libri
  2. Categoria:Societas hominum
    1. Categoria:Libri

Would version 1 be ok? --Roland2 14:05, 21 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine by me. --Tbook 18:27, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dunno, as I mention above, litteratura is probably not the mot juste anyway. --Iustinus 19:25, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You mean version 2? --Roland2 20:03, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Version 2[fontem recensere]

  1. Categoria:Ars
    1. Categoria:Litterae
      1. Categoria:Litteratura (all of Litteratura goes into Litterae)
        1. Categoria:Libri
  2. Categoria:Societas hominum
    1. Categoria:Libri

The hard ones[fontem recensere]

I've tried to fix some pages, however, there is a list of articles where I'd need some help: Usor:Roland2/Cleanup needed (→ Vicipaedia:Pagina#Cleanup_needed). Please have a look. Thanks! --Roland2 22:00, 20 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

simplex..... ?[fontem recensere]

  • celeris quaesitum ut Vicifonti auxilietur: quomodo vertendum est "namespace"?
  • fast question to help la.source: How should "namespace" be translated into Latin?
Nominalis spatium? --εΔω 10:55, 21 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what the best way to render this concept is, but note that Orbilius' suggestion should be Nominale Spatium. --Iustinus 18:52, 21 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nisi aliud extat... gratias ago optimo Iustino de emendatione. - εΔω 02:27, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)
I have just been using praefixum, given that's basically what it is. —Myces Tiberinus 03:58, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-or words[fontem recensere]

I'm a bit lazy, but I hope that someone will put up with me for if possible (g) and tell me how to make -or words such as Arbor into all their cases (Including the vocative for who knows when you might need to speak to a tree in latin). Alexanderr 07:13, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vide Declinatio tertia.

-or are normally third declension nouns, with genitive in -oris. They are almost always masculine (arbor, is of course an exception: trees and names thereof are almost always feminine in Latin, no matter what gender they look like they should be). If this is not enough information, let me know. --Iustinus 19:07, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In pagina prima nexus ad tabernam falsus est![fontem recensere]

In pagina prima nexus ad tabernam falsus est!

The link to the taberna is also broken on Specialis:Recentchanges. It goes to the English Wikipedia. Some days ago I made redirects from Wikipedia:Taberna to Vicipaedia:Taberna to fix the broken links on Specialis:Recentchanges. The actual situation seems to be a technical problem with the software. I think Wikipedia:Taberna should (technically) go to page Wikipedia:Taberna in the article (i. e. default) namespace of the Latin Wikipedia, because we do not have a namespace Wikipedia. The Wikipedia namespace of other Wikipedias is called Vicipedia here. --Roland2 12:12, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basic question about which latin to use[fontem recensere]

Hi! I've got a question about what language to use in articles in the latin wikipedia:

There are different flavors of the latin language: Classical latin and old vulgar latin, which both lack modern words and modern latin (ecclestical latin), which is maintined by the Vatican.

As there are articles about things like computers and other modern stuff, I think it's not possible to use classical or vulgar latin.

But if the correct language to use is ecclestical latin, I think wikipedia should really make use of the "Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis", which is published by the Vatican.

This question arose when I read the article about computers, which uses, as sombody has correctly remaked within the article, a wrong word for computer, regarding the Lexicon. The article name is 'Computatrum' or 'Computatorium', but the correct translation of computer is indeed 'instrumentum compuatorium' according to the Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis.

BTW.: I'm not sure where the word 'computatrum' has been, well, I would say, invented. There are indeed also a lot of references to this word on the web.

So what do you think about this??

Greets, Michael.

I've wondered on and off about this myself. On one hand, I'm of the mind to act like the Romans, and more so the Greeks, who fully developed different styles of writing depending on genre. Thus for colloquial discourse the Latin of Plautus, for science the language of Lucretius, military history Caesar, etc. There are three problems to this, as I see them:
  • This is an encyclopedia foremost. Possibly a genre of referential Latin should supercede.
  • A large percentage of Vicipaedii are of the cloth, or learnt their Latin in ecclesiastic settings. Therefore, naturally, much of the writing on here is late; richer in vocabulary than classical Latin was, and more straightforward in syntax.
  • Nobody speaks this language natively. Most of us who do speak/write Latin, are able to master if we're lucky one style. It certainly can not be expected as a rule that articles be written in the style of Latin particular to the content/genre of the article. Those able to do that would be too few to make growth of Vicipaedia, in itself a primary goal I think we can all agree, efficient and practical.
I agree with you that we should and often need to make use of the Lexicon Recentis, but I'm a bit wary sometimes of its renderings as they often lean towards a more Italian look and feel than a Latin, or a more onerous. In regards to computatrum, I'm not sure myself where this word was coined, but indeed it is attested, meaning calculator. It seems instrumentum is redundant, then, and I'm not sure why the Lexicon's authors would change the stem of the root from puta to puat, anyway. Latin's history itself lends power to authors to neologize extensively, but if that excuses the Lexicon's authors, it certainly excuses Vicipaedii to adopt a more natural form such as computatrum over instrumentum compuatorium. All that said, though, computator doesn't ruffle my feathers, either. In conclusion, as much as possible I think we should stick to legible, syntactful (speaking of neologisms) Roman Latin, and consult the Lexicon liberally, but warily, when needed.--Ioshus Rocchio 17:33, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What style to use is an interesting question, and I've been meaning to write about it in the Translator's Guide. It's very complicated, and open to debate. My basic feeling is this: we should default to writing in a fairly classicizing but modern style.
But note that other Wikipedias typically have rules about which form of the language should be used, that generally boil down to "Articles related to X-speaking countries should be written in that country's style of X. All other articles should remain in whatever version of the language they were started in." I think that could easily be applied to us, in a somewhat modified form: articles on topics or periods associated with a certain style of Latin may be written in that style. It makes perfect sense for articles related to the Catholic church to be written in Church-style Latin. Articles on Humanists would look wonderful written in Humanistic Latin. Likewise, subjects about which there is a famous Latin work might be enriched by writing in the style and/or terminology of that work.
One flaw with this: we probably shouldn't use full-on Medieval Latin (infima Latinitas as it's sometimes called) to write articles here. That would look terrible, and might give people a bad impression of us. Biblical Latin should probably also only be used in small doses.
Now, as for the Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis, that is a commendable source, but far from the only one! See Lexica Neolatina for a pretty complete list of published dictionaries. I don't know who coined Computatrum, but I first encountered it over ten years ago on the Grex Latine Loquentium. At the time I argued against it, as I feel the -trum suffix is way overused by Modern Latinists, but now I feel the word is way too accepted to argue against. Even in Latin there is only so far we can get with prescriptivism.
Every school of modern Latin has its foibles, and the number one objection raised to the Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis is that it's very wordy. Many of its coinings are really more explanations or definitions of the vernacular word than usable expressions. Surely we can't go around saying Potio valida Slavica every time we want to discuss vodka. Actually, I am being unfair, there are some good counter-arguments to this, but for Wikipedia purposes I think it's generally better to go with the neologism rather than the classicizing circumlocution, as we don't want article titles to get too clunky, nor do we want all modern alcoholic beverages to be found as subheaders on potio. --Iustinus 19:23, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questionable contributions[fontem recensere]

It seems that for the moment it is possible for the community to monitor questionable contributions which someone would simply call spam or vandalism ... and fix them. In order to split up the task into montitoring, reporting and fixing, I've set up a list at Usor:Roland2/Questionable contributions. If you think it's useful we should move it into the Vicipaedia namespace, maybe with the title Vicpaedia:Conlationes malae or something which sounds a bit nicer. --Roland2 13:13, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, although Chilia is certainly an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia, although the article could probably use some work... If you were refering to the page-blanking, that sort of thing can just be fixed by whoever notices it. --Tbook 18:18, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am just referring to the page-blanking. Of course it could be fixed by anyone, however, sometimes fixing needs more effort than just reporting would need and maybe there should be some treatment with the account who contributed the unwanted edits. Moreover I'd feel more comfortable if a registered user would fix a page which has been vandalized by an anonymous user. My intention is to lower the hurdle of just reporting a possible problem in order to motivate as much readers as possible to check for strange changes. Additionally, if no one cares and a problem will not be fixed, it will have been registered at least and can be fixed later when somone wants to do some cleanup. It might be seen as a "taberna" which is focused on low level cleanup. --Roland2 18:54, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thouht about it ... maybe it would be more practicable to have a template like {{dubconlat}}. So a later contributor will see that there is something to check before he adds his contribution and might unintentionally cover the defect for other users. Of course someone could make the corrections immediately and we don't have any administrative overhead. However, if the user has not the time or skills to do the fixes, he can at least report the situation for later fixing. --Roland2 11:34, 24 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for proofreading[fontem recensere]

We have templates for several levels of possible errors in pages. As I understand, the levels are:

  1. maxcorrigenda ... many errors
  2. reddenda ... some errors
  3. dubium ... maybe a wrong title (I was told so)
  4. dubsig ... maybe wrong single words

I think ideally the templates should cover the following aspects:

  • concerning: a) the whole article b) just the title c) just single words
  • certainty: a) known error b) dubious c) request for proofreading
  • coverage: a) Latin b) content (e. g. "stipula")

Especially I'd be interested what template to use if I am quite sure that I did a correct edit, however, explicitly appreciated if someone had a look at the page and checked the Latin. dubium does not seem appropriate to me. There should be a difference between qualified doubts and the "it might be wrong but I do not think so" situation. --Roland2 21:06, 22 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, Myces did tell you to use {{dubium}} if the title is suspicious, but I don't think is intention was to imply that that was the only use for that template.
I have managed to convince you to use {{maxcorrigenda}} on all your new creations. I think this is a very good idea, and I would like to see other Wikipedians who are Latin novices doing the same thing. We dont' always have time to correct these pages, and it helps to at least mark them as needed correction. There are a number of good reasons to do this. So any other people with lower levels of latin who happen to be reading this, I would encourage you to do the same.
But I understand that some people might be insulted at having to do this, especially given the phrasing of the template. Perhaps we should also create a separate "This page was written by a beginner, and probably will need editing" template. --Iustinus 02:39, 23 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{Reddenda}} is for pages not fully translated, btw (it's supposed to say "the translation of this page is incomplete, translate or rewrite it if you can"). I'm not exactly sure why I put it under "Latinitas corrigenda." I never made a {{corrigenda}} template for some errors (because, really, most pages would need it) ... Maxcorrigenda was created for a series of articles like this one (since removed): "Molly Mail Era (Molly the Mail Lady) est a character in Sesame Vicus. Is eram ludio ludius per Charlotte Rae , quisnam quoniam praeclarus ut Mrs. Cenaculum in sitcom Res of Vita (Facts of Life)."Myces Tiberinus 17:12, 26 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] has a template for articles that are good but need to be wikified. I've noticed several pages on la that I think fit into this category. Just long paragraphs, no bolded subject, no linked terms, no external links, etc. Something like "Haec pagina vicificanda est." or something. Pro, con?--Ioshus Rocchio 18:32, 3 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking Stipulae Categories to the main Category Tree[fontem recensere]

It seems to me that the Stipulae categories are for the use of editors of Wikipedia, and don't need to be in the main category tree - eg. what benefit is it to the user for Categoria:Stipulae Sancti to be a subcategory of Categoria:Sancti? All the articles are already a part of Sancti. What do other people think? --Tbook 21:58, 24 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you. --Mafrius 23:36, 25 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a possible benefit: There are articles which are not categorized and have only a stipula template. So the stipula template in fact categorizes them. Good news: As of today we can say that there are less than 10 articles which do neither have a category nor a sub-stipula template. Sub-stipula are urbs-stipula, bio-stipula, ... There are only 67 articles which have just the general {{stipula}} template. See Categoria:Stipulae and many thanks to Alynna Kasmira. --Roland2 22:52, 31 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defect layout of Specialis:Recentchanges[fontem recensere]

It seems that Specialis:Recentchanges has a defect layout: The left navigation hides the list of recent changes partly. Can anyone else see this effect? --Roland2 16:39, 25 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. In my browser(firefox on linux) the recent changes page is broken, too. --Denwid 17:43, 25 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firefox, Netscape, and IE all show varying degrees of this problem.--Ioshus Rocchio 18:03, 25 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed it. Just learned that "fixing of broken HTML has been turned off" and there was an unclosed <table> tag in Mediawiki:Recentchangestext. —Myces Tiberinus 17:18, 26 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structure of an article[fontem recensere]

Is Vicipaedia:Structura paginae the recommended structure of an article? Should {{maxcorrigenda}} be at the top or bottom of an article? --Roland2 09:58, 28 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks about right. But where should links to like wiktionary, or wikiquotes go? Re:maxcorrigenda...I vote for the top. It lets any errant web surfers, and perhaps students researching a topic for a Latin project that this isn't the best example of Latin up front. Important because, especially if it's a long article, the surfer might only read as far as they need to get the answer they wanted, and not to the bottom of the page.--Ioshus Rocchio 14:54, 28 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Usor de-M or Usor de-N?[fontem recensere]

It seems that the categories for native speakers have a letter meaning "native language" in the language of the several Wikipedias.

Is sermo patrius / sermonis patrius the term in Latin? Then it should be "P" (Categoria:Usor de-P) ... or there is another translation ... or we choose another concept. ;-) --Roland2 11:26, 28 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I figured -N stood for "native" or "naturaliter", or something like that. --Tbook 14:53, 29 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, there should be a template between the levels Usor La-0 and Usor La-1 which means I can read some Latin, however, I have serious problems with writing.. I have put the Usor La-0 on my user page but if it's simple Latin I appreciated messages in Latin. Maybe Usor La-0+ would be ok, however, these are two letters ... --Roland2 11:38, 28 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

la-0+ Hic usuarius simplice latinitate legere potis est.

--Roland2 11:51, 28 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Along those lines I think something in between 2 and 3... Something like not fluently proficient with composition, but have extensive knowledge of Latin culture and/or linguistic philology. Maybe this is overkill, but I think its apt for some of our users.
And, just for my clarification, for whom is la sermo patrius applicable?--Ioshus Rocchio 14:50, 28 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

False link: Adiutatum in left navigation[fontem recensere]

Adiutatum is linked to the English Wikipedia: --Roland2 09:22, 29 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Novus sum et interrogo[fontem recensere]

salve. Latinae non multis scio sed cupio conferre vicipediae. So. i saw this Latin Wikipedia on the net. i would like to send some text but i am not sure if there will be some mistakes. how can i know that it is enough or not? studio medicinam et scio multas res medicae

Hello Arap, welcome here. If you are not sure wheter your contribution is ok, just add the template {{maxcorrigenda}} as Iustinus suggested here: . For more templates see my userpage. And ... if you enter 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your contributions, these 4 tildes will be automaticall expanded to your name and a timestamp by the system. See here ---> Roland2 10:14, 29 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, but don't sign articles, just talk pages (and other places where Wikipedians discuss things) please. --Iustinus 16:32, 29 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template for missing categories[fontem recensere]

I would suggest to have a template for tagging articles which are not categorized. This sounds odd, since there is the special page Specialis:Uncategorizedpages. However, this feature does not work for pages tagged as stipula, because these will get a stipula category automatically.


Symbol of Chaos.ant.png This article needs better categorization. Please help by attaching the appropriate categories.

Of course the text should be in Latin and the template should have a good name (malcat?, ...).

It is intended that the text is not red and does not have a red margin. ;-)

--Roland2 09:59, 29 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. See Formula:dubcat. --Roland2 18:21, 11 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoria:Lusitania[fontem recensere]

In two pages I have been working on I have made reference to Categoria:Lusitania but I don't know how to (or if I can) create it myself. It is here.

Point is I have been working in the profile of two Brazilian and Portuguese kings, which means they could go merely under Categoria:Lusitani, which already exists. But what if someone wants to write about a place in Portugal, say. In other words, I am asking the powers that be that they create Categoria:Lusitania. Thanks a lot!

D Ambulans 12:48, 29 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You just add some content (perhaps just the category it belongs to) and save it - just like an article. --Tbook 14:48, 29 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just created it for you, but then I noticed that we already have Categoria:Portugallia. So unless you have a different use for it, you might want to mark it delenda, and point your articles to: Categoria:Portugallia. Sorry. --Tbook 14:50, 29 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

gratias ago!![fontem recensere]

Sorry if i make some mistakes at the begining and thank you for the help with text "oculos". i hope that i'll. catch up how these things function. it's really hard with these latine links. but i'll learn.thans for help again--Arap 15:42, 29 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)ArapReply[reply]

Paginae Annorum[fontem recensere]

With all of the good work Roland2 and others are doing, we are getting the site into much better shape. One big mess that is still out there is the pages for years. We simply don't have enough material (or prospect for having it soon), to put together 2000 good pages for the last 2000 years. I noticed that what the English Wikipedia does for years BC is to redirect the individual dates to decade pages. Thus 555 BC redirects to 550s BC, and 2700 BC redirects to 27th century BC. I was thinking it might be good for us to have century pages from, say, 10th century BC up until 1500 AD, and then decade pages from 1500 through the present. That would let each page have enough content to be worthwhile. The problem is that it would still be a lot of work. If someone could set up a robot to make all the redirects, that would work well, but there would still be the task of combining the material from the existing pages to the century and decade pages. Does anyone else think this is a good idea? Does anyone know how to do it? --Tbook 23:38, 29 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done a bit of cleanup in Categoria:Saecula: Now the subcategries are ordered like in the en:WP. As I wrote below, it seems possible to redirect a page to a category. So we could redirect the year-pages to the existing saecula-categories (not saeculum-pages). There the user can select a year or the "main article" about this saeculum. If we categorized the decennium-pages by seacula-categories as well, the user would find both the single year-pages and the decennium-pages (if they exist) in the saecula-categories. This is a concept to avoid the red year-links and not to have to create masses of decennium-pages (and additionally move content from year-pages to those decennium-pages).
  • A non-existing year-page will be redirected to the corresponding saecula-category (not saeculum-page)
  • Existing year-pages stay untouched, unless someone wants to copy (maybe better than move) important lines to the corresponding saeculum- or decennium-page
  • Decennium-pages (because we have year-pages) will be additionally categorized by saecula
  • No content has to be moved.
The main advantage of this method is, that we do not have to move dispersed content (which is in now in year-pages) to saeculum- or decennium-pages and some time (months, years, ...) later copy the content back to the year-pages.
Surely the redirection of non existing year-pages should be done by a script. I know some programming but I do not know how the WP works. There seems to be an interface for Python and/or Perl ...
--Roland2 21:56, 31 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not even stipulae[fontem recensere]

There are some articles which are less than a stub (e. g. Elba), some of them are marked for deletion. I think it would be ok to keep them, if we created a new template which says something like "This article is less than a stub, however we keep it since the lemma is 1) relevant and 2) checked for correctness. Feel free to add your contributions.". I know, such handling is not accepeted in other Wikipedias but I think we could be individualists concerning this question.

The pros:

  • More quality with the process of creating lemmas.
  • Interwiki links could be added ... could have some marketing effect in other wikipedias.
  • Someone could start adding images.
  • Categorization could be done.
  • We had prepared slots for the awaited content.
  • Maybe there could be an interesting ongoing discussion (within the advanced Latinists) about the lemma - even without an article content.

The cons:

  • If we had no template which explains the situation, we should delete many articles, I fear.

More arguments:

  • The Latin Wikipedia is special in that case that even creating a lemma might be a hurdle and having managed to find the correct lemma should not be rewarded with deleting the article. ;-)
  • We could add a mechanism that users can vote on the talk page of an article for concentrating the forces on this special article. For this, we need an existing lemma.
  • If we had an existing lemma but no article, the article's talk page could be the place to plan the collaborative creation of the missing content. So even people with less skills could contribute.
  • Strange topics like comics, bands etc. could be started on the talk page of the article and the namespace will be less filled with wrong lemmas. We cannot stop people from creating articles like de:Superman, de:Kastelruther Spatzen or en:Benimaru Nikaido. Maybe we don't even want to stop them. The contribution just has to be in Latin. ;-)

What do the others think? --Roland2 12:32, 30 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taberna link in left navigation frame[fontem recensere]

If possible, I think there should be a link to the taberna in the left navigation frame, maybe below the link "Porta communis".


  1. Much text in the taberna is English, which would attract users which are just beginners in Latin.
  2. The taberna seems to be the central point of information here, since we possibly have ... um ... not so much written documentation. ;-)
  3. It saves some mouse clicks.

--Roland2 12:49, 30 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirecting from an article to a category[fontem recensere]

Maybe this is wellknown: It is possible to redirect from an article to a category. Example: page Bibliographia redirects to Categoria:Bibliographia. I do not know, whether this is wanted, but it could be a simple way to generate a "main article" for a category until someone will create a "real" main article. So users can enter "Bibliographia" and will now be redirected to the category and - sometimes in the future - to a "real" article. The user has not even to care, where in the hierarchy Categoria:Bibliographia is situated. --Roland2 20:00, 31 Ianuarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These accounts seem to be used by funny people sometimes. Please see their contributions. I was so bold to put some information on their talk pages. --Roland2 07:47, 1 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, I do not think these accounts should be blocked now. It is a school's account and unless we are not sure that there is not a teacher who wants to use the Vicipaedia in his lessons ;-) we should find another way of treatment ... maybe asking for such a teacher. ;-) --Roland2 08:00, 1 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. User:
  2. Usor:
  3. Usor: [1] 00:11, 2 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Roland2 00:21, 2 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User/Hacker[fontem recensere]

Will the powers that be PLEASE block user/hacker And thanks Usor:Alexanderr for taking the time to revert his silly pranks... D Ambulans 02:27, 3 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categoria:Orbis terrarum pars[fontem recensere]

Could/should Categoria:Orbis terrarum pars be renamed to Categoria:Continentes? --Roland2 00:15, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing interwiki links[fontem recensere]

Using I made a list of Usor:Roland2/Missing interwiki links. The dump is from 31 Jan 2006. The command was:

SELECT cur_namespace, cur_title
FROM cur
WHERE cur_namespace = 0 and cur_is_redirect = 0
and cur_text NOT Like '%[[__:%'
LIMIT 5000

It selects articles which do not contain the pattern '%[[__:%'. The '_' is a placeholder for a single letter. The '%' is a placeholder for any text. Please tell me if you need other database requests.

--Roland2 13:16, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formula:Victionarium[fontem recensere]

I have created a template {{Victionarium}}. See homo for an example of usage. It needs some Latin text and maybe technical improvement. Please have a look. --Roland2 17:16, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Aegyptus. Seems to be a good test case for templates. ;-) --Roland2 17:27, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Longest stubs[fontem recensere]

I have made a list of longest subs:

Should such lists be put anywhere into the Vicipaedia: namespace? --Roland2 20:29, 5 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about deleting the "Jyllands-Posten ob illustrationes Mochameti (Muhammedi) controversia" picture?[fontem recensere]

I am a Christian and I do my best to respect all faiths as I try to respect all people (and that in fact is being Christian). I strongly believe in and support freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. However, although and I can somewhat understand why people may feel like reporting the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoon controversy, I see no reason why Vicipaedia (or Wikipaedia for that matter) should reproduce the images that have generated such revolt.

I believe the main ideal that should be upheld by those advocating the freedom of the press is responsibility, and particularly tolerance for and respect of differences, which means I should not use my freedom as an excuse to be rude or downright offensive to others. It is bad enough that we live in a world where something like that can fuel religious and ethnic hatred. Therefore, I believe that at this point, if we reproduce the images we are no longer upholding our right to publish what we may deem fit, but only finding a way to be (and to let others be) racist and xenophobic.

This is all to say that:

1)I would like to suggest that we remove the image from the Vicipaedia page. I can live with the picture there but I would like to make it clear that if it remains there it will remain there without my support, as I truly believe that we would be a better Wiki community and one more in line with the ideas behind the creation of Wikipaedia if the image goes.

2) I understand that not everyone will agree with me but I am just suggesting a vote.

3) I am particularly not willing to discuss the matter further, so with the news that apparently the English Wikipaedia page has been deleted already I rest the case.

Thank you for your attention.D Ambulans 21:03, 6 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The English page has not been deleted, just the interwiki link on our page was broken. I have fixed that.

I do not know what I shall say about the pictures. I think they are of poor quality. On the other hand I think it is important, that people have the chance to see what pictures raised such an eruption of violence. However, maybe there are media in the world, which are more called to take this task, than the Latin Vicipaedia . So probably I would not have put the pictures into the Vicipaedia, but I do not know, whether we should remove them.

It is complicated. --Roland2 21:52, 6 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I understand it is a big muddle, but since four people have died already, I believe we should not in any way 'add' to the controversy, specially because Muslims should feel welcome here, shouldn't they? Anyway, I think I have said enought about this. Thanks for your answer. D Ambulans 01:01, 7 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ack...touchy subject. I'm of the mind to keep them. Perhaps a disclaimer, in latin, english, and arabic saying that the display of the picture is strictly journalistic and does not in any way reflect the sentiments of our community, but in fact completely contradicts them. It reminds me of Jerry Falwell vs Larry King...I wouldn't ever have published pictures of Jerry Falwell's mother having sex with a barnyard animal, but Larry King had the right to do it. I feel the same way about this, the pictures are atrocious, but they were published, legally within the right of freedom of press, itself an alienable, and I feel holy right. I may have a bias, being almost completely agnostic. I have great respect for parts of both the cultures represented by this controversy, the Islamic and the Christian, but I acknowledge shortcomings on both sides too. The constant disagreement and culture clash of these two enormous entities is worth documenting, and documenting fully, without censoring a certain part that we feel may be more sinister than another. We would never settle upon what was worth censoring, if we started picking apart every historical misdeed.--Ioshus Rocchio 05:02, 7 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

something like: Sententia, quam haec illustrationes exprimunt, in nullo modo aequat mores, seu cogitationes, seu sententias Vicipaediae, aut ipsius auctorum. Immo, re vera illae sunt malae exemplares xenophobiae quae multum condemnatae sunt, et solum hic habentur pro rationibus nuntiis. Who knows arabic?--Ioshus Rocchio 05:21, 7 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] regressus est et paginam vastavit[fontem recensere] clam in Vicipaediam regressus est et paginam primm vastavit.

User[fontem recensere]

User should be banned again ... --Roland2 07:04, 16 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Systema Periodicum[fontem recensere]

Objections to moving Systema Periodicum to Systema elementorum periodicum?

Article request[fontem recensere]

Salve. Me ta vole vide un article supra Lingua Franca Nova, un lingua ce me gusta. Es ce me pote demanda un article asi scribeda en Latina? Me gusta Latina ma me es un de la la-0+ usores, ci pote sola leje ma no pote scrive el. Esta es la preas Nos Padre e Pater noster, e vos pote vide ce la du linguas es tre simile. Nos prepara per nos propre vicipedia a esta anio (contra ce me sabe ce el va es nonfasil e nos debe es bon prepareda), e aora scrive articles en nos vici per mostra ce nos ance pote fa un vicipedia. Grasias!

Hi. I'd like to see an article on Lingua Franca Nova, a language that I like. Can I request here that an article be written in Latin? I like Latin as well but I'm one of the la-0+ users that can only read and not write. Here are the prayers Nos Padre and Pater noster, and you can see that the two languages are very similar. We are preparing for our own wikipedia this year (although I know that it's difficult and that we need to be well-prepared), and now are writing articles on our wiki to show that we are also capable of creating one. Thanks!

Nos Padre, ce es en sielo:

Sante es tu nome.
Tu renia ta veni.
Tu vole ta es fada,
en tera como en sielo.
Dona oji nos pan dial a nos.
Pardona nos ofendes
como nos pardona los ci ofende nos.
No condui nos a tentia,
ma proteje nos de mal.

Pater noster, qui es in caelis,

sanctificetur nomen tuum.
Adveniat regnum tuum.
Fiat voluntas tua,
sicut in caelo, et in terra.
Panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie,
et dimitte nobis debita nostra,
sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris.
Et ne nos inducas in tentationem,
sed libera nos a malo.

Here it is in English for reference. 17:46, 17 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created the stub.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:08, 17 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! 01:04, 18 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure...I'll get around to the grammar and such. I get to request an article in Lingua Franca Nova, though.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:09, 18 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, let's do it. An article on what? *cracks knuckles* 02:04, 18 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll have to think a you have an actual user name/page on a wiki so we can talk directly?--Ioshus Rocchio 13:44, 18 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about an entry in the user namespace with an appropriate Babel entry? ;-)
lfn-1 Hic usuarius simplice Lingua Franca Nova contribuere potis est.

--Roland2 10:59, 18 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could they please write a stub - just a few sentences based on or it wiki? Only 2 -5 sentences enough. Please. 11:20, 18 Februarii 2006 (UTC)

Vide Vicipaedia:Tituli petiti. --Roland2 14:36, 5 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcoming new users (II)[fontem recensere]

We have a template {{salve}} for welcoming new users. I seems that the number of new users per month is growing, but I think we should manage it, to welcome each new user. Preferable this should be done by users with some knowledge of writing Latin ... which makes me less qualified for this job.

However, in order to make it easier to help out, I would suggest an English preamble for the salve template, maybe something like this:

Welcome to the Vicipaedia! We usually welcome new users and we usually do this in Latin. However, not all users here are capable of speaking Latin and therefore, on talk pages, it is common sense to switch to other languages when it is useful. If you have any questions you can always ask in the taberna. After having said this ... here is the official welcome text: {{salve}}

(Please "optimize" the preamble ...)

We could even have 15 preambles: English, German, Japanese, Arabic, Esperanto, Gothic, ...

  • What do you think about this idea?
  • Who wants to join the "welcome committee"? ;-)
  • Any other ideas?

--Roland2 20:10, 18 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] seems that most people here do speak english at some level...but I hate to let it be the end all be all lingua franca in which we greet new users. I would like to join the welcome comittee, so to speak, because I think it is really cool for a new user to see a greeting, for lack of articulateness, and because I'd like to take on more responsibilities here. We are a small wikipedia and a relatively tightknit one, with the same basic people contributing usually, so it's good to have that personal touch. I would be more in favor of maybe a banner at the top of the welcome template, with like:

Welcome! Bienvenido! Wilkommen! Benvenuti! Добро пожаловать! Bienvenue! Seja bem-vindo(a)! 

etc, where each links to a template in a different language. We should pick the 10 or 15 most likely languages...maybe by taking a look at our own babel categories and seeing which languages have the most speakers.

As a native speaker of french, I could do the translation in french, and as sysop of the gothic wiki, I could try to translate it in gothic and in old norse, without promising any result. -- Sajasaze 10:27, 19 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could do the Italian one...I don't think we need Sicilian or Napulitan greetings, anyone who speaks those will speak Italian, too. Which leads me to question the need for an old Norse one, not to slight your offer of help. But this should be to greet people in languages they know primarily, I'd say, not in like Klingon or Sindarin for example. I don't know a whole lot about old Norse, does it still have native speakers? If so, is there another language that they would know with which we could 'kill two birds with one stone', so to speak? Like we could probably skip Ukrainian, and just have a Russian one, and we could skip Yiddish, by having German and Hebrew. Here is my start of list of languages we should definitely have, first with the languages on the main page of
  • Italian
  • Spanish
  • French
  • Portuguese
  • German
  • Polish
  • Swedish
  • Nederlands


  • Japanese

SHould probably also have

  • Russian
  • Arabic
  • Hebrew
  • Chinese

and maybe

  • Esperanto
  • Interlingua

This should more than adequately cover our bases. Thoughts?--Ioshus Rocchio 13:48, 19 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think, from the coverage, even 3 or 4 languages would suffice. On the other hand we could avoid any limitations by provoding a link to "more languages ...". I'd suggest to provide more than this minimum of 3 or 4 languages via a direct link and the others via a link to a maybe unlimited list of languages. So we split up the task into the aspects "What is useful?" and "What would be fun?" --Roland2 14:08, 19 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I mean if we get down to it, we only need Latin...this is a Latin wikipedia. If we want to have more langages for introductory purposes, I think wikipedia's main page is a good starting point.--Ioshus Rocchio 01:25, 20 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree. I think the following requirements should be fullfilled:
  1. Each new user should get some attention and be welcomed.
  2. If he does not speak Latin, he should be given some links, which he can follow.
  3. It should be explained how we handle this mixture of languages on the talk pages.
  4. The user should get at least a list of useful links.
  5. We should start soon. ;-)
  6. And there should be some people who are willing to watch the user creation log for candidates to be welcomed. We should have something like a en:Wikipedia:Welcoming committee where volunteers can list themselves, so everyone can see when there are too few volunteers for this task.
For me it would be ok to have some short praeambles in different languages and then links to further information. The content of {{salve}} should stay in Latin only, I think. Just the links to the praeambles should be in several languages. BTW, I could do a German translation. I think we should simply start with the languages which have been mentioned so far and add links to more translations, when they will be provided by someone. --Roland2 18:51, 21 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] what is the exact preamble I'm to translate? Or is an english paradigm yet to have been devised?--Ioshus Rocchio 23:34, 21 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My answer is here (because it's so long and confusing). --Roland2 00:28, 22 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok...matter of intrawiki logistics here... the preamble says yadda yadda yadda, here' the official welcome text in latin. Theoretically, if they are viewing the preamble in another language, they should have already seen the official latin text, and clicked on the top banner of the intro of their native language. I think the translated part should be more explaining of the languages we use here, our protocols, where to ask for help, where to see examples of our codes of conduct/composition, links to things like the nomina locorum and auxilia pro editione.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:45, 22 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to top?[fontem recensere]

In long articles, when you scrolled onto the end of the page, you have to scroll up for using the search field. Isn't there an easier way to find it? Maybe a search field on the end or a "back to top" link. --Misericordia 20:35, 19 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have never seen such a thing in the Wikipedia. You can do this with the shortcuts which your browser provides, but I know, this was not your question. --Roland2 18:07, 20 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have the image ...[fontem recensere]


... who has the article for this nice picture of en:Ibiza? ;-) --Roland2 22:54, 20 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation, please[fontem recensere]

I was wondering if anyone would translate Hiroo Onoda from the English - or whatever other language it currently is in - into Latin. I was going to do it, but the second word confused me. Alexanderr 04:16, 26 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pagina "Brasilia"[fontem recensere]

I am sorry to feel compelled to bring this matter to the Taberna.

Can I ask for help about the page Brasilia [2]? Some (apparently well intentioned) users seem to be altering the page and other Brazil-related pages by merely deleting/dismissing entirely other people's contributions.

Some of my "conlationes" to the page over the last couple of weeks linked to new pages I had taken the trouble of creating, including pages with tables and or images which took me, as a new user, a considerable amount of work.

For example, Brasil was discovered by Portuguese navigator "Pedro Álvares Cabral". The page used to read, "Die 22 Aprilis anni 1500 a lusitano exploratore Petro Alvares Cabral Brasilia patefacta est."

Then, at 19:21, on 16 Februarii 2006, I altered the sentence to read "Die 22 Aprilis anni 1500 a lusitano exploratore Petro Alvaresio Cabralio Brasilia patefacta est" and linked the name in the ablative to the page Petrus Alvaresius Cabralius I had created, my reason being that I had found Petrus Alvaresius Cabralius as the Latin version of the name in the Archontologia cosmica. I even informed that when I saved the page. Then, taking the lead from the copyright free Archontologia cosmica text, I altered the text to "Die 22 Aprilis anni 1500 a exploratore Lusitano Petro Alvaresio Cabralio nomine Regis Portugalliae Brasilia primum detecta est."

Well, if you visit the page now, it again reads "Die 22 Aprilis anni 1500 a lusitano exploratore Petro Alvares Cabral Brasilia patefacta est." and the conservative version of the name links nowhere.

The same kind of heedless editing has been taking place in other places in the page and in other pages with a Brazilian theme. To make matters worse, the users that have made the changes are not registered users and don't seem to take their changes to "Disputatio".

  • I know constant rewriting and revision is the name of the game when it comes to all Wikipaedias, and I understand this should be treated at the page's own "Disputatio" section. However, since I still consider myself new to Vicipaedia (and to Wikipaedia in general for that matter), I think I need help. Should I go on forever changing the page back to the format I deem fit? Shouldn't people add their own contribution without overruling/discarding other people's contributions? Thanks for your help. D Ambulans 14:49, 26 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Salve D Ambulante? - I have asked the user to discuss the questions with us (see Disputatio Usoris: --Roland2 15:13, 26 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thomas D.Ambulanti salutem!

Rogo te, in sermone latino vel neo-latino (lusitane, gallice, italice, hispanice) litteras face ad me. Quoniam in sermone anglico pessimus sum. Vale ! Thomas Aquinas

  • Hi, Thomas, I'm adding a Portuguese translation to your own Disputatio page. I have used English because as it was the case with Latin once, this is the one language most people can communicate in.

Olá, Thomas. Estou adicionando uma tradução para o português na tua própria página (Disputatio). Usei o inglês porque, como já foi o caso com o Latim, é a língua em que a maioria das pessoas consegue se comunicar.D Ambulans 22:24, 28 Februarii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tituli rogati - Requesting correct titles for new articles[fontem recensere]

As finding a correct Latin title for a new article is sometimes difficult and - on the other hand - a maybe interesting topic for discussion, I suggest to create a page where

  1. anyone can ask for "the" one and only ;-) correct Latin title for an article which does not exist yet or
  2. ask, if the title of an an existing article shouldn't be changed.

Maybe a page named Vicipaedia:Tituli rogati? (Is this a/the correct title?)

--Roland2 07:11, 3 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pro! --Denwid 13:50, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps Vicipaedia:Tituli petiti would be better. Petere has more of an demansive connotation, while rogare is more inquisitive.--Ioshus Rocchio 15:05, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand, thanks. I have created Vicipaedia:Tituli petiti. --Roland2 15:54, 4 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Layout of maxcorrigenda[fontem recensere]

I think it is a fact, that we have to live with many pages which need a {{maxcorrigenda}} template, which looks like this:

WikiLettreMini.svg Latinitas huius permaxime [[:Category:Latinitas corrigenda|corrigenda]] est. Corrige vel rescribe si possis.

It is very shrill.

I would suggest to use a more humble layout:

  • not centered
  • not a box with red background


  • simple italic text
  • just a little icon at the left side
  • a red icon which cannot be interpreted as "this page is locked", "you are not allowed to edit", "page will be deleted", etc.

Maybe something like this:

20px Latinitas huius permaxime [[:Category:Latinitas corrigenda|corrigenda]] est. Corrige vel rescribe si possis.

Asterisk.png Latinitas huius permaxime [[:Category:Latinitas corrigenda|corrigenda]] est. Corrige vel rescribe si possis.

I think this simple layout fullfills the requirements and has some advantages.

The requirements are:

  • Tell the user that the Latin of the following text is not ok.
  • Ask the user for help and contribution.

The advantages are:

  • It does not destroy the layout of the page.
  • It looks more "encyclopaedic". ;-)
  • Other templates could follow this layout concept. (We have tons of stubs ...)

It harmonices well with these layouts:

Symbol of Chaos.ant.png Hoc articulus melius digerendus est. Quaesemus ut opem des in [[:Categoria:Omnia|categorias]] rectas includendo.

P literature.svg Hic articulus textum incorporat ex Abbatis C. F. Lhomond De Viris Illustribus Urbis Romae, 1779. [[categoria:De Viris Illustribus]]

BTW, this change could be easily adopted and easily reverted, so we could give this layout a try without a big risk.

What do you think?

--Roland2 10:30, 12 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that is excellent - I was always afraid it would be somewhat insulting to put the current tag on the top of someone's work. - your proposed version is much better. I like the one with the "work" symbol by it especially. Thanks. --Tbook 15:16, 12 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consentio etiam. Propono rem similem pro et Formula:Reddenda.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:23, 12 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done for maxcorrigenda and reddenda. Now searching for an icon for dubium. Maybe we should have a color code: red = serious problems, yellow = warning or things which could be improved (e. g. dubium), blue = information, green = awards. This Schlaegel und eisen red.svg in yellow could be an icon for dubium. On the other hand: Maybe we should have a unique symbol for each message (and not the same symbol for maxcorrigenda and reddenda)? However, I think this questions can be answered later, when someone finds (or creates) better icons for those messages. --Roland2 22:13, 12 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Saltatio. I've moved the two templates to the top. In my opinion the stubs templates should also get this simple layout (as on e. g. en:Csárdás). And then - sorry for my impertinence - we should have a template (and a category) for missing interwiki links. --Roland2 22:40, 12 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case it helps, here are:

Schlaegel und eisen yellow.svg
Schlaegel und eisen green.svg

--Tbook 19:43, 13 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, it helps. :-) I've put it on the list at Usor:Roland2/Index formularum Vicipaediae Latinae. This list should be moved to the Vicipaedia namespace (using an appropriate title). The English comments could/should go to the several template pages (using <noinclude> there) or talk pages. --Roland2 22:38, 13 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This may be an American bias...but I would have the colors coordinate for levels of would be for maxcor, yellow for reddenda, green for dubsig, etc... Does this, at least conceptually, make sense?--Ioshus Rocchio 23:06, 13 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I'm dropping in a bit late... but I agree with the change, and I like the work symbols. Ioshus Rocchio's idea with red/yellow/green seems reasonable... --Alynna Kasmira 06:37, 22 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can anyone help me with a full declension of the word halos. I can't even find the genitive in the OLD...all I know is that the accusative singular is halos with a macron. Anyone with church latin skills? Thanks.--Ioshus Rocchio 04:24, 15 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Halos is from the Greek second declension, an 'Attic declension', and would decline like νεώς. In Latin it would be look like (sg.) nom. hălōs, voc. hălōs, acc. hălōn, gen. hălō, dat. hălō, abl. hălō; (pl.) nom. hălī, voc. hălī, acc. hălōs, gen. hălōrum, dat. hălīs, abl. hălīs. (According to Allen and Greenough, this declension as borrowed is declined like regular second-declension a noun in the plural.) If you have an accusative singular hălōs I don't know where it would be coming from. —Myces Tiberinus 00:18, 23 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok...contract noun, then. Thanks alot, dude. The acc singular in halos was misinformation given to me by the office girl from the classics department of my university looking through the oxford latin dictionary, when I called to see if anyone there knew . None of the professors werre there, that day. Again, thank you!--Ioshus Rocchio 01:20, 23 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcoming template[fontem recensere]

Dear Latinists,

talking about a template to welcome new Users I translated (quite quickly indeed so check it out) the text form corresponding template from and pasted it here. It could be a start. --εΔω 10:29, 18 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've had Template:salve for a while. Feel free to upgrade it. —Myces Tiberinus 23:00, 18 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ave. Vocone bene? Latinam in escuela anno III habeo. Posseone vocare bene? Nescio, sed scire volo. Responde in Latina. Si tu in Anglia respondere posses, etiam responde. Gratias tibi ago. -Zappa.jake 14:59, 18 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nescio quid significas... Petes aliquem quocum latine dicas? Vel, aliquem qui latine dicere scit?--Ioshus Rocchio 16:47, 18 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uh, I see you're a native speaker of English, so I'm going to go ahead and ask, what did you just say? -Zappa.jake 18:24, 18 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was more or less asking you the same question.--Ioshus Rocchio 20:06, 18 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nisi viderem ipsis oculis meis, numquam crederem me talem dialogum lecturum esse! In la.Vicipaedia tantum hoc fit... No need to translate, it just sounds like surrealism in action...
My latin teacher would always say: "Latin will kill you, folks!" --Tbook 20:34, 22 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Collaborative Project II[fontem recensere]

There is a discussion on #Collaborative Projects - Pagina Mensis about a collaboratio hebdomalis. I tried to follow it on the user discussion pages, and I don't know what really happened. So this is a question: Do we have such a page? If we do, where can I find it? And if we don't, could we put this on the free tabula rasa field on Vicipaedia:Porta communis? --Misericordia 12:12, 19 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some tıme ago I've asked here what for the tabula rasa ıs - ıt's always rasa, as the name tells. ;-) If noone has a better idea, I'd suggest to create a new page, maybe Vicipaedia:Collaboratio hebdomalis and put a lınk to it on page Vicipaedia:Porta communis. İn my opinıon thıs would have some advantages over puttıng the ınformaton dırectly on page Vicipaedia:Porta communis. --Roland2 08:57, 20 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have created the page Vicipaedia:Collaboratio hebdomalis. It is just a start. We need content and suggestions there. We could also divide the work into groups, e.g. for formatting or for interwiki. A plan which tells us what will be done each day would be also nice. Unfourtunally our first collaboratio hebdomalis will be the page itself... ;-) p.s.: I didn't think about putting the whole page on the porta communis. I just wanted to place the current article name of the collaboratio hebdomalis on it, like in the english wikipedia en:wikipedia:Community Portal. --Misericordia 15:46, 20 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Musici, aures mihi vertete! Incepi paginas BACH thema, A (sonus), Formula:Transcriptio musicae, et Formula:Stipula theoriae musicae, et in animo habeo multas creare. Aliquae harum opem egent. Volo proiectum collaboritivum ordinare ut theoria et transcriptio explicentur totum. Opem peto, si vobis intersint theoria, vel musica generaliter. Videte meam paginam usoris, ut videatis articulos qui proponam ab origine. Quaeso etiam patientiam mihi dare dum nomina appellationesque musica disco. Aerumnas habeo in lexica musica inveniendo. Liberi estote corrigere vel reddere opera mea ulla, si errores inveniatis. Gratias.--Ioshus Rocchio 02:48, 20 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Musicians, lend me your ears. I have started some pages, BACH thema, A (sonus), Formula:Transcriptio musicae, and Formula:Stipula theoriae musicae and I want to create a bunch more music theory articles. Some of these need some help. I want to start a collaborative music theory project, so that theory and notation and related topics are fully explained. If this interests you, I ask your help. Visit my user page to see a list of articles I propose as a start. Also, Latinists, forgive me while I learn musical terminology in latin. I'm having trouble finding fonts of terms. Feel free to correct or alter any of my work that needs it. Thanks.--Ioshus Rocchio 02:48, 20 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Macte virtute! Adeundum est ut tibi subveniam. Sed non saepe huc ambulo, mea praesentia maxima est in Italica Vicipaedia, sed illuc eandem paginam Italice verti ab Anglica lingua, sic quid facturus sis mea valde interest. Musicam amo fere tamquam Latinam linguam, ideo nisi crebra collaborationem rogas, legam et aliquando corrigam... fortasse olim ipse scribam. --εΔω 18:30, 22 Martii 2006 (UTC)
Gratias quia verba bona tua. Tema BACH excellens, quae paginae magis scripsisti? Noli sollicitare, ego de omnibus intellego quod id est, in locis duobus simul laborare. Id amem si possis leggere, revidere, et aliquando corrigere opera in categoria hac. Ops ulla bonast. Iterum ago gratias ob responsum tuum.--Ioshus Rocchio 21:35, 23 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Italica usoris pagina videbis pauca mea: aliquid dignum laudis a me scriptum et a sodalibus expansum legi potes apud hanc paginam, sed officium maximum nunc mihi est in dirimendis quaestionibus in "Musicali Taberna", vel in "Litteraria Caupona". Mox mihi delendae sunt multae Iuris violationes de ipsarum Latinarum Litterarum paginis -heu mihi-. Sed bona nova scribamus, si quid latine scribes huc, mihi scribe et libenter legam. --εΔω 17:18, 24 Martii 2006 (UTC)

Specialis:Uncategorizedpages[fontem recensere]

The list Specialis:Uncategorizedpages is a bit outdated. Whom should I ask to refresh it? --Roland2 09:17, 24 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special pages are cached, and in theory they would be set to refresh automatically every few weeks, though in practice I think wikimedia admins do it manually every now and then. I don't know who in particular one would ask, but one could try on the wikimedia IRC channels. —Myces Tiberinus 14:48, 24 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English sentences in Vicipaedia Latina[fontem recensere]

Could an administrator translate the "You are not logged in. Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history." (text to users that are not logged in) and "Cite this article" (left menu) texts to Latin? -- 18:57, 26 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to have already been done. I went to Specialisa:Allmessages and searched for both strands you noted finding nothing. UV and I are trying to translate the rest of it as we speak. When we became admins, 2/3 of it was either in English, or dismal Latin, and the only way I have the heart to do it is alphabetically according to the first letter of the strand title, one letter at a time. It still may take a bit, before we are done. Thanks for your patience, and please let us know of any other glaring mistakes/ommissions. Vale, nunc.--Ioshus (disp) 00:20, 21 Octobris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tabula rasa II[fontem recensere]

What is the intention of Tabula rasa on page Vicipaedia:Porta communis? --Roland2 11:06, 30 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, I'd always assumed that that was like "sandbox", tabula rasa meaning "clean slate".--Ioshus (disp) 00:20, 21 Octobris 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formula:Dubcat[fontem recensere]

On page Formula:Dubcat I have tested how templates could be commented using the tag 'noinclude'. Text within the 'noinclude' tags will be not visible when the template will be included using {{dubcat}}. The comment will be only visible when you open the page Formula:Dubcat directly. Maybe the other templates should be commented as well: For what should they be used, into what categories do the articles go etc. --Roland2 09:37, 31 Martii 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]