Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby

Hic sunt tabularia!

Disputationes veteres ad specialia tabularia motae sunt (auxilium). Si vis, hic infra scribendo in talibus tabulariis quaerere potes.

Disputationes anteriores hic habes: Tabularium 1, Tabularium 2, Tabularium 3. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 27 Martii 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vascus Gama Vasco da Gama

*	fortasse 1469 Sines Lusitaniae
+	24 Decembris 1524 Cochini Indiae

Chapter

Hello Professor Dalby! I read your lost chapter of the Satyrica and it was amazing. I was hoping you might be able to steer me in the direction of a source so that I can learn about what it was like being a food taster for the emperor. I'm particularly interested in the era of Nero. I believe his food taster was Halotus. Are there any sources you can think of that could tell me how the job of food taster worked? Thanks! GerryAldini (disputatio) 23:40, 26 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gerry, I'm very sorry I didn't reply to this. I got distracted. I'm happy that you enjoyed reading the Satyrica continuation: I enjoyed writing it. But I don't think anyone knows anything about how the job of food taster worked in ancient times, except the essential element: the taster had to taste each food item before the emperor did. If anyone was going to die, the taster would. But how long before the poison works? Who can say? A lot depends on the answer! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:43, 22 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I notice Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.3.9-10. That's one way. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:16, 2 Decembris 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De pagina "Syndrome Moebii"

A while back I made a page called "Syndrome Moebii" for Moebius Syndrome. You later moved the page to "Syndroma Möbius." I understand the change to syndroma, but Moebius is the appropriate Latinization of Möbius, commonly used in Romance languages such as French, Italian, and Spanish.

I'll answer on the article talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:07, 9 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conlationes amissae

Clive Sweeting Andreae Dalby salutem dat gratiasque maximas ob benignitatem in conlationum amissarum suarum titulos restituendo praestitam agit.

Help Requested

Please evaluate the motto I have on my user page. I wish it to be a translation of "Peace, Love, Anarchy, Natural Law, Free Markets". I am fairly certain I have the first four correct; it's only of the fifth one that I have grave uncertainty.

Thanks for any assistance you can provide.

Sincerely yours,
allixpeeke (disputatio) 06:31, 17 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! allixpeeke (disputatio) 04:04, 6 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De peripato

Excusatum me habeas quod augendae huius paginae oblitus esse videor. Rogo, ut mihi aucturi eam ad pristinum statum illam revertas. Mea sententia inceptum nostrum eiusmodi commentationem continere oportet cum ad rem maximi historiae philosophicae momenti spectet. Autokrator (disputatio) 19:07, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recte dicis! Restituo -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:34, 29 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De paginis movendis

Ave Andrew. Gratias tibi ago pro notitia tua. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 18:30, 20 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dionantum

Gratulor tibi, mi Andrea, nam ut vides paululum nunc conatus sum multo plura de hac urbe addere. Vale optime.--Viator (disputatio) 19:30, 20 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pagina Lilih

Salve Andrew. Mihi sunt etiam diffultates hoc systemate uti! Ad paginam Lilith quae scripsi nuper fontes adiugi. Nunc meliorem esse spero. Quo plus paginarum composuero, eo capaciter sytaxin et regulae huisce systematis intellegam! Spero quidem... :-) Vale, Limarius (disputatio) 15:49, 8 Novembris 2014 (UTC)Limarius[reply]

Lia Quartapelle

Feci, vale! Rei Momo (disputatio) 22:08, 18 Novembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

source

http://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/user_talk:Hindustanilanguage/Archive_1#Proto-Indo-European_Dictionary

DEATH TO POST-BABEL LIES

Proto Indo European Dictionary:

69.41.173.145 08:08, 11 मई 2013‎.

Anna Katharina Emmerick: EMMERICK VISIONEN

||

…Es ist dies die hebräische oder chaldäische reine Sprache.

Die erste Muttersprache, welche Adam, Sem, Noe redeten, ist eine andere und ist nur noch in einzelnen Mundarten vorhanden. Ihre ersten reinen Töchter sind die Sprache der Baktrier, der Zend und die heilige Sprache der Indier. In diesen Sprachen sind noch Wörter ganz wie in dem tiefen Plattdeutsch meiner Heimat. In dieser Sprache ist auch das Buch geschrieben, das ich im heutigen Ktesiphon am Tigris liegen sehe.

Heber lebte noch zu der Zeit der Semiramis. …

||

…This language was the pure Hebrew, or Chaldaic.

The first tongue, the mother tongue, spoken by Adam, Shem, and Noah, was different, and it is now extant only in isolated dialects. Its first pure offshoots are the Zend, the sacred tongue of India, and the language of the Bactrians. In those languages, words may be found exactly similar to the Low German of my native place. The book that I see in modern Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, is written in that language.

Heber was still living at the time of Semiramis. …

||

Indogermanisch=Muttersprache

__Indisch

____Neuindische Mundarten

______Hindi=Indier

__Iranisch

____Pamiri und Mundarten

______Bakhi=Baktrier

______Šugni=Zend

__Germanisch

____Niederdeutsch und verwandte Sprachen

______Altniederdeutsch=Plattdeutsch

188.227.187.228 (वार्ता) 09:00, 11 मई 2013 (UTC)

What do you want by way of mentioning this on Hindi Wikipedia forums? Hindustanilanguage (वार्ता) 10:08, 11 मई 2013 (UTC).

I want to terminate post-Babel course of unreligion, unhistory, unlanguage and unnationality plaguing whole humanity since Tower of Babel once and for all. This will free humanity from its orwellian newspeak misfortune existing since thousands of years. In this way, whole humanity will be reenabled to return to its nominal way, truth and life. 69.41.173.145 (वार्ता) 10:37, 11 मई 2013 (UTC)

This may be a good idea, and thank you for the links above. There are many possible methods of spreading this information via the Internet, but Wikipedia is not a good choice: it will not be able to help you very much (I think you already know this really). All the Wikipedias are based on verifiable information in reliable sources. Information that you add is pretty sure to be deleted unless it is already published in sources that other Wikipedians judge to be reliable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:02, 19 Novembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Culturae aut Villa Culturae ?

Ave, Andrea. Anceps toponymum istud est, aut Villa nom. s. et Culturae gen. pl. aut Villa nom. s. et Cultura nom. pl. Quia in fontibus Latine invenitur "apud Villam Culturas", mihi videtur Villa acc. s. et Cultura acc. pl. agitur, inde sequitur, nisi fallor, quod utraque nomines substantiva feminina sunt quae sui quoque genitivo Villae Culturarum reddunt. Eo modo Petrus Ronsardus Villá Culturis natus est. Vale. --Leonellus Pons (disputatio) 13:25, 22 Novembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optime, mi Leonelle. Nomen mihi admodum insolitum videtur, sed e fonte a te citato recte locativum "Villá Culturis" derivavisti. Da veniam propter dubia mea! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 22 Novembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secundum fontem citatum, Bovani villa = la villa de Boinville: "Habet in Bovani villa culturas III"; quod fortasse = "Habet ibi culturas tres." Quid significat hoc verbum cultura, cuius sunt tres? Ager cultus? ¶ Fortasse Boinville non est Couture-sur-Loir, et haec citatio ergo nil ad rem pertinet. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:10, 22 Novembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In "Polyptyque de l'Abbé Irminon" p.227 fontem citatum legere possumus "Habet in Bovani villa culturas III habentes bunuaria XXVIII..." quod mihi sonat "Habet in Bovani villa tres agros cultos (culturas) qui mensi sunt XXVIII bunuariorum (Francogallice bonier quid agrorum mensio est iugerum aripennumque non absimilis) et qui possunt seminari de modiis frumenti C".--Leonellus Pons (disputatio) 15:07, 22 Novembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

Ave! Gratias tibi ago, Andrew, ob tuum auxilium et consilium. Discipuli est discere. Meum est discere. Vale! :) -- Knixnik (disputatio) 22:57, dies Mercurii, 26. Novembris 2014. (MMXIV) (CET)

Movere Categorias

Salve Andrew, gratissimus tibi suum, quia passus meos in territorio novo inspicis et corrigis. Heri mihi scripsisti, qualis sit optima versio theodisci nominis "Wilhelm" philosophi "Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel" in Latinum. Tibi consentior et nomen in pagina sicut et nomen paginae ipsius de novo mutavi. Sed mutatio categoriae eiusdem tituli mihi non contigit, quamquam me de modo hic faciendi certiorem fecisti. Potes tu hanc categoriam adaptare aut me adaptationem subtilius docere? Te de Bavaria tota alba laete saluto Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 14:22, 31 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I thank you for your welcome back. I will sure have less time than in the past but I hope I can again work with youHelveticus montanus (disputatio) 20:59, 4 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dioecesis Tonganus

Salve, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes? HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!

Haec pagina nuc creavi, et tibi peto parvam relecturam quia categoriae non adsunt, et deinde rubeae sunt. Tibi gratias ago!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 13:34, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank youuuuu !!! Rei Momo (disputatio) 13:51, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feci!!! Proximus die 24 Ianuarii Inter Amnis ibo. Estne domus tua in haec regione? Rei Momo (disputatio) 14:14, 7 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Locum pulchrum olim visitavi! Sed satis longe a me distat, Rei Momo. I feliciter Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria paginarum Latinarum!

Salve Andrea! In commentatione Lex Salica creanda categoriae:Articles containing Latin language text apparuerunt - unde? quomodo deleri possunt?--Utilo (disputatio) 14:38, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removi, mi amice -- categoriam haud utilem postulavit Formula:Lang -- sed an aliquid malum in aliis paginis effeci, haud iam scio ... :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

removisti, gratias tibi ago, sed quo modo? Si fontem ad recensendum aperio, hanc categoriam ne videre quidem possum!?!--Utilo (disputatio) 15:58, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recte dicis. Quando fontem aperuisti, videbis ad pedem paginae "Formulae in hac pagina adhibitae" (vel sim.) cum nominibus aliquibus quae in fenestra editionis minime videntur: formulae enim alias formulas postulare possunt! Res haud facilis est, sed possumus, ea formularum enumeratione perlecta, formulas suspectissimas ad recensendum aperire et (si fortuna subrideat) rem molestam reperire et corrigere. Id feci ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nunc intellego! Numquam pedem paginae accuratius aspexi.--Utilo (disputatio) 17:50, 17 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

North Coast Inland Trail‎

Andrew, thank you for your help about the cardiac arrest. Could I ask your help with this article as well? Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:18, 1 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

en:Do not buy Russian goods!

Hello! Could you translate an article about boycott of Russian goods in Ukraine for the Latin and Italian Wikipedia? Thanks for the help.--Trydence (disputatio) 21:45, 22 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know Italian. As to Latin, I suggest you ask at the Vicipaedia:Taberna. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 23 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks--Trydence (disputatio) 22:20, 25 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De attibutione

Ave Andrew. Gratias tibi ago pro notitia tua. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 18:59, 27 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alerts

Salve Andrea! Gratias tibi ago propter comes "alerts" tuos (-as?). Tamen nescio, quomodo fiant; vixdum lecti - mirabile visu - evolant e conspectu!--Utilo (disputatio) 17:25, 28 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andrew,

These new pages were created by me a lot of time ago, I have kept the files on my PC. Now I am inserting slowly all them on vicipaedia. I will update them eliminating PND if not of interest. Also here is cold. have a nice dayHelveticus montanus (disputatio) 14:20, 29 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How may pages? Not a lot. I used the most of these preprepared pages when we were near the target of 100'000 pages.--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 15:19, 29 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rogatiuncula

Andrew, translating from other Wikipedias is generally not to my likings, and therefore I haven't taken much interest in the translation discussion. For the article on dilemma captivi, however, I snatched the table from fi:Vangin dilemma, making a few cosmetic changes in it. Except for the sketch of the table, "dilemma captivi" is entirely based on external sources. Now, if I need to give credits to the source of the table, could you please indicate how to do that. I'm afraid I haven't got the σπλάγχνα to read through a long discussion replete with Administrese (of which I've got an overdose in the university). Vale, Martinus a.k.a. Neander (disputatio) 13:15, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did it for you -- it was the work of a moment. I created a disputatio page for your article and put the formula in there as you will see.

I don't do much direct translation either, but I guess it is a good habit to acknowledge the source when we do :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andrew, but the thing is that I have not translated the article (not an iota of it) from the Finnish wikipedia, but only snatced the sketch of the table from it. Neander (disputatio) 13:27, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, I'm so sorry, I was in the middle of John Singer Sargent's Le Verre de porto and I didn't read your message with sufficient care. We can add to that formula the optional indication "partim". If you're happy with that, please take it that it will be done (Maria Martelli had already observed that this would be a good option). But if one wanted to give a more detailed and specific acknowledgment, one would simply have to write it out in real language on the talk page. We're getting towards the lower limits of what's necessary. If in an academic article you would have acknowledged the fact that some previous author gave you the makings of a diagram or table, then it's sensible to acknowledge it here too. If it's too minor for that, then no need to do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:41, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the backgounding! Yes, I now think a more specific — if any at all — acknowledgment is in order in ths case. Therefore, I decided to delete the discussion page and added an acknowledgment as a note to the table. Thanks for letting me to use you as an arbiter elegantiarum! Neander (disputatio) 16:35, 31 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capsa hominis Vicidata

You are doing a very nice job with Capsa hominis Vicidata. Ciao--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 18:08, 15 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rogationes in taberna a Bis-Taurino scriptae

Salve Andrea, gratias iterum tibi dico ob responsum tuum in taberna datum. Nonne potes, si tibi manet tempus, fortasse et responsum dare ad problemata a me in capitulo 44 tabernae nominata? Sed res non urget. Semper gratus Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 00:11, 17 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pages of January 28-29, 2015

Dear Andrew, yes these pages were prepared a lot of time ago. I thank you for your help in correcting them--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 18:41, 20 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage deletion

Hello. Could you please delete my userpage (for global user page's display)? Thanks. Hausratte (disputatio) 09:44, 21 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 21 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salve!

Salutem tibi do. Anglicene dicere gratum est? I hope this is the proper way to contact you; my apologies if it's not.

My apologies also for not contacting you sooner. I believe Ryan McGrady may have told you about me and my students; we're looking at Vicipaedia as part of our advanced Latin course on Lucretius this semester. As part of that course we plan on revising the Lucretius article. That will be later on, of course, once we've gotten some practice in. As I'm sure you've noticed, we've started with some basic work on the pages for Spokane and Gonzaga University. It's a small class; just five students. You can see them all on the Historia of the Spokane page. The students have really enjoyed learning the basics of editing, linking, and creating pages. They've also been very impressed at how quickly members of the Vicipaedia community have contributed to the work.

I just wanted to formally introduce myself. Ryan said you might be willing to help us out with our project. That's very kind of you and we would be most grateful.

All the best,

Dave Oosterhuis Dr Ostorius (disputatio) 01:15, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's you, Dr Ostorius! And it's the Spokane people! That's very good. I was afraid the students mentioned by Ryan would turn out to be another group, who appeared about the same time, whose contributions were much more difficult to improve. You are all welcome to continue to ask questions here (or at the talk pages of the articles you are working on). I am travelling for the next 2 days and am not on line so much, but others will of course help too. I am sure Lucretius will repay your attentions when you get to him. You probably already know this, but if you happen to start any new pages you need to save them from being classed "Non stipula" so as not to waste your work: you can check the minimum requirements for a page by looking at Formula:Non stipula. Half-done pages can be marked by authors with ~~Formula:In usu~~_{Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo} Formula:In usu (which asks for patience) or Formula:Succurre (which invites help). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That's very helpful. Safe travels! Dr Ostorius (disputatio) 16:04, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Communia Francica

Dear Andrew,

if you explain me:

1) why had all wikipedias used in the past (but also now) the pages on the French Communes to enhance their quantity of artcles. The most of these wikis have shorter and worse articles than the ones I created; 2) are you sure that in the future with bots we could not add new external sources or change the pages of the no more existing communes (other wikis has pages on old communes)? 3) if nobody adds new articles, how can we increase these Wikipedia (last week I was practily one of the few who created new articles); 4) I would do with pleasure other less dull and boring work therefore I will stop here with la.wikipedia.org.

Best regards

Massimo--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 10:36, 2 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't want you to stop, Massimo! I will answer on your talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 2 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andrew, in any case I was already doing a remaking work on old communia pages e.g the oldest ones Index communium praefecturae Indis(now I am at letter G), and those of Corsica. Now I will try to be more careful and add more external links and especially those links which will not be delated also in the case the commune will be united with an other one Ciao--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 10:08, 3 Martii 2015 (UTC) Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 10:08, 3 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quaestio tironis

Salve! Vidi recensionem tuam, non usurus formulam "attributio" sum? Hi! I've seen you edit, shouldn't I use "Attributio" template? Thanks for answer!--Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 18:52, 6 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, thanks :) I'm going to replace each template then. --Toadino2日本 Velisne theamfungi sapore? 18:58, 6 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I used your text ;)

Ha! Thanks for the attribution :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:04, 6 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monumentum

I thnak you for your kind words. I'm a little worried about the monument. In Italain we say tocchiamo ferro (touch iron). Ciao--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 15:44, 10 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besoin d'aide

Bonjour Andrew Dalby, J'ai mis un bandeau de suppression sur ma page utilisateur, puisque le contenu sera repris avec celui de ma page utilisateur de Meta. Merci pour votre aide, cordialement. Argosy (disputatio) 01:25, 15 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, supprimée. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:44, 15 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenius Boca

Salve, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

I opened this page, but in Wikidata it looks 29 September and 29 October, because in Russian page there's 29 October, may be for Orthodox Calendar?

Thanks a lot for your precious help!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 09:34, 20 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rex. First, there is no need to worry. Wikidata is based on all the Wikipedias, and sometimes shows differences or inconsistencies because of that. You need not change your information simply because of Wikidata. You can let it pass.

But if you want to find out why Wikidata has two dates, you can look at the Wikidata page (click on the word "Vicidata" in the box): perhaps it is different calendars; perhaps some Wikipedias have written a different date, and they may be right or wrong! It seems, from what you say, that this is the case here. So you can look further, if you want to, to see whether the Russian Wikipedia cites a source for the date or has a footnote about it. This might lead you to decide that the other date is more accurate: then you can change your text, and cite the source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:51, 20 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, this week end I'll look something to put the sources. Rei Momo (disputatio) 12:08, 20 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be the different calendars; since 1900, the Julian and Gregorian calendars have only been 13 days apart. This site looks somewhat official, and gives 29 September, but there may be an even better source somewhere. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:46, 20 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scusa

Prima di dire che c'è una edit war, ti prego di prendere in considerazione che non sto facendo vandalismo... forse avrò messo solamente delle fonti in maniera sbagliata. Ma se Lei è più intelligente e più colto, me lo dica. Perché con me non ci casca. Arrivederla. Sacreum (disputatio) 14:14, 25 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing. I understand, there is no suggestion of vandalism. And I'm sure I am not more intelligent!

When I think of moving a page, I try to consider alternatives (not just one name, and not just one source). The purpose is to choose the best name. It often helps to discuss the choice with other editors.

But if we have no Latin name (as with many French communes) it is always very good to find a Latin name and to move to it. Thank you for doing this! There is no perfect source, but Graesse is a very good source, and your work is really useful. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:24, 25 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manum tuam peto

Post tres menses, per quos ad Vicipaediam Latinam contribuere conatus sum, paginam mei usoris "creare" volerem. Multi usores in paginas suas capsam Babel ponunt. Me dolet, ut nusquam explicationem ad faciendam illam capsam invenio. Potesne me adiuvare?

Praeterea iam diu in taverna sub capitulo 44 quaestiones ad diputandum spripsi. Nemo respondit. Credo, quod tu opininionem huc pertinentem habes. Gratus tuus Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 18:38, 28 Martii 2015 (UTC) (qui nolit diutius ruber scribi).[reply]

Request for help

Ave, Andrew. I think you know that I understand far more Latin than I can write. So I wonder if you wouldn't mind giving me an idea of how to translate this user box that I use on several of my home pages. (The "his/her" parses out by means of the #gender parser variable.) Thank you! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 04:51, 2 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steven. Nice to hear from you. I'll have a look later today. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:24, 2 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disputatio_Usoris:Andrew_Dalby/Bok

Freedom of editing - why edits are bananized despite of "libera encyclopaedia" slogan?

Edits have to be encyclopedic -- to contribute usefully to the encyclopedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:23, 14 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De Mabelina

Ave Andrew! Bonum auxilium et consilium. Vale et gratias tibi ago. M Mabelina (disputatio) 12:12, 19 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Christoph Schnitzler

Dear Friend, Please help creation this article in your Language and start this article. Thank you very much.

Translating the interface in your language, we need your help

Hello Andrew Dalby, thanks for working on this wiki in your language. We updated the list of priority translations and I write you to let you know. The language used by this wiki (or by you in your preferences) needs about 100 translations or less in the priority list. You're almost done!

Please register on translatewiki.net if you didn't yet and then help complete priority translations (make sure to select your language in the language selector). With a couple hours' work or less, you can make sure that nearly all visitors see the wiki interface fully translated. Nemo 14:06, 26 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedaria Georgiana

Thank you very much for your help and your explanations--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 04:24, 6 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vicidata

Ciao Andrew, how are you? The data in vicidata about Sancto Bernardo Menthonensi are completely wrong, how do you correct them?--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 16:02, 8 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This can often happen, because the Wikipedias do not always agree. In this case, the dates on Wikidata are taken from the Russian Wikipedia, and what sources they used I don't know.

It is not essential to correct it -- it may sometimes help the reader to know that there are different opinions. But if we want to correct it, we can.

The first step is to add the correct data. This is how to add a correct date of birth, for example:

Go to the Wikidata page. Make sure your language is "Latina" -- you choose your language at the top of the window. Then, in the section "Statements", scroll down to the word "Natus". You see the false entry "923". Below, on the right, you have the option "addere". Click it, and type in the box the correct date "1020". Then click "save".

The result of this will be that our Vicidata box will now display two dates, "923; 1020".

The second step, if you choose to do this, is to delete the incorrect information. Beside the entry "natus" ... "923" click on "recensere". Then click on "remove". Then click "save".

Try it, Massimo, and see if it works! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:08, 8 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Animadverterunt

Animadverterunt administratores quemdam 86.67.199.92 et eius opera hodie? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:03, 12 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago. Recte anonymus Anglicitatem nostram reprehendit, sed medicinam malam applicat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:54, 12 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes of the Heart

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

Tibi peto parvam relecturam huius paginae quae nunc feci. My Latin isn't so good as your, please, can you help me? Tibi gratias ago!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 07:54, 25 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guadalupe

I thank you for pointing that out I'll correct it in the next days. Ciao--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 16:38, 31 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De scriptoribus

Gratias tibi infinitas ago, mi Andrea, pro perspicua explanatione de usu Vicipaediae latinae quoad categorias de auctoribus pertinentes. Vale perquam optime.--Viator (disputatio) 17:20, 3 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usor:Sacreum

Vale Andrea! I wanted to inform you about this fact. The user Sacreum on Provincia Cremonensis is doing lot of confusion: in particulary he deletes much of my work and he makes many mistakes; often not getting their sources. It should be stopped.--Nuada (disputatio) 10:28, 8 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, Nuada. I have noticed that there is much activity at Provincia Cremonensis. I suggest that you first discuss the problems with Sacreum directly at Disputatio Usoris:Sacreum. If Sacreum replies, we will see whether agreement is possible. If Sacreum does not reply, and continues to delete good information or to add incorrect information, we can take other action. I will watch the page.

It is probably best for you to write to Sacreum in Italian. My impression (possibly mistaken) is that Sacreum does not understand English or Latin well. If you write in Italian, I will watch the conversation. If necessary I or another magistratus (perhaps Helveticus?) will be able to add a comment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 8 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sono mesi che qualcuno mi controlla quello che faccio, non capisco in cosa sbaglio! Molte volte ho corretto addirittura le J. Ripeto molto volte ci sono link sul Graesse che poi non esistono (le ho controllate più volte) quindi non sono io quello che fa errori, non sarò perfetto avrò fatto confusione a volte. Ma appena scrivo, c'è qualcuno che poi deve controllare quello che faccio. Ma diamine... Sacreum (disputatio) 16:33, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Nuada to comment. But it is normal for other Vicipaedians to observe your work and it may sometimes happen that others disagree with your decisions. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:48, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuces (Noci) è plurale di Nux (Nuces-um) Nucum è errato... Non capisco perché viene messo Nucum (al genitivo) anche il libro dov'è citato mette il genitivo. Poi sono io quello che polemizza Sacreum (disputatio) 11:47, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De capsa hominis quaestio

Salve, Andrea! Gratias ago quam maximas pro categoriis, quas commentationi Miles Davis addidisti. Etiam capsa hominis mihi placet, sed hoc velim quaerere, num capsa illa ad dextram partem paginae poni possit. Potesne capsam ita mutare, ut alterautra positione uti liceat? Neander (disputatio) 07:43, 9 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salve et tu, Neander! Locum sinistrum nactus sum ne imagines, quae iam in permultis paginis brevissimis ad dextram partem positae sunt, inutiliter submitterentur. Si pagina iam eandem imaginem continet, quattuor solutiones iam habemus et saepe applicamus:

Imaginem iam positam in pagina retinere, rebus valde utilibus in rubricam additis (si imago bona est, id facere soleo)
Imaginem aliam apud Vicidata promovere (id quod rarius facio)
Imaginem delere (id quod tu fecisti) ...
Capsam delere (est enim "facultativa")
Ita, pro certo, possibile erit locum capsae variabilem reddere. Quomodo (admitto) hoc tempore nescio. In re capsarum faciendarum, etsi tu non es Cicero, ego sum Tiro. Conabor ... sed fortasse solutiones 1 et 2, mihi simpliciores, antea temptabo (scaevola enim sum, censeoque te minime partem paginae sinistram, sed coniunctionem imaginum similium arcere). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:15, 9 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Solutiones 1 et 2 applicavi. Potes imagines movere sicut vis! Sed si non placet, dic mihi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:42, 9 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iterum gratias tibi ago pro solutionibus propositis! Imaginem ad dextram positam abstuli non solum ob similitudinem sed etiam ideo, quod duae imagines parallelae mea quidem opinione nimis artum spatium ipsi textui relinquunt (non enim maximo spatio monitorii uti soleo). Imaginum mutationes quas fecisti ad tempus conservabo. Ubi primum in textu evolvendo ad annos 1950 pervenero, imaginem ad annum 1955 pertinentem deorsum in loco apto ponam; quo facto imaginem in initio positam in loco liberato ponam. In capsis faciendis si tu Tiro, ego Tirunculus. :-) Neander (disputatio) 20:11, 9 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bene! Conabor igitur ... sed licet capsam delere si molestum esse videtur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:35, 9 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De hac re plura cogitans, locum capsae mutare hoc tempore abstinere volo. Rationem aliam huius formae et huius loci, supra omissam, nunc addo. Haec capsa res continet ex alio datorum thesauro illatas, Vicipaediae certe socio et amico, sed verificationi nostrae non subiecto. Locum igitur, ubi nos rarissime capsas imaginesque a nobismet ipsis verificatas et rubricatas monstramus, gratissimum censui. Eadem ratione formam capsae ab omnibus aliis differentem, umbrá cyaneá e paginis nostris distinctam et prominentem, praetuli.

Capsas huius formae creavi praecipue quia lectoribus haud paucis utiles esse possunt, sed etiam quia multae paginae Vicipaedianae capsis male constructis atque embryonicis farciuntur, pulchritudinem et utilitatem Vicipaediae nostrae (mea mente) nocentes laboremque infinitum, operariis carentibus, silenter postulantes. Hoc modo igitur duabus necessitatibus labore minimo respondere coepi. Sed ad tertiam necessitatem, q.e. tuam, non respondi. Mi paenitet! Rursus te suadeo: capsam simpliciter remove si vis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:35, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maximam gratiam habeo, Andrea, quod tantam complendae voluntati meae operam dedisti. Capsae antea mihi displicuerunt, quod duplices nuntios acervant atque interdum lineas textús nimis coartant (mihi saltem qui latissimo visu uti non soleo). Sed capsam hominis paulum deorsum movi inque initio posui eandem imaginem, quam tu antea, et denique novam eiusdem aetatis imaginem addidi loco ita liberato. Nunc puto capsam illam utiliter exhiberi. Neander (disputatio) 09:06, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew

Hello Andrew, can you please translate this from Latin into English? I need to understand what does it say and maybe you could help? Here it is:

"Fragmentum ad Antonini Pii tempora pertinere recte collegit Nesselhauf cum e lapidis natura tum e nominibus Fabiani consulis et Pharasmanis Iberorum regis. Si anni aetatis illius, e quibus ultimum par coiisulum notum est, aeque atque anni in fastos Ostienses relati excluduntur, non restat, nisi ut de annis 141 — 144, 149 — 150, 157 — 159 cogitemus, Heriberto Nesselhauf auctore de annis 141 — 144 potissimum, nam Pharasmanes primis Antonini Pii annis potius quam posterioribus Romam venit. Si Fabianus, ut editor proposait, re vera idem est ac L. Annius Fabianus tituli CIL III 7972 (Groag, PIR2 A 643), praeses praetorius Daciae inter annos 135 — 157 (sic Stein, Dazien, p. 26)."

Thanks again. Jaqeli (disputatio) 11:27, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try this :) "Herbert Nesselhauf rightly gathered, from the nature of the stone combined with the names of the consul Fabianus and of the Iberian king Pharasmanes, that the fragment belongs to the times of Antoninus Pius. If the years of Antoninus' age, of which the last pair of consuls is known, along with the years listed in the en:Fasti Ostienses, are excluded, we must think only of the years 141 — 144, 149 — 150, 157 — 159, and according to Nesselhauf principally 141 - 144, because Pharasmanes came to Rome in the early years of Antoninus, not the later years. If Fabianus, as the editor proposed, is indeed the same as the L. Annius Fabianus of the inscription CIL III 7972 (Groag, PIR2 A 643), who was praetorian praeses of Dacia between the years 135 — 157 (as stated by Stein, Dazien, p. 26) ..." This last sentence is incomplete. Either because I don't know enough of the context, or because I'm not clever enough, I don't understand the logic of the passage I have underlined: perhaps someone else will see this and be able to improve my translation at that point (or indeed elsewhere). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:14, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"If the years of Antoninus's reign . . ."? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:28, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, possibly, and thanks for trying to help, but I still don't understand the logic :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:56, 10 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calendarium Hebraicum

Hi, Andrew. I'm currently translating a template I've written for several other wikis (mainly just because). I've got it most of the way there; see Disputatio usoris:StevenJ81#Calendarium Hebraicum. (I had originally considered also adding the Roman calendar nomenclature, but until/unless I work on a separate template for that purpose I'm not doing it here and now.)

With respect to the Hebrew months: If you look just above the draft template, you'll see the names of the Hebrew months as the parser function spits them out here. They appear to correspond to common English spelling, and do not have separate genitive forms on this wiki. (They do on others, like hewiki, for example; I think it depends whether something has been programmed in.) Separately, the months are named at Calendarium Hebraicum, with different spelling. So here are my questions:

Is the spelling at Calendarium Hebraicum reliable/authoritative for Hebrew months in Latin?
Would one typically decline them? If so, can you help me with genitives for them? ("Sivan" would need to be in genitive just as much as "Iunius" does.)

Thank you! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 00:22, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steven. The first answer is easy: one treats such foreign words as indeclinable. The Latin eye, seeing "XI Iunii" below and a parallel locution above, would understand that "Sivan" is in the genitive case. No problem there.

The person to tell us how best to spell the Hebrew names from the Latin point of view is Usor:Iustinus. Well, he is the chief contributor at Calendarium Hebraicum and if you look at the page history you see some of his reasoning. I would rely on that page since he produced it, and, if you have questions, it's best to ask him directly :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:01, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. I'll ask him directly. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:40, 11 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Still working on this at my user talk page. Thanks. Here's a heads-up/question, though. Once we've settled on a schema for the months, I have two choices of how to proceed. I could create an "inner" template that simply converts the months as the server spits them out into months as we've decided to transliterate them here. Alternatively, since the server isn't really putting out a Latin version of the months anyway, we could try to program the interface to do that. It is a localization that the MediaWiki software is built to take routinely, though: the month Tamuz (in English, and as this wiki also currently names it) comes out as תמוז in the Hebrew and Yiddish wikis, Tamouz on frwiki, and so forth. Can you do that as an administrator? Do I have to put in a request at whatever they're calling bugzilla now? Does it require a formal community consensus? I don't want to make you or anyone else go through a lot of work, but if it's easy and straightforward to do, it would be a better way to go, IMO. Just curious what you know/think. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:20, 14 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there are some other variables that it would be at least equally desirable for the server to convert to Latin (for example, the dates of birth "7. century" etc. (wrong in every language) that come across to us from Wikidata). My knowledge in this area is small to vanishing. We might ask UV, and he might look in here anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:01, 14 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it would be possible for a Vicipaedia admin to configure the Hebrew month names for la.wikipedia only, the better choice would be to add the translations to translatewiki: so that not only la.wikipedia will (automatically) use them, but other projects as well. You yourself can register at translatewiki: and add the translations once we have reached an (informal) consensus here. Here is the list of Latin translations for you to change:

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:00, 14 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @UV. I registered at translatewiki and got cleared over the weekend. I put in one of these as a test edit (m11 nominative to "Ab," since I didn't think that was actually controversial) to see how it works. If everything works ok with that, I'll fill in the rest once we come to an agreement elsewhere about a consensus. (@Iustinius agrees that these are considered invariable nouns, so nominative and genitive versions will be identical.) Will keep you both posted, too. (Once this stuff is cleaned up, I can start helping you figure out how to do some of these other things, too, Andrew.) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:44, 15 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Test successful, Andrew and @UV. If you look at Disputatio usoris:StevenJ81#Calendarium Hebraicum, you'll see that one of the months is now rendered "Ab" by the server, because I edited it at translatewiki per the above. At this point I will start updating the six of the twelve Hebrew month names for which there appears to be no question or dispute (see at Disputatio usoris:StevenJ81#Calendarium Hebraicum II, while awaiting consensus on the rest. (Your contributions would be welcome; I'm especially keen to get a read from you on the "u"/"v" dichotomy in three of the names.)

Separately, if you can start describing other things you'd like me to try to look at fixing from translatewiki, I'll try. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 12:59, 17 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing questions

Hi, Andrew. I closed the discussion on my talk page. The last transliterations are being processed in translatewiki, and should be here in a few days. So I have two remaining questions, mainly because I haven't studied enough Latin to really understand subtleties of declension:

Translatewiki had a phrase it was requesting translation of: "Name of month in Hebrew calendar." Name is nominative (no pun intended), and month is genitive. But are the others genitive or ablative?
What should I call my template when I publish it? I was thinking "Dies Hebraicus," but do I have that right?

After this, I'll leave you alone for a while. (Separately, I am trying to work with UV and Wikidata on the other problem.) But thanks very much for your help! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:47, 23 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genitive or ablative, you could look at it either way. They are months of the Hebrew calendar, or they are names by, with or in the Hebrew calendar. I'd go for the genitive, but I bet the next speaker will differ.

"Dies Hebraicus" seems OK to me; or plural, "Dies Hebraici". All of the above assumes that you are happy with the term "Hebraicus". I think of it rather as the Jewish calendar, hence "Iudaicus", but you'll know better on this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 23 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll go for singular, because the template shows you today's date only (on both calendars). So it represents only one day. Hebraicus/Iudaicus: Good question. I've always called it "Hebrew calendar" myself, and that tends to be the name I hear in English, though not exclusively. Beyond that, a quick survey of Wikipedias shows that German-derived languages (including Yiddish) use something related to Jewish, while Latin-derived languages (including Djudeo-Espanyol), as well as Hebrew, use something related to Hebrew. (The above is probably why English is a mixed bag ...) So I'm going to stick with "Hebraicus" for now. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:41, 23 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks again for all your help. (Would you mind checking if I wrote the one bit of documentation correctly?) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:50, 24 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update

We have had some luck on the "century" issue: See d:Wikidata:Contact the development team#Century dating—localization and phabricator:T104447. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 20:46, 1 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American comic actors

Hi, how are you?

It's not a problem, I'll check these pages more carefully. This user adds a page a day isn't a big work. Ciao --Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 05:29, 14 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

I apologize for sending this message in English.

You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&rawcontinue=1>). No other code changes should be necessary.
Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example <https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&continue=>), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 Iunii 2015 (UTC)

Gli angeli di Borsellino

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

Parvam relecturam feci, set tibi peto magnum adiutum relecturae argumenti. Please, can you? Thanks a lot for your precious help!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 14:18, 19 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noster Wikiamicus Viator relecturam argumenti fecit! Vale. Rei Momo (disputatio) 12:46, 20 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but is it possible to take off, now, the latinitas -3? Please... :-) Rei Momo (disputatio) 18:02, 20 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it off now. But another time, Rex, you or Viator can take it off! It doesn't have to be me! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:05, 20 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suuuuuure, carissime amice, I was thinking that in Ltin Wikipedia it had to take off from the samw Wikipedian who put! Thnaks a lot and see you soon!!! Rei Momo (disputatio) 18:32, 20 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Sorry, no more Rex or Rei :-) I like more Momo Thank youuuu!!! Rei Momo (disputatio) 18:34, 20 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dear Andrew, I thank you for your correction. I have already changed the wrong categoriesHelveticus montanus (disputatio) 09:13, 21 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block User

Hi Andrew, can you block this user? thanks in advance.--Syum90 (disputatio) 17:49, 22 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same vandal, I think: CopiaVia.--Syum90 (disputatio) 17:57, 22 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:58, 22 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future

I've the German ones in store :-)--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 03:53, 24 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pietralata

Vale, carissime Adreas, quomodo te habes?

Tibi huius novae pagine parvam relecturam peto, quia iam scis meam latinitatem non magnam esse! Tibi magna gratias ago!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 23:27, 26 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Hi, please block this ip. Matiia (disputatio) 22:27, 21 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't around at that time. Blocked now: thanks for your work meanwhile.

At that time of day you might try Lesgles: he was around in fact, but evidently not watching the recent changes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:04, 22 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed! Lesgles (disputatio) 16:36, 22 Iulii 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CUM

I do not know I took the reference as written on the page of the list of the departments communes. Ciao Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 11:48, 6 Augusti 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- here too very hot. After the warmest month in Lugano's climatic history (July 2015 mean temeprature:25.8°) now again 33° today

120'000

We all deserved to be thanked. Concerning me I hope only I have also in the future enough time to partecipate to this project. Have a nice day! Ciao--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 12:28, 10 Augusti 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As we say in the Latin dialect of my people, Mazal Tov! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:57, 10 Augusti 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De arte celandi

Andrea, hodie usor quidam nomine celato nuntiolum ad meam disputationis paginam scripsit Suecice inscriptum "Julgubben" ('father Christmas'), quem ilico delevit. Quid scripserit, parum mea interest, sed scisne, quo modo nomina celari possint. Mihi quidem haec celandi ars plane ignota est. Neander (disputatio) 15:12, 5 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mihi quoque! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:51, 5 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro certo habeatis vandalum aliquem, nomine usoris inurbano, res malas in varias Vicipaedias inseruisse; quas statim delevit nomenque infandum celavit unus magistratuum semidivinorum qui de talibus rebus per omnes Vicipaedias curant.

Credo Neandrum et me nomina usorum [non nostrorum sed aliorum] celare posse, sed nunquam feci ego quia fere nunquam necesse est! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:43, 5 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possumus omnes de talibus celationibus hic Anglice legere. Ad caput historiae paginae alicuius, mi Neander, videbis verba "Monstrare/celare emendationes selectas". Sed non licet inconsulte facere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:00, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's Greek to me. However, there's some English to be read. --Pxos (disputatio) 13:14, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias ago maximas pro consilio tuo, Andrea. Expedit enim et talibus machinis uti scire, a quibus manus auferre prodest. Neander (disputatio) 17:28, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archidioecesis Seulensis

Vale, carissime Andrteas! Tibi peto parvam relecturam huius pagine quae feci. Tibi magna gratias ago.

See you very soon!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 10:09, 6 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Andrew Dalby

Thanks for say "thanks" in my change of lingua lusitanica. --Gato Preto (disputatio) 13:41, 8 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vale

If I'm right I haven't seen you on vicipaedia since the last October 15th, are you all right? Ciao --Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 14:17, 21 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, mi Helvetice! Thanks for your kind message. I was criss-crossing Europe to speak at two colloquia. Now I'm home. Having verified that my wife, mother-in-law and apple trees are all OK, the next priority is to look in on Vicipaedia, so here I am ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 24 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I kept looking for you in pometo, but didn't see you there! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:56, 24 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O quanto opere gaudeo te et tuas "ok" valere! Martinus [a.k.a. Neander (disputatio) 16:04, 24 Octobris 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Capsa hominis Vicidata

Dear Andrew, did you enjoy your time in Portugal? Were you well back home? I write to you because sometimes the capsa doesn't work properly. If you look for istance at Mauritius Pollini the birthdate appears in English and not in Latin. Could we fix it and how? Ciao--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 17:16, 29 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Massimo. I had a very good time in Portugal. I love Coimbra. I wish I was still there, but my apple trees called me home.

As regards the capsa, I think maybe all of them are wrong just at present. Every one I try is wrong. Yet if you look at the Wikidata page, all the dates are in Latin. Well, my conclusion is that this is far beyond us. Either (a) the Master of the Universe has decided that English is the only language that matters, or (b) some programmer somewhere pressed the wrong key. Let's look again tomorrow, and if it's still in English, we'll get advice from someone more intelligent ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:09, 29 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

they are again all in English. Aren't you angry all the work you did to create these capsas and now they do not work because somebody has changed a parameter? :-) --Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 16:36, 30 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, but I say to myself, "Vicipaedia is a work in progress"! We'll ask UV if he can understand it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:59, 30 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata is even more a work in progress, methinks. Sigh.

It's very odd: dates come out in English, but everything else seems to work ok. (Where a "Qnnnnn" appears, that is because there is no Latin label in the entry, so someone needs to go fill that in. Where multiple values occur, that is because none of the values has a more favored rating in the Wikidata item.)

I'll tell you what I've been told before over there: using Modules makes all of this much more flexible and robust. Calling things through the use of modules (such as en:Module:Wikidata and en:Module:Wikibase) just seems to be more flexible. But I'm not an experienced coder, so I'm not the one to do this.

Still, I'm willing to ask over there again, if you like. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:26, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK, to be honest, I knew all along I had to learn about modules and Lua and all that. It's just finding the time ... Thanks, Steven!

There is the other point (note what you said about Wikidata above): the more esoteric and useless information is added to Wikidata, the slower and less productive it is to work with Wikidata. It was worth spending about a day creating our simple Wikidata infoboxes, but whether the time spent learning Lua etc. will be repaid, I'm no longer quite sure! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:18, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I've been stumbling through it myself. I've successfully implemented a module or two that someone else gave me (directly and personally), but that's about as far as I can go. (I'm admin/crat on Judeo-Spanish [Ladino] Wikipedia now.) These Wikidata modules are pretty involved, too. I agree with you: I'm not sure the time is going to be repaid in many cases.

One of the other issues around Wikidata is this: how often do we want a page to pull those data? How often do we need to check if a Wikidata page is updated? Obviously, it depends on what the page is. If the page is pulling the current identity of the President of this or Prime Minister of that, that's one thing. But how often do the facts about Charlemagne change, really? I do worry that Wikidata is sucking up a lot of time and energy we could use in other ways.

I've put in a handful of test calls to Wikidata in ladwiki, just to play. But I'm not very likely to work on that in any broad-based way in the short-to-medium run.

Was this template actually pulling dates out in Latin before? If so, maybe we can report that as a bug. If we can do that simply, it's probably worthwhile. If not ... 'Nuff said. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 19:34, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it really was. Helveticus noticed the change, and I did too, on 29 October, and that must be very soon after it happened, I'm sure. If you know how to report that, please do! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:03, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 22:41, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brief translation question

How would you translate the text of my standard userbox, seen here? (The last word is a transliteration of the Hebrew phrase "the Name", which is a common substitute word for an actual Hebrew name of God.) Thanks in advance. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 19:40, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Always seems odd to me the way we use the third person so impersonally in these boxes. Xenophon and Julius Caesar used the third person, but with their own names; we're different! "Hic usor paginam suam Nominis ope construxit", or, more personally, "Paginam meam Nominis ope construxi". "Nominis" seems right, but there may be a conventional way of expressing this substitution in Latin that I don't know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. In re "Nominis": I'd guess, more likely, just "HaSem" (transliterated and indeclinable) or "Dei," I think. Speaking English, we either use some Hebrew locution (such as the one transliterated as "HaShem") or just the English word "God." We never actually say "The Name" in English. As to the third-person construction, that's a great point! (;-) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 22:41, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my user page. I went with first person and Dei. Gratias! StevenJ81 (disputatio) 23:08, 2 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Georgia or anything related?

Hello Andrew, just interested if here's ever been any kind of monthly or annual wikiproject for Georgia or Georgia-related articles to be created in Latin wiki? There are literally lots of articles that would be great to have translated in Latin as for now only some few Georgia-related articles are presented here. Any plans on expanding a bit towards Georgia in la.wiki? Jaqeli (disputatio) 08:02, 16 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adieu

I do not agree at all. From my point of view the big problem is not for vicipaedia the presence of a lot of short pages, but that sometimes we have long ones that have anything to do with the Latin language or are full of big language mistakes. When I look at other wikipedias I do not see a big difference in the kind of pages (most of wikipedias have pages on the French communes with no more information than ours) of course if we do not include the biggest ones (English, German, French, Italian ecc.). With this unkind sentence " We're adding a thousand pages a month, of which about 900 are so short that they would count them as "placeholders", not stubs." I understand that the pages I do each month and each day (and whom I'm trying to ameliorate when I have time to do it) are completely unuseful. I stop here I have better things to do in my life. Bye Bye.--Helveticus montanus (disputatio)

Gratias

Intermissa, Venus, diu

rursus bella moves? Parce precor, precor. Autokrator (disputatio) 22:14, 25 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capsa hominis Vicidata

Dear Andrew, We've an other problem. Now the links to nationality are always red also for the nations we certainly have a page (USA, Germany etc.). Really we have a page for all the world's nations--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 17:01, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a new problem, Massimo. It's a question for Lesgles really: the links that he added usually work, but sometimes cause this confusion. In my view, the links were not very necessary because they usually are for details that should appear in the text as well ... but I must admit that they are sometimes handy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:42, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example of a page where the problems occur? I might remove some of the links. Lesgles (disputatio) 04:35, 1 Decembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non stipula

Vale, mi Andrea, nesciebam an possem ipse indicem "Non stipula" amovere, putabam enim hoc officium esse cuius hunc indicem posuisset. Faciam igitur ut me mones. Omnia optima tibi.--Viator (disputatio) 08:31, 3 Decembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De huius VP superficie

Salvus sis, Andrea! Dubito an tibi notum sit, cuinam instituta illa mutare liceat, quae ad eas huius VP partes spectant, intra quas hic versamur. Certe memineris illius mutationis nuper factae, qua pro Paginis custoditis nunc Paginae observatae positae sunt. Mihi quidem plura alia mutanda videntur, velut illae reliquiae exemplaris Anglici, velut ea, quae in taberna nuper proposueram, velut ea, quae nusquam effugere possis, cum aut nomen dare velis (illud enim conventum aperire certe quavis Latinitate caret) aut nomen tuum retineri velis (et legas keep me logged in). Quid tibi videtur optimum factu? Laurentianus (disputatio) 14:24, 11 Decembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cum te vehementer consentio, mi Laurentiane, sed ego has res technicas male intellego. Sunt fortasse plures qui melius possunt: quaere fortasse apud Disputatio Usoris:UV ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:31, 11 Decembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago maximas, mi Andrea, qui hanc rem etiam in taberna collocasti. Et peractis laboribus subeundis UV pariter alloquar. Vale. Laurentianus (disputatio) 15:05, 11 Decembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citri et cervi

Since we're in the process of making Vicipaedian New Year's resolutions, I thought I'd remind you about the Citrus pages which are still marked ~~"in progressu"~~_{Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo} "in usu," and also about Cervus torquatus from a while back, in case you were planning on doing anything with those. Of course, I myself have a few pages to clean up. :) Lesgles (disputatio) 23:53, 14 Decembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, I had completely forgotten all of those! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:34, 15 Decembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De histrionibus

Dear Andrew,

Happy New Year. Yeah I agree with you the new list can be deleted when we have inserted all the new artists' names our old lists do not already have. CiaoHelveticus montanus (disputatio) 08:26, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De iubilaeo Vicipaedianorum

Annum 2016 prosperum et felicem omnibus amicis Vicipaedianis opto! Apud Tabernam consentivimus annum 2016 (quem iubilaeum nostrum Helveticus nuncupavit) praecipue dedicare ad textum paginarum Vicipaedicarum augendum et meliorandum. Huic proposito consentiens (si tu consentis!) sic pro communi inceptu nostro agere potes:

Quando paginas novas legibiles, fontibus munitas, et non brevissimas creare vis, crea! Ne timeas!
Quandocumque paginam aut breviorem aut mendosam aut male confectam reperis, cura! corrige! auge!
Si paginam novam brevissimam creare in mentem habes, recogita ... An potius textum longiorem scribere oportet? An prius aliam paginam, iam exstantem, augere potes?

Quo dicto, Vicipaediani liberi sumus. Paginae etiam breves, quae inter veras "stipulas" admitti possunt (vide formulam "Non stipula"), accepturae sunt sicut iam antea accipi solent. Scribe igitur sine metu, sicut iam scripsisti! ^[en] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:24, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appius etc.

Cur "habuerint"? Est perfectum coniunctivi an futurum secundum?Burzuchius (disputatio) 15:46, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectum coniunctivi. Ego iam diu "habuerunt" scripsi: alii mox varias paginas in "habuerint" correxerunt. Ego eis credidi! Quid censes tu? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:50, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quid de (sub)titulo "Appii clari"? Laurentianus (disputatio) 17:01, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ego contextibus generalibus verbum "notabilis" praefero. Omnes, quos describimus, "notabiles" esse debent, sed non omnes iam "clari" sunt! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:36, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usor Neander mihi responsum dedit. Vide eius paginam disputationis.Burzuchius (disputatio) 19:36, 5 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarlac urbs

Hi Andrew, I would appreciate a warning, like a delenda notification before you delete. Thanks.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:25, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Jondel, it was an extremely brief article but I would have intended to put "Non stipula" on it, not to delete it at once. I'll restore it for you.

Done. I never guessed a Vicipaedian had created it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Andrew. We all have to struggle with out time. Best regards.--Jondel (disputatio) 13:48, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Six months

Does Vicipaedia have a list of the nonstubs sorted in order of imposition of the formula, so that anybody can easily find the nonstubs in the most urgent danger of deletion? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:46, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne created such a list for us, but I don't recall where. I don't think the danger is urgent: no one is working to that date, so far as I know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:01, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. I'll put the link on your talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sappho

Salve, mi Andrew! Pictura Alkaios et Sappho, 2416, Staatliche Antikensammlungen Monaci, ut mihi videtur, nunc bis hac in pagina apparet. --Bavarese (disputatio) 19:21, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debbora non Debora

Debbora in latino. [2]Driante70 (disputatio) 14:50, 8 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cur me? An de Debora quadam scripsi? Haud memini. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 8 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

de iubilaeo

Andrea si valeas quoque valeo! Nescivi nos hoc in anno iubilaei causa gaudere! Quam optime! Morbum scribendi loquendique Latine iterum patior, quare librum de rebus classicis tempore et civitatibus socialisticis ad censendum accepi. Puto me hic mox iterum versari. Consilio tuo (nostro?) et energiam in paginas nostras breves augendas dabo. Vale interdum! -- Ioscius ^∞ 18:00, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Valeo, mi Iosci, et gaudeo te apud nos rediturum! Ubi es? In Slovenia? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:38, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaudeo, quod revenisti! --UV (disputatio) 23:17, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tschuvassia

Tibi gratias ago causa adiuti istae paginae! Rei Momo (disputatio) 16:38, 13 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is getting 15 years - WMF projects - translation of Wikidata labels and descriptions

lang=la : ?lang=la&props=31,218,219,220,506,1406&q=claim[1800] – Latina

Dear Andrew; There will be a birthday soon: Wikipedia is getting 15 years. I want to let you know that the number of d:Wikidata:Database reports/WMF projects ^{there is also the page Wikipedia versions} has increased to more then 409; there are also pages from Wikibook project pages to Wikiversity and Wiktionary project pages in that list. You may be interested in adding Wikidata labels and descriptions in your language. Please follow also the discussion at d:property talk:P218 and comment there. Best regards Gangleri also aka I18n (disputatio) 01:23, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gangleri. Nice to hear from you. I edit Wikidata a lot, but I don't know how or where to ask questions there.

For example, I would be happy to add some labels and descriptions automatically, to groups of Wikidata pages. I guess, following the link you gave me, that AutoList 2 is the way to do it. I never knew that before, so thank you! but I'm no further forward because I don't see how to use it. Is there an explanation somewhere? Example: if I wanted to add the description "Capsa navigationis" to everything that is under our category "Categoria:Formulae capsarum navigationis", could I do that? How? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:34, 14 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a reply. I still don't know how to add multiple labels to Wikidata quickly, or whether one can do such a thing, or who to ask, or where to find out more. Ah well ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:41, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can add multiple labels to a single item quickly, but I don't know how to add labels across a multiplicity of items quickly. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:20, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really meant to say: add descriptions to multiple items quickly :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, change "labels" to "descriptions" in what I wrote above, and the same is true. (;-) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:18, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hymnus Germaniae

Salve Andrew! Paginam Hymnus Germaniae partim rescribere ausus sum, eo modo, ut verbis Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit incipiat (like God save the Queen, but not Hymnus Angliae). Ita necesse est eam movere ad dictum novum lemma. Id quaeso facias. Gratias tibi agens --Bavarese (disputatio) 16:30, 22 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Butuan and Las Pinas

Salve Andrew. Would it be possible to restore these pages? I will work on the sources as well as beefing up the content. Thanks in advance. --Jondel (disputatio) 12:48, 27 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, restored. If I were you, I'd deal with them quickly, Jondel. They had been marked "Non stipula" for 11 months, and they will still be in that same list, so, until improved, they risk being deleted again by others!

In case it's useful, the simplest way to find a source about a place is usually to look for the official website. Make a section "Nexus externi", and just add a link to that official website. I know you often do it by adding footnotes. That's another way, nothing wrong with it, it's fine, but I think it takes longer, and a one-sentence article really doesn't need footnotes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 27 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A one-sentence article is unlikely to have enough text to qualify as a stub. :/ IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:18, 27 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's that too! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 27 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We'll do. rolling up my sleeves now.Thank you again.Jondel (disputatio) 13:40, 27 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De aestimationibus removendis

Andrea, timeo ne bellum editorum mihi et Jondelio oriturum sit de medicina succursoria. Quam enim commentatiunculam Latinitate-3 instruxi, quam autem notam ille bis removit. Aestimationem Latinitatis nequaquam puniendi causa feci, sed eo consilio, ut legentes hortarer certa benevolentia uti. Perperamne Latinitatem aestimavi? Licetne cuilibet sine causa aestimationes Latinitatis removere? Mihi quidem vandalismum redolet. Neander (disputatio) 17:04, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neander, si tibi placeat, quod dubium sit, indices. Causam habeo quod emendavi. Malisne res manere cum erroribus? Minime indica cum signo dubsig quod non intelliges , si tibi placeat. Quomodo adhunc procedere? Asseverasne latinam meam extra Vicipaediam attestari non posse?Jondel (disputatio) 17:37, 13 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadina Sierra

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

Haec parvam pagina aperii et tibi peto parvam relecturam. Tibi magna gratias ago.

Rei Momo (disputatio) 11:25, 15 Februarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding and cooperation !

Dear Andrew Dalby, Thank you for your cooperation on article about Igor Janev. Best wishes! Institut za političke studije (disputatio) 09:38, 10 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea gratias tibi ago pro tuo beneficio

--Excelsius (disputatio) 05:53, 23 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salve

Salve, condimentum dictum possis? Egerunt: Christophorus Bencomo y Rodríguez.--83.59.136.25 12:09, 27 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De Eliana et lingua valentina

Humanissime collega: Valde miror te “valentianum, -am, -um” (!!??) scribere contra opinionem omnium auctorum, qui semper et constanter “valentinum, -am, -um” scripserunt. Ecce pauca exempli gratia: Cicero, Orationes in C. Verrem, 2. 5. 40: “Cum ad te valentini venissent ...... ipsis autem valentinis ex tam illustri nobilisque municipio ...” Bernardinus Gomesius, De Vita et rebus gestis Iacobi regis aragonum, libri XX, Valentiae 1582: p. 57: “.... ingresus est fines valentini regni.” p. 94: “... in valentinum regnum profugisse” p. 221: “.... ab electo primo valentino episcopo fuit celebratum”. p. 273: : “... dissidente canonicorum valentinorum collegio”. Alexander VII, papa, Bulla “Super Universi Orbis”, Romae 1657: p. 4: “... in ecclesia valentina, totius regni Valentiae metropoli” p. 5: “... archiepiscopus valentinus et capitulum dictae ecclesiae valentinae...”

Item, “valentinice” (!!???). Sed “in lingua valentina” habet auctoritatem Marci Varronis: “Quemadmodum vocabula essent imposita rebus in lingua latina, sex libri exponere institui”. (De Lingua Latina, lib. V, 1). Concedo “valentine”, si adverbium optas.

Item, “in illo tempore” est celeberrima locutio in toto orbe, et vide Mt 11, 25: “In illo tempore respondens Iesus dixit”. Et Mt 12, 1; Mt 14, 1; Eph 2, 12 et cetera. Sed “illo tempore” latine est.

Item, “relativus, -a, -um” in omnibus thesauris latinis apparet; et sensus “relationis” a Logice antiqua et medievale usus est. Sed concedo orationem obscuram haud parum esse.

Item, “decas, decadis” in omnibus thesauris latinis apparet, sub auctoritate Tertulliani, De Praescrip Haeret. 49 et Hieronymi, in cap. 41 Ezech. Sed optimum quoque est “decennium, -i”.

Item, “mercatus, -i” habet novum sensum. Vide: “Mercatus, qui nunc globalis efficitur, in primis promovit, ex parte quarundam nationum divitum ....” Benedictus XVI, Encyclica “Caritas in Veritate”, cap. II, 25. “Civitas” habet sensum arcaicum, cum Roma et civitates graecae “civitas - res publica” essent. Latinitas abhinc saecula “nationem vel gentem” optat. Vide Bedam: “ad quos haec eadem historia peruenire potuerit nostrae nationis” (Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, praefatio). Modernae linguae quoque: nación, nazione, nation, nação.

De positione verbi in oratione regula non est, ergo non necesse est verbum in finem semper ponere.

De gentilicio vocabulo (in maiuscula vel minuscula) regula non est. Usus linguae anglicae et gallicae est primam litteram in maiusculam scribere. Inter hispanos, italicos et lusitanos haec consuetudo non est.

Ultimum huius orationis erit me gratias tibi agere propter correctiones, sed rogo ut, antequam mutes textum, quaeras.[[3]] Spqv (disputatio) 16:51, 3 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salve optime, Spqv. Haud scio ubi de lingua Valentiae iam scripserim. Fontes de nomine Latino illius linguae nunquam vidi.

De adiectivis geographicis vel ethnicis maiusculizandis: recte dicis alios aliter scribere. Nos Vicipaediani, ad regulam saepe in textibus Latinis recenter impressis adhibitam obtemperantes, litteras primas talium adiectivorum maiusculo scripsimus.

De aliis locutionibus, de quibus supra disseris, nescio cur me interpellas. Fortasse tibi oportet historiam paginae "Eliana" rursus perlegere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:39, 3 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daleth

Hi. I'm working on Jewish and American non-stipula topics. I think we could move this page from non-stipula to stipula (or get it closer) by adding the equivalent of the following two points:

"...abecedarii Hebraici[1] and other Semitic languages.
At end: "This letter eventually evolved into Greek Δ, Latin D, and Cyrillic Д."

My Latin skills aren't up to this, so if you can help, I'd appreciate it. (I read much better than I write.) If that doesn't get us quite to 200, let me know, and I'll come up with something else. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:28, 4 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can do. I'm surprised we don't have articles for the other letters of the alphabet, but, since the emphasis this year is on longer articles, I'll abstain from adding them just now ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:48, 4 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I think you're right on priorities, too. (Part of the problem with Hebrew-alphabet articles, I think, is that to get much past 200 characters, one needs to start delving into either Semitic linguistics, or phonemes, or both, and those are both fairly specialized topics. Unless someone here can manage that in Latin, it's going to be hard to write worthwhile articles here.) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:53, 4 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When we want to do it, we could decide to link all the articles together as a set of "paginae breves" and thus not be constrained to lengthen them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:29, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... and Cyprus (provincia Romana)

Well, along the same lines, would we automatically keep Cyprus (provincia Romana) and all other Roman provinces? I found this article while looking through non-stipulae, and marked it for merger into Cyprus#Historia. Objectively, we should do that, leaving a redirect behind so that the links on the template remain blue. But perhaps we want there to be a pagina breve about each province anyway? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:20, 26 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the long run I think an encyclopedia needs entries for major administrative units, separate from the histories of regions. I don't now recall how good our other articles on Roman provinces are and haven't time to check more right now. If sources are lacking, they could easily be added. We have many articles on Roman provincial governors, added by Schulz-Hameln mostly: that makes me think it is better to bring the province articles up to at least the brief standard and keep them. I probably created many of them and could have a go. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:17, 27 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your call. I don't have the Latin chops for it. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:13, 27 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a template to complete the article. You can see it being used here. --Katxis (disputatio) 15:14, 27 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formula:Historia Hispaniae

Could you please correct this template? Katxis (disputatio) 14:06, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with it? Why don't you improve it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:10, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Latin so I would like you to check if there is any mistake. I added the main articles in each category but if you feel that some more are needed, please feel free to add them. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:12, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now. I'll have a look. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation about Spanish cities. I didn't understand the first time. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:35, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check the title in ablative in here? Thanks. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:42, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. "Historia" is ablative, correct, but what follows needs to be in the genetive: "history of the United States". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:48, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for your help. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:52, 12 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vital interwiki links

Hi Andrew! May you add the interwiki links to my recently created Skånska Dagbladet, Wan Chai and Enter the Dragon? It doesn't work for me no matter how much I try. It worked yesterday for some people. It is really bugging me. -- Donatello (disputatio) 12:04, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC).[reply]

(tps) Done. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 12:36, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Donatello! No need for me to edit Wikidata, because, as you see, Usor:StevenJ81 did it first. Don't worry about it, you're not the only one: my impression is that Iacobus and Helveticus have never learned to do it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:14, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help out. Um ... I used {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to italicize the appearance of Enter the Dragon as a page title, since it is the name of a film. But I suppose I should ask: does that convention hold in Latin? StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:16, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, yes, it does. I don't think we have ever really discussed italicizing article names (and surely not those for film titles in particular), but some users do it, and I guess we will do it wholesale eventually. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:24, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that there was a template for it: {{Titulus italicus}}. That template seems to suggest that there is a problem with the "straight" way of doing italic titles if the title is long enough. I don't know if that's still valid, or if it's a leftover from earlier versions of the software. But most of the time, pasting {{DISPLAYTITLE:''{{PAGENAME}}''}} will do the job just fine. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:30, 27 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Is it correct the title "De disciplinis zoologiae" (I tried to translate it into ablative plural, but I am not sure)? --Katxis (disputatio) 20:12, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that title works fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:45, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) --Katxis (disputatio) 20:47, 24 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nouns in the genitive case and adjectives are functionally identical, though specifics of their use is a matter of stylistics. Woodcock's New Latin Syntax says: "The genitive inflexion thus turns a noun or a pronoun into a sort of adjective: compare, for example, fratris mors with fraterna mors, 'a brother's death'; domus regis with domus regia, 'the king's house'. . . . The genitive appears capable of expressing adjectivally all the relations which the other cases express adverbially. . . . The genitive has become a 'grammatical' case, i.e. a syntactic device for enabling a noun or a pronoun to perform the function of an adjective" (1959:50–51). ¶ So the phrases de disciplinis zoologiae and de disciplinis zoologicis are saying more or less the same thing, and which is to be preferred is a matter of style, not grammar. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:24, 27 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes

Thank you very much for your kind words :) I don't speak Latin at all so I try to help in other ways. I am trying to translate small articles with the help of a dictionary but most of my work here will be related to images, categories and templates. --Katxis (disputatio) 09:21, 30 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think it would be better to delete it as it causes more troubles than helps in the article. --Katxis (disputatio) 12:38, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Let's wait to see what others think. If it is not necessary, better to delete it. --Katxis (disputatio) 12:52, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Litterae Asturianae

Besides that, I would like to ask you if you could possibly take a look at Litterae Asturianae. I've just started translating and apparently its Latin is very bad. I cannot see where I made the mistakes so if you could please check it out it would be great. --Katxis (disputatio) 12:52, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was Iacobus who evaluated it (and since I have something else I must do right now!) I suggest that you ask Iacobus first -- OK? In general it's not so very bad -- I mean, I can always understand what you want to say. That's good, believe me! It's not like that with Google translations.

Iacobus is right, there are many minor corrections to make, of various kinds, but I think you will not find it difficult to understand the reasons when explained. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)

"Very bad" would be –6 or –7. Many small grammatical infelicities. No time to explain today. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:34, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deus solis

Salve Andrew! Quaeso, amabo te restaures rem Deus solis. Gratias tibi ago in antecessu.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:44, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It's a new dawn. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:51, 1 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is! Thank you Andrew!--Jondel (disputatio) 04:16, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Estoria de España

Thanks for your edition in Estoria de España. I will change the bibliography as soon as possible. --Katxis (disputatio) 15:03, 2 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World No Tobacco Day

Could you please merge Dies mundi sine tabaco and Dies mundialis sine tabaco? --Katxis (disputatio) 09:18, 6 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Jondel (disputatio) 05:24, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cultura Romana antiqua etc.

Thanks for your help. I will continue working on them little by little. At first I would like to get the structure of the article done and then I will start translating. Sorry for creating more work. --Katxis (disputatio) 11:57, 13 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. The work you're doing is very valuable. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:00, 13 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry to bother you again but could you please translate the following sentences so that those articles don't look that empty at the beginning?

The culture of ancient Rome existed throughout the almost 1200-year history of the civilization of Ancient Rome. The term refers to the culture of the Roman Republic, later the Roman Empire, which at its peak covered an area from Lowland Scotland and Morocco to the Euphrates.

The history of the Roman economy covers the period of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. Recent research has led to a positive reevaluation of the size and sophistication of the Roman economy.

Thanks in advance. --Katxis (disputatio) 12:16, 13 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with the structure of the article Usor:Katxis/Cultura Romae antiquae. Could you please take a look and tell me if there is some topic that might be missing and, also, could you please help me with the translation? I've done the section related to languages. It would be great if you could correct any possible mistake. Thanks in advance and sorry for bothering you. --Katxis (disputatio) 10:41, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be helpful, and I will look at the section on languages certainly ... but I don't have time for everything! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:47, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need the ~~{{In progressu}}~~_{Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo} {{In usu}} formula at the top of the page, since your user-pages are yours in a semiprivate sense: other people may see them, but altering them without an invitation would be unseemly. In the definition, per 1200 annos is clumsy; the usual idiom for duration in time is the plain accusative: 1200 annos. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:51, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help @IacobusAmor. I've already changed it. --Katxis (disputatio) 12:04, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a general thought, you're very ambitious to take on such a long task when (if I understand correctly) you are at an early stage in Latin. What's more, I have a feeling that shorter articles are more likely to be read, and that many articles on English Wikipedia are far too long. But it's your choice! And Iacobus, who wrote Cultura for Vicipaedia, will probably disagree with my generalizations :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:22, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But the problem I have is that when I write short articles, they put a template on them that say that they will be deleted in three months because they are too short. Nevertheless, I believe you are right. I will shorten the article. Katxis (disputatio) 12:27, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! This one certainly won't get that template.

You can read here about the minimum requirements for an article: 200 characters of text (i.e. about 2 lines of text), one reliable source of information (not a Wikimedia project), internal links to and from the article, a suitable image if available, a link on Wikidata. That's it! Many editors forget to add a source of information, but if you're translating from another Wikipedia you simply have to copy one suitable external link or bibliography item. It should be easy really. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should add, also, that if there is an item missing from the list, it's more likely someone will add it than that the article will get deleted. But it's better for you to add it while the subject is fresh in your mind. The real aim of those guidelines is to try to ensure that, when people visit the page, they do not judge it to be useless. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:06, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the article Cultura Romae antiquae just with the portions of text in Latin. Once I finish other parts, I will add them. Katxis (disputatio) 14:25, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) Articles whose lemmas are Latin (unless the Latin name is well-known) are also supposed to carry an explicit source for the Lemma, which may or may not be the same as the source supporting the article itself. Andrew has reminded me in the past that one important reason people come to Vicipaedia is to try to get definitive Latin names for things. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:53, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still agree with myself, that's really important wherever the Latin name of a thing is in doubt or not found in every dictionary. It applies to all the articles I've touched yesterday and today, about cities in south east Asia and Australia (hard to check, rarely found in Latin reference sources). It doesn't apply to Katxis's article today (for example) because the pagename "Cultura Romae antiquae" is merely descriptive, not needing external support: we just have to be happy with the grammar of it and to have an external source for some main facts.

So the requirement for support for the pagename isn't in the non stipula definition. We just ask for an external source: we don't insist that it supports the Latin pagename in particular. Nice if it does. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 16 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I added another paragraph to the article. However, I would like to ask you for you advise, would it be better to create a new page titled "Linguae Romae antiquae/Linguae Imperii Romani" or shall I leave it as it is now? --Katxis (disputatio) 08:06, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet looked at your addition to the article, but I had already read your draft about languages in your userspace. It is an important topic on which there's lots to say. I didn't think those few sentences were a very good summary, but (if I'm right) that's because they are based on an English text which is itself not a very good summary. The large-scale en:Languages of the Roman Empire is excellent, but long. We want an artiucle like that in the end, but whether we want it now I'm not quite sure! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:19, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May it be better to create a separate article based on en:Languages of the Roman Empire? --Katxis (disputatio) 08:28, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly, if you have the energy for it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:51, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I translate "semi-circular" into Latin? --Katxis (disputatio) 13:56, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective "semicirculus -a -um" exists, used once by Columella. A good classical author. Use it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've added more information to the page. I think that, as it is now and regarding the topics that convers, it could be considered done. Nevertheless, I would like to ask your opinion whether I should add the following topics to the general article:

Sports
Cuisine
Philosophy
Science and technology
Clothing
Hairstyle

Thanks for your help. Katxis (disputatio) 20:17, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any of these can be considered ramifications of culture, I guess, but honestly it would be better to ask IacobusAmor to comment. As an anthropologist he will have a far more informed opinion about where an article headed "Cultura" should go next. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:28, 19 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not write separate articles first and then link them here, perhaps with a summary paragraph. See, for example, Ancient Roman cuisine. You could add something Roman to match Philosophia Graeca antiqua. If you search for "Ancient Roman" in the English wikipedia, you'll find separate articles on Roman architecture, units of measure, bathing, pottery, military clothing, and so on. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:10, 20 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iwatensis

I just want to express my appreciation for the extra work you did for finding the latin names of the Japanese provinces!--Jondel (disputatio) 01:14, 17 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historia Romae

Hi! How are you? I've seen there is an article entitled "Historia Romae" which refers just to the history of ancient Rome. However, there is also an article about "Ancient Rome" with a section dealing with history. Wouldn't it be better to keep "Historia Romae" for the history of the city of Rome until today and talk about Roman ancient history on the section in "Ancient Rome"? In that way there wouldn't be a duplicate and both articles could be completed dealing with two different topics. What do you think about it? --Katxis (disputatio) 09:15, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roma antiqua, being one of the 10,000 pages, wants to correspond to the article on the same subject in other wikis, though of course it doesn't have to correspond in every particular. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:29, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have no connection with this topic, and I think remodelling this or other articles should be discussed on the article talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:35, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that Katxis took up this misnomer. In antiquity, Roma referred to the city of Rome alone, not to the imperium Romanum. That's why I shyly and heedfully wrote the title Romani antiqui and directed it to Roma antiqua (Apr. 2015). I didn't change the title, because I hadn't the time to make the textual & stylistic changes required. Although it may sound natural to say Roma antiqua in the wake of Ancient Rome or Rome antique, this would be an anachronistic neologism, if it's supposed to refer to the Roman empire or civilisation. Neander (disputatio) 13:13, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Andrew, I'm sorry. I didn't notice your wish to discuss this issue in due place! Neander (disputatio) 13:18, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite OK of course -- and I am with you in my heart of hearts -- but I was feeling this might be a topic that didn't really need my opinion :-) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just moved it to the article's discussion page. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Katxis (disputatio) 13:46, 21 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Hi! Sorry to bother you again. Could you please take a quick look at Expugnatio Daciae and Occasus Imperii Romani to see if there is any error? Thanks in advance for your help. --Katxis (disputatio) 01:33, 22 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both have numerous errors. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:11, 22 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acta Vandalorum

Hello dear Andrew! I would like to bring to your attention, on the Latin pages works of the users: Usor:Driante70 and Usor:Sacreum. Unfortunately they also destroy, erase or delite the research work done by me or by others, do not respect the rules of Vicipedia and and the few good things that they do, they are never under the rules, often their jobs are incorrect, partial or incomplete. I have often tried to contact them but they did not have my answer. I believe and I hope that they should be stopped. I ask you to intervene with your authority.--Nuada (disputatio) 13:17, 29 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, Nuada. Since you, Sacreum and Driante70 all three make a large number of edits, and a large number of page moves, it is difficult for another editor to make a correct judgment without more details. Please give me examples: please list for me some recent edits by these two that are clearly incorrect, and edits that delete work done by you or others. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:31, 29 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scusate ma l'unico idiota che mette nomi inventati da lui per niente enciclopedici non sono io... non faccio nessun atto vandalico cerco di trovare fonti consone e di togliere nomi che non hanno fonte. Qualcuno crede che Wikipedia latina sia monopolio suo tipo Nuada. Che si contenesse e mettesse per una volta almeno il template del FONTE MANCANTE. Così almeno si capisce chi scrive fandonie e chi collabora. Perché veramente mi ha rotto... CiaoDriante70 (disputatio) 12:20, 1 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usor:Andrew Dalby Non è la prima volta che Nuada che mi dice che faccio atti vandalici. Se vuole che i suoi toponimi non siano cancellati usasse il template Template:Fontes desiderati, perché di solito aggiunge nomi che si inventa o che crede corretti e io cerco di mantenere solo quelli con una fonte. Queste accuse io non le tollero piùDriante70 (disputatio) 12:39, 1 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambobus eodem tempore loquor: ab opprobriis "idiota", "vandalus" etc. abstinere necesse est. Si de rebus male vel inconsulte factis aut me aut alios magistratos certiores facere vultis, nexus "differentiarum" praebete. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:20, 1 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exempla actorum vandalorum usoris Driante70: Mugla, Cigala, Nura, Policastrum--Nuada (disputatio) 12:24, 8 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalismo

Veramente nella voce Cigala ho inserito il nome originario del paese fondato nel XVI secolo e la sua sua variante del XVII, essendo Cigala una famiglia nobiliare. La fonte Cicala del XVIII si riferisce ad una forma tarda, come attestato anche nel sito del comune. Quale vandalismo ho fatto? Nessuno. Quanto alla voce Mugla non è vero che ho cancellato le fonti, anzi avevo messo due fonti dal Graesse che non c'erano e ho messo il redirect perché Castrum Muglae è una derivazione di Mugla. Ma forse questo non va a qualcuno, che pensa che io faccio vandalismo e addirittura ha cancellato le mie aggiunte da Graesse poi le ha rimesse lui, come se stessimo giocando a chi scrive prima una cosa di un altro. Per far vedere come io abbia tolto le fonti, quando invece le stavo sistemando. Io non ho mai cancellato le fonti quando erano con le referenze, mi limito a togliere quelle fonti che non hanno il Fontes desiderati, che atto vandalico ho fatto. Forse qualcuno non vuole che si modifichino i lavori degli altri, ma Wikipedia non ha il monopolio ed è libera e uno si limita a migliorare le voci, non ho mai fatto vandalismo.Driante70 (disputatio) 16:40, 8 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La voce Mugla era così https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castrum_Muglae&type=revision&diff=3079355&oldid=2822222 prima che la modificassi in https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castrum_Muglae&type=revision&diff=3079360&oldid=3079355. Qualcuno poi ha deciso di modificarla così https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castrum_Muglae&diff=next&oldid=3097050 per poi rimettere le mie fonti. Cioè assurdo, il vandalo è qualcun'altroDriante70 (disputatio) 16:44, 8 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nelle voci Nura e Mugla hai cancellato la formula: {{Municipium Italiae}}.

Questi perciò sono atti di vandalismo, amico! Inoltre il Graesse che tu privilegi non è una fonte sempre attendibile perché spesso soggetta ad errori grammaticali e di trascrizione!--Nuada (disputatio) 08:27, 9 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sports or festivals

Hi! Sorry to bother but I was thinking of creating an article entitled "Sport in ancient Rome" and I had the doubt if "Ludi" can be included in there or they should be classified as "(religious) festivals". What's your opinion on that? Katxis (disputatio) 11:02, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sport is linked with religion in the ancient world; it is linked with nationalism in the modern world. It can still be identified and discussed as sport. I am not sure if this answers your question ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:25, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Nuada!

I can understand what I do vandalism? Sometimes it happens to only remove sources without notes, sometimes it happens that, to removing the wrong name, the template is automatically deleted. I do not understand this pedantic admonition to me by Nuada. Can anyone tell who is giving me trouble?Driante70 (disputatio) 18:40, 11 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on your talk page and on Nuada's. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:51, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, I can't understand why you move Escaflone Caelorum and Puella Magi Madoka Magica to the Japanese title. There must are some people can't read Japanese. Can you tell me your reason that you have to move? Thank you! --Suchichi02 (disputatio) 06:14, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for asking, I will explain.

Some people can understand Japanese. I think no one can understand the titles you quote: they are not in Latin or any other language.

Our rule for articles about books (and films, and magazines) is that unless the title has already been translated into Latin in a reliable source, we use the original title. The general reason is that Wikipedias have to be compiled from reliable sources. The special reason for book and film titles is that translating titles is a difficult art. Incorrect translations do not help anybody. But in the text of the article there is plenty of room to explain the meaning of the title. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:10, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Dioceses

You say that "Catholic dioceses are not a source for Latin use of "Suzhou": it's an English source, using English". It is that, but...

As you say, it is a useful source for adjectival Latin forms. If you missed it in the edit, though, my objection was that specific citation where the Catholic Dioceses article was being used to "verify" that Suzhou was the Latin placename. It actually is, but only because it's official for all romanizations of Chinese in all Latin-alphabet languages per the PRC. The source being used was simply writing that part of the page in English and it wasn't a source for that point in Latin. — LlywelynII (disputatio) 09:00, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're 100% right. I have never encountered Catholic Hierarchy being used here in that way: heaven knows why it was so used in this case. It is indeed a useful source only for the Latin adjective "... Suceuvensis" and it does not show that the name Suzhou is Latin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese names

This seems to imply that the name 杭州 is not official...

No it doesn't. It implies that in Chinese the name is 杭州 and (one) official Latin romanization is Hangzhou, even though other traditional forms Hanceu(m), Suceu(m), etc. are in more general use. My edits are based on English Wiki policies that I assume (possibly wrongly) are carried over here: Articles should be at their most common modern Latin location, official forms of the Vatican or other relevant country should be noted, and everything else should be cited and kept out of the lede and in a special name section once it gets beyond one or two alt names.

Sorry I can't give more official Vatican forms along with the Pinyin, but there's only a few Latinitas articles I've seen on Google Books and those are all in snippet view. If you have access to a scholarly database and can get full issues, kindly let me know and I'll add them in.

And incidentally I do know the Latin names for Chinese cities is very odd stuff (most of the real use is going to be the early missionaries who'll have no system at all and most of the modern official use will be at the Vatican, but only very rarely used), but if you have any knowledge (or way to find out more) about how to decline the forms Hanceu and Hanceum, I'm curious. I assume the later might be a simple 2nd decl. neuter, but I'd want to know for sure before starting to add Wiktionary entries. — LlywelynII 09:23, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And btw thank you for your time, help, and kind words. — LlywelynII 09:25, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying so fully! If you're going to be improving pages about Chinese cities, that's great, I assure you that you have lots of leeway, and it will be enjoyable to discuss any points of doubt. You know most of what's below already, but I set it out for what it's worth.

Our guideline on the first sentence is to keep it readable. One or two well-chosen Latin forms, one or two vernacular forms, and try not to have more than three lemmas in total: further forms to be mentioned only in footnotes or to be discussed in a paragraph about names and etymology. If you encounter pages that don't keep to this guideline -- yes, there are many -- feel free to improve them in this direction.

Latin names (assuming they differ from the everyday name) should be sourced, and this sourcing footnote is appropriately placed immediately after the name.

With well known modern towns and cities, where there are often many variants, we tend to prefer Latin names that are used in some official source, frequently used, not too different from the everyday name, declinable in Latin. (In scientific articles we usually prefer modern scientific Latin nomenclature. These are both exceptions to our general rule: generally we aim for classical Latin.)

"Declinable in Latin" because it's useful in writing the article and because it's the only thing that proves the name was originally intended as Latin. I don't really know about "Hanceu". You could decline it as a 4th declension neuter, but that is not a productive declension in recent Latin, and I would probably have preferred "Hanceum". You're quite right that "Hanceum" can be taken as a 2nd declension neuter.

Vatican nomenclature is a very handy guide for cities that have a bishop (though often we can only find an adjective, which rarely guarantees the form of a parent noun); the Latin name of a well-established university is also a handy guide (but same problem); but we aren't necessarily ruled by these if other Latin sources also exist. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:05, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about your phrase "official Latin romanization". I know pinyin is the official romanization, but in Latin? Is there a source for that? And is this what really matters, anyway? Think about it in the international context. London and New York have official names, but we don't say "Novum Eboracum, officially City of New York". What does the reader of Vicipaedia care about officialdom? We say "in everyday speech New York or New York City" ... or something like that: that's what the reader most needs to know, I'd say ... and I'd say that it's the same even in China :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC) [emended in accord with Iacobus's note below][reply]

For reference, the city does have an "official" name, and it's City of New York. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:22, 13 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pages

Hi. I contact you as the admin with most recent activities here since I didn't find a suitable page to report this. Could you have a look at the pages created by 24.101.147.102? It's both in the wrong language and I can't see the relevance for the content. -- Tegel (disputatio) 22:56, 20 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since Andrew is on European time, I went ahead and deleted and reverted the vandalism; there was no useful content. Lesgles (disputatio) 03:01, 21 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Lesgles. I was fast asleep :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:16, 21 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone must have gone to bed early! If I'd had Lesgles's email address, I'd have included him in the email I sent at 5:58:05 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. Is there a list somewhere, in case of emergencies? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:21, 21 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(tps) We don't have an Administrators' Noticeboard here, right? If not, it seems to me that a couple of things would be helpful:

Emphasize periodically on Vicipaedia:Taberna (probably written in la and en, at least) that all administrators have Taberna on their watchlists, so reports can be made there.

Consider asking all administrators to include their local timezones on their user pages, so people know who is typically around when. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 13:10, 21 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a problem: the address was blocked by the Timelords. Lesgles dealt with the vandalism overnight, with help from Jondel.

The theoretical difficulty of finding a single place for urgent messages is a cross-wiki issue, in my experience, not just Vicipaedia, but it is much alleviated by the fact that on smaller wikis active users tend to watch "Recent changes".

On my user page I've indicated roughly where I live: I think that's as far as I want to go :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 21 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Le doute de Joseph

Bonjour,

Je me permets de vous solliciter pour vos connaissances en latin et en français. Travaillant actuellement sur les estampes françaises de Dorigny, je suis tombé sur la phrase suivante :

« Quid dubitas Joseph ? coelum tibi foedera nectit, Divina faciet Virgo te prole parentem. »

Je comprends en gros le sens car l'estampe fait référence au doute qui taraude Joseph lorsqu'il découvre la maternité de Marie. Mais comment traduire cela en bon français ? Auriez-vous une idée ?

Cordialement vôtre,--TG 642 (disputatio) 14:46, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Je traduirais ainsi:

Pourquoi tu doutes, Joseph? Le ciel conclut une alliance avec toi. La Vierge te fera parent et l'enfant sera divin.

Ça ira? Cordialement -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:06, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... par l'enfant divin? --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:26, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, peut-être. J'ai pensé à un ablatif absolu, mais je n'en suis pas certain! Merci, Bavarese ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:46, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cette phrase forme un fr:Distique élégiaque. --UV (disputatio) 19:40, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malheureusement non, mon ami; le second vers est un exemple simple d'un hexamètre dactylique, et non d'un pentamètre. Voici la scansion:

La césure est au milieu du troisième pied, où l'on trouve le plus souvent, comme dans le vers d'ouverture le plus célèbre dans l'ensemble de la poésie latine:

Nous ne devons pas ignorer les macrons! :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:59, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup de votre obligeance. Cela ira très bien. Cordialement vôtre, --TG 642 (disputatio) 05:56, 6 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, j'avais tort. Merci de l'avoir rectifié! --UV (disputatio) 10:06, 6 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quaestiunculina

Animadverti te, Andrea, ablativum singularem adiectivorum comparativorum i littera terminare solere (sicut a superiori, &c). Qui usus apud auctores mediaevales recentioresque frequentissimus fuit et vestigia constantia reliquit (sicut a priori, a posteriori). Cum quidem hic usus apud antiquos ignotus fuerit, velim scire, cur usum antiquorum (a superiore, &c.) tanta diligentia vites, quamquam certe hanc differentiam nosti. Reprehendere nolo, curiosus sum. Neander (disputatio) 09:03, 8 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Differentiam haud recognovi. Scribere soleo secundum exempla mihi praesentia (a priori, a posteriori) et lectiones meas recentiores (praesertim mediaevales): ita regulae classicae de ablativo adiectivorum comparativorum, olim mihi notae, oblitus sum ... Gratias tibi ago, mi Martine! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:21, 8 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire‎

Hi! I added more links and information to the page. Could you please take a look at it and take the template out? --Katxis (disputatio) 10:46, 23 Novembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Katxis. I'd say it needs more. There are lots of books in the world, not all of them notable. It's like writing an article about a living person: you have to show independent evidence that they are notable. With a modern book, you could say something about the author (with a good source cited); you could link to reviews in reliable publications. Obviously a book about ancient Rome tells about its life and its corruption: it has to! But what else? The English page says that too, but the English page also has no sources -- see the template there -- and will eventually be deleted if no good external sources are found.

A different point: the external link you give is to a complete pdf of the book. I wonder whether it is a breach of copyright? If it is a breach of copyright, we cannot include this link. Maybe somewhere the site "cultor.web" explains why the pdf is there ... maybe it's OK ... but it's unusual to find a complete copy of a new book, with no link to the author or the publisher. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:56, 23 Novembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The search function at Infobase, which apparently bought out Facts on File, doesn't return a pertinent result for this title. Has the publisher abandoned its rights in the work? As a highly paid lawyer once pointed out to me, copyright is effectively the right to earn money from a work, and therefore, to win a lawsuit, a plaintiff typically has to show that the defendant has actually deprived the plaintiff of income that could it could have earned from that work. In short: under many circumstances, even a demonstrable "breach of copyright" could be nugatory. (Btw, Google says it's showing only "selected pages." I haven't investigated further.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:21, 23 Novembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I have changed the link to Google Books anyway and added some references. Do you know whether there is any template for books? --Katxis (disputatio) 11:35, 23 Novembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think we have an infobox template for books. In general, our aim is to have more readable text.

In response to Iacobus: I know what you mean, but we had better not risk ourselves on that defence. But let's not worry -- I was talking about an earlier link which Katxis has now deleted. Google Books has proper copyright arrangements and is fine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 23 Novembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at Disputatio:Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire‎. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:18, 23 Novembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely an idle thought

Magistratibus est ratio dementissimorum scriptorum nomine agnoscendorum et adiuvandorum? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:18, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non, sed omni Vicipaediano qui tales scripturas videbit cito delere decet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:24, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sed si eorum nomina non agnoscuntur, ~~iudicio publico persequi non possunt~~ augustissimus mundus eos iudicio persequi non potest. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:34, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ita gloriam et periculum Vicipaediae brevissima sententia exprimis, amice! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:41, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The governments of the CFA, Russia, China, Israel, and perhaps a few other countries can probably identify such vandals right now, or at least their computers & accounts, and the means of doing so may well become available to the public within a few years—and then won't the vandals be surprised! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:02, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page I saved from drowning today tells me that China is interested in Latin (which is a Very Good Thing), but I fear it won't ever be very interested in the scribblings of naughty children on Vicipaedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:07, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to bet actual money that some are adults! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:13, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as Omar's moving finger knows that the grammatical error was recognized almost as soon as it was made: persequi is deponent, but the wanted sense was that the vandals could 'be prosecuted', not that they could 'prosecute'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:44, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, but you shouldn't silently rewrite a comment after it's been replied to. Look at it from the other point of view: I didn't reply to a sentence about "augustissimus mundus", so you don't want to make it look as if I did. What you could do is to strike out the wording you wish you hadn't used (leaving it visible, because it's what I replied to) and append the wording you prefer. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've simply done that now: hope that's OK for you? If not, please just revert my last edit! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:45, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nuada

Grazie per mille per aver fatto a capire a Usor:Nuada che è il primo a fare vandalismi alle pagine e non il sottoscritto come più volte ha fatto intendere. La questione sui Fanum nelle città con toponimo agiografico mi ha sempre lasciato abbastanza perplesso e anche i suoi neologismi sulle città italiane a volte mi lasciano perplesso come Abies Magna per Abetone (quando il toponimo attestato è Boscus Longus). A cosa serve latinizzare nomi italiani quando non ce n'è bisogno inoltre identificare una città come "Abete Grande" fa anche abbastanza ridere. Ha sempre cambiato le cose senza mai confrontarsi con gli altri utenti e questo mi dispiace molto.Driante70 (disputatio) 16:41, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:23, 4 Decembris 201D6 (UTC)

Cantab

Mi Andrew, me traditorem puto quia mox apud Cantabrigenses officium accipiam et Oxoniam relinquo! Tam de urbe quam de universitate nescius sum, sed tu care cantabrigensis fortasse consilia mihi habeas.--Xave ri us 10:33, 13 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bona nuntia, mi Xaveri! Cantabrigia divitior erit, te ibi laborante! Where will you live? If you have free choice, look somewhere between the Downing Street site, where I think the archaeologists are, and the railway station. Rail connections to London are very good. In that area you have Hills Road, Mill Road, and many side streets. We once lived on a side street off Mill Road, which was busy and handy for shops. Later we lived further out, at Linton, a bit more space to breathe but it was necessary to have a car. Practically all the colleges are within walking distance of the Downing site. But I must say that Cambridge has changed quite a lot since we were there ... When do you move? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:50, 13 Decembris 2016 (UTC

I am on the move today! I have got a small place on Coronation st, which I find amusing, which is close to that area you suggested. I will be attached both to Archaeology and Classics which from my preliminary exploration seemed close enough. I am starting my new position in the new year, so all is being quite sudden.--148.252.129.58 13:15, 14 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you think to take sufficient stocks of the "Oxford comma" with you? It's said to be in short supply at Cambridge. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:44, 14 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should mention those. (For context, I think you two both know I'm a Yank, and I went to high school in the mid-'70's.) The person most responsible for teaching me to write correctly was my ninth-grade English teacher, and he absolutely insisted on them. I used them long after just about everyone around me stopped using them. It was probably around thirty years after I was in high school—when my children were in high school themselves—that I finally gave them up. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 18:04, 14 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have never felt the need of Oxford commas ...

The Classics faculty has moved since I was an undergraduate. It's not far from the University Library, which is where I worked, but only until 1985; hence very few people I knew still work there now. The UL is handier than the Bodleian because you can browse the shelves and borrow the books. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:50, 14 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We never called them Oxford commas, mind you ... StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:07, 15 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a full induction and introduction on the first week of January, so I will soon find my way around. It is all looking quite new and exciting. Although the archaeology and classics libraries are quite far from each other, but I yet have to explore what they have!--Xave ri us 20:28, 20 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The classic argument in favor of the comma before and is said to be a book dedication made horrific by its absence: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:51, 15 Maii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration

Hello Andrew. Could I ask that you restore the following pages, of which I will be providing the required sources and expanding? Thank you in advance.--Jondel (disputatio) 05:36, 15 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for providing the redlinks: that makes it a very quick process. These pages were not by you, but that makes no difference -- I'm very happy you want to improve them! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:02, 15 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You welcome. I highly appreciate your restoring them and indeed monitoring nonquality insufficient articles. You are correct in deleting them. There is just so much work. I will start working on them.--Jondel (disputatio) 22:28, 15 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tennessine

Eu mudei a página em questão para "tennessium" seguindo a lógica dos demais halogênios. Ex: fluorine/fluorum, chlorine/chlorum, bromine/bromium, iodine/iodium, astatine/astatium. Então pela lógica tennessine/"tennessium"Luis Gabriel Moraes Dias (disputatio) 16:37, 20 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and you may be right, but we have to work from reliable sources. At present the only Latin source I can find is cited on the page (it is this) and it gives "tennessine" as Latin name. "Tennessium" would be better, if we can find a source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:50, 20 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Tennessine's name was only formally approved by IUPAC about a month ago. It may take a little time to get all the translations to line up correctly. I might counsel patience. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:53, 21 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, until this year's new crop of names came up, IUPAC had recently been proposing that all new element names must end in "-ium". This year, they relented to allow future halogens to end in "-ine" and future noble gases to end in "-on"—Hence Tennessine and Oganesson. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:29, 21 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I updated those two articles to reflect the new names, graphics, etc. I took the liberty of declining Oganesson on the model of Neon, Krypton, Xenon, etc. I chose to leave Tennessine undeclined for now.

Mycēs

Salve. I understand Latin, but my latin language is poor, so I write you in English. Mycēs has been desysopped [4] due to inactivity in accordance to the inactivity policy. Can you please remove him to the adminlist? I'm not sure I can do it, so I ask first before performing an action. Regards. --Ks-M9 (disputatio - meta) 11:25, 25 Decembris 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, we'll do it. Thanks for your message. Myces has been a very helpful user in the past, but we haven't heard from him for a long time now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 25 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Salve. Thank you for your Welcome, I will colabor in Vicipaedia with contributions about Cuba, universal literature and law. I convide you help me in this work. Thank you again.--Al-Baco (disputatio) 20:46, 27 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [[Categoria:Pyctae]]

Happy New Year Andrew! I'm just following through that this category is redundant with the pugilis category as mentioned by Iacobus at the taberna. Kindly look into this.Best regards,--Jondel (disputatio) 14:27, 31 Decembris 2016 (UTC) If you would like to delete, let me make a few adjustments first like checking that all pugiles members have the pycta etc.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:40, 31 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, simply put a {{Delenda}} on it when you've emptied it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:41, 31 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great!--Jondel (disputatio) 15:00, 31 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of delenda, the article "Planeta super-habitabilis" has been glaring at us for a week. A small section at the top is presumably a machine translation from English, slightly (but inadequately) touched up by hand; then follow sections in Romanian, Spanish, Italian, and Romanian again, with a quick dessert in French. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:59, 14 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, I hadn't looked at it. Deleted now. What a strange way to build a useless article! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:27, 14 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello.

Could you create the article of the prominent Turkish-Jewish economist Dani Rodrik in Latin Wikipedia?

Thank you.

31.200.15.50 01:38, 20 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sententia contra Nuadam

Andrew, sententia tua contra me iniusta fuit, tibunal tuus est iniquus, damnatio et poena mea interruptioni tribus mensibus fuit diabolica. Iudex insanus tu es! Alii utores, Sacreum, Driante70 et IacobusAmor, vera gens vandalica vicipediae sunt, non ego! Dux superbus et tyrannicus tu es.--Nuada (disputatio) 10:39, 25 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bene revenisti, Nuada! Si aliquid iniuste factum censuisti, licuit tibi statim in paginam disputationis tuam scribere, quam paginam curiose observabam.

Te moneo, ne incaute alios Vicipaedianos "vandalicos" nuncupes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 25 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Numquam scribam in Vicipedia Latina, quia hodie ea cloaca facta est! Multi vicipaediani non solum vandalici sed etiam stolidi viri et duces eorum iniqui et caecitatis adflicti sunt. Ego dico vobis: ite ad diabolum!--Nuada (disputatio) 17:35, 25 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gentile signor Andrew Dalby è ora che l'utente Usor:Nuada la finisca di ripetere continuamente che me o altre persone come Usor:IacobusAmor facciano vandalismo. Si faccia riferimento a una sola volta in cui questo sia successo. Nuada è prepotente, ha più volte cambiato pagine a suo uso personale non collaborando con gli altri. Il riferimento a Fanum sui comuni italiani dove non è richiesto è opera esclusivamente sua, inoltre ha inventato di sana pianta neologismi su toponimi che non ne avevano bisogno. Forse crede di essere l'unico esperto di toponomastica italiana. Sinceramente non ho mai fatto atti vandalici sulle pagine, ho sempre cercato di migliorarle. L'idea di vandalismo è davvero strana... e oltretutto offensiva. Driante70 (disputatio) 15:43, 12 Februarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

Hi! I would like to ask you if this sentence is correct (I'm worried about the declension in Castellae et Legionis and Provinciae Soriae). I will create new articles based on it.

Adnamantia (Hispanice: Almazán) est commune Hispanicum in Castellae et Legionis Provinciae Soriae situm, cui anno 2011 1010 incolarum sunt.

Thank you. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:22, 3 Februarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again, Katxis. I would make only one change: it should be " in Castellae et Legionis provincia Soria situm". This means, in Soria province (in + ablative), of Castile and León (genitive). The 1st decl. ablative has the same spelling as the nominative, but long vowels; it is optional to indicate the long vowels with an accent, thus "in ... [[provincia Soria|provinciá Soriá]]". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:30, 3 Februarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and sorry for bothering you. I'll try to create new articles about Spanish cities and municipalities. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:35, 3 Februarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Thanks to User:Juliancolton for reverting that guy. You should know that User:Tegel also reverted, then globally blocked the IP for one year. (Andrew, you would be within your rights to Revdel everything in the IP contribution list except maybe the first two.) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:38, 10 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know. (Quote from en:Prunella Scales in Fawlty Towers.) Thanks, Steven! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:43, 10 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel College

Hi, Andrew Dalby, I was wondering if you can put this in a proper English, so I can add it to the file in the Sculptures in Emmanuel College (Massachusetts). Thank you for your time. Lotje (disputatio) 06:24, 18 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked, and the English wording in the Commons file is exactly right, "the seal of Emmanuel College". Was that what you needed?

It's interesting for us that they treat "Emmanuel" as an indeclinable word. We must note that when we have a page about the college. So thanks for asking! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:35, 18 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I translate this as Oh, how good he is, the good God? Lotje (disputatio) 13:16, 18 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. It is a quotation from this poem or chant. I wondered who wrote the words, but I don't see any source on that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:31, 18 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew Dalby, it's always great to have it doublechecked! Lotje (disputatio) 15:12, 18 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Beati invitati ad cenam Domini"

Hi, Andrew Dalby, can I translate this as: "Blessed are those who are invited to the table of the Lord" ? Thank you for your time. Lotje (disputatio) 06:46, 19 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Feast" or "dinner" or "supper" might be more literal, but "table" is perfectly OK in this sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:50, 19 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mutando non Mutor

Hi, Andrew Dalby, How would you translate "Mutando non Mutor" in proper English? By changing I remain the same? I would like to add it to the List of Latin phrases (M). Thank you for your time. Lotje (disputatio) 13:38, 21 Martii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao

It's possible revert Lucania to Basilicata in Template:Municipium Italiae? Lucania is fascist denomination or a thema of Bizantine Empire between Basilicata and Calabria (without Matera) and it's called Basilicata since the Middle Ages (also in latin). It's an invention of NuadaDriante70 (disputatio) 12:00, 4 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]

your signature

Hello Andrew, until a while ago you were using

[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]][[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]

as your signature. The tag is deprecated, and will over the next few days cause all pages where you left your signature to be listed on Special:LintErrors/obsolete-tag. Would you mind if I use User:UVbot to change all occurrences of your former signature to the following, in order to fix the format?

[[User:Andrew Dalby|Andrew]][[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby| Dalby]]

(Andrew Dalby)

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:37, 11 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UV. Sorry I didn't reply before, I have been travelling. I am happy for my signatures to be changed. Perhaps it would be even better to change them all to the simple style which I am now using, that is, [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]). If you can do this, please do it. If there is any problem with it, and your solution works better, then I agree with your solution! Thanks for your help in either case. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 17 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew, thank you for your reply. I will gladly change your signatures to the current simple style. Before I start, I will just wait for a few more days for Usor:Xaverius‎ to reply (I have asked him a similar question). If Xaverius agrees as well, I could change the signatures of both you and Xaverius in just one step. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:38, 17 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YEs, sorry, no probs at all!--Xave ri us 10:50, 28 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you! --UV (disputatio) 07:23, 29 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capsa seu arca

Care Andrea,

Estne verbum optimum generale pro Anglice "box" "capsa" aut "arca?" E.g., in "pencil box," "cardboard box," "jack in the box," etc, debemus uti verbo "capsa" aut "arca?" Gratias et felicem Pascham! [ -- Johnhillis ]

Salve mi Ioanne. Tardius respondeo -- da veniam! Meá mente arca est maior, haud mobilis; capsa est minor, faciliter portabilis. Sed alii fortasse aliter censent? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 17 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vicus Marnae

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

Haec parva facina nunc fecit, et tibi peto parvam relecturam. Tibi gratias ago!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 21:34, 20 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest Andrew, haw are you? Sorry my insistence, but Iacobus put the Latin -3 cause my poor Latin! Please, I still asking your help to correct the page, so the banner can be put off. Please.

I'll be pleased to help you in Italian and Portuguese! have a nice week end!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 16:31, 22 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I had a try! You need to explain the reference in footnote 3, or maybe provide a link: references have to help the reader, and that one doesn't help me ...

If "Marnae" is the correct Latin name, it's plural, so when it is the subject of a sentence I have given it a plural verb. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:59, 23 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marnae I think it's correct. As for all the villages thant ends their name with "e" as my village "Caselle Landi" it's translated as Casellae Landorum. I think it's correct. Thanks a lot for your great help! Rei Momo (disputatio) 20:07, 23 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formula:DBI

Sensus siglorum adhibitorum minime patet: {{{3}}}, "[{{{1}}} {{{2}}}]" neque volumen neque annum indicat, e.g. Guillelmus II (rex Siciliae). Elucidationem humiliter quaero. --Enzian44 (disputatio) 16:12, 10 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Da veniam, Enzian. Explicationem nunc in pagina Formula:DBI inserui. Recte dicis, neque volumen neque annus indicatur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:14, 10 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formula in alteris versionibus Vicipedianis volumen atque annum indicare potest. Structura istarum formularum in hac Vicipedia adhiberi non potest? --Enzian44 (disputatio) 17:34, 10 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ita non feci ego quia omne in interrete legibile est: ergo volumina (credidi ego) haud relevant. Formulas aliarum Vicipaediarum, si iam exstabant, non cognovi.

Certe potes loco primo formulam ex alia quadam Vicipaedia hic inserere, sub nomine differente e.g. "Formula:DBI2", et uti. Si utilius esse censemus, possumus loco secundo ad formulam novam paginas exstantes migrare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:50, 10 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linguae Germanicae Vicipaedia hac formula utitur. --Enzian44 (disputatio) 08:43, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formulae Capsarum quoque descriptionibus carent. In Capsa:Papa forma mediaevalis predecessor utitur in loco praedessoris. Capsa:Vicidata explicationem imaginis ibi depromptae non praestat (re vera in Vicidata mancante), videas Lucius III. Ave --Enzian44 (disputatio) 08:43, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fidelitas (reliability) Vicidatorum et Vicipaediae differunt: insuper imagines apud Vicidata positae interdum mutantur! Ergo, imagine simplici sub aegide Vicidatorum accepta, explicationem nostram addere inutile erit. Necesse est in pagina imaginem a nobis selectam cum rubrica a nobis scripta inserere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:09, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius III ergo duplicem imaginem offert ex codice Petri de Ebulo, alius usor istam imaginem extra capsam eliminabit. Rubricam formulae:Capsae Vicidata inserere posse necesse est. --Enzian44 (disputatio) 10:17, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC) Postscriptum: profundas tenebras artis informaticae abhorreo.[reply]

Ha! Ego quoque, sed in hoc mundo vivimus ...! Egomet ipse igitur primo loco imaginem faciei Lucii III e Communibus selectam in Vicidata inserui, secundo loco imaginem maiorem apud nos restitui, tertio loco imaginem faciei apud Communia stantem strictius circumscripsi. Si non nobis placet, possumus rursus imaginem duplicatam delere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:23, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Optime fecisti, gratias ago. --Enzian44 (disputatio) 00:21, 13 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ecclesia Sancti Ioannis Baptistae in Pulchra Villa

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

Antea, de ista pagina, Linda scripsi, sed non correctam puto. Fortasse Bella? Nescio. Francogallice Belleville, quomodo scribere possumus?

Rei Momo (disputatio) 12:31, 16 Augusti 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, rex. "Linda" est verbum pulchrum, sed (iam scimus) non Latinum! De locis Francicis nomine "Belle Ville" distinctis, fontes variantur. Interdum "Bella Villa" videmus, interdum alias versiones. Possumus titulum relinquere sicut iam scribitur (Latinitas enim accipienda est) et fontes quaerere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 16 Augusti 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hi. Sorry for putting the message on your user page instead of here on the talk page. -- Tegel (disputatio) 15:11, 27 Augusti 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem of course. Deleting (after acting on your request) was the simplest way as I'm on a hand-held device just now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:14, 27 Augusti 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Samoan

FYI, this record caught my eye because the text I've boldfaced here happens to be gibberish—though not exactly random!—in Samoan: <<16:15, 26 Augusti 2017 Andrew Dalby (Disputatio | conlationes) delevit paginam Carl's Jr. (contenta fuerant: "Jr. Carl a O o anapogi se filifili faleaiga meaai loc o Tele lava ego Luguvallum o le o...", conlata a solo "2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:5A" (Disputatio))>> The boldfaced words can be glossed, in order: 'fast (refrain from eating), look,^[1] choose, restaurant, food' and 'very much'. Weird! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:15, 27 Augusti 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having just done short biogs of some Pacific political leaders, I had a strong feeling it was from around there, but it's nice to know. Thanks! I guess it approaches a critical comment on Carl's Jr., but few of our colleagues would have been able to interpret it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 27 Augusti 2017 (UTC)[reply]

↑ The word se is exemplified in eight homonyms; this may be the most frequently heard one.

Move request

Hi Andrew, can you please change the title of Yildiz Pollack-Beighle to Yldiz Pollack-Beighle? See e.g. her CV at the website of the government. I've checked it in some newspapers too and her first name is indeed Yldiz. I don't have the edit rights on Latin Wikipedia to do it myself. Thanks! Ymnes (disputatio) 07:17, 10 Septembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Thank you. Next time you try (if it's four days later or more) you will find you have the rights to move pages yourself. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:28, 10 Septembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Thank you! Ymnes (disputatio) 08:51, 10 Septembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iulia Nova

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes? Tibi peto parvum adiutum: can you telle me if the new red line in this page is correct? The page in English is Sanctuary Madonna of the Splendor. Thanks a lot for your great help!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 13:28, 17 Septembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese categories

Thanks for fixing the philosophers & poets. As an astute observer might guess, a slew of new ones (including some featured on the 10K list) will be appearing over the weekend. ::winkwink:: IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:54, 23 Septembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped you wouldn't mind. I look forward to reading the new pages! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:01, 23 Septembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vicus in pagina Aegidii Miragoli

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

I would like to open a new page from the page I'm proposing to you, and I ask to you if the name of the page can be correct in Latin, because I think there's not a Latin page of this frazione.

Tibi gratias agot!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 14:29, 10 Octobris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insigne Finniae

Hello, could you help me in translating text from the English Wikipedia page to here with the article Insigne Finniae, please? I'm trying my best to contribute to Finnia-related articles as my country is reaching its 100th "birthday" in less than a month, but apparently my Latin wasn't good enough to contribute, even if my contribution was somewhat minor. If you could help me with said article, it would be appreciated greatly. Regards, Sullay (disputatio) 15:34, 9 Novembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea, iam initium commentationis Finnicae Latine reddidi. Neander (disputatio) 18:54, 9 Novembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Optime. Paginam nimis brevem, externo fonte hucusque carente, heri censui. Sine dubio meliorare possumus.

That's fine. When I saw the page yesterday it was too short and lacked a source, but ~~I'm sure it'll improve~~ it has improved noticeably! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 10 Novembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De signis

Salvete! Pagina mea prima habet magnos erroros, quaeso adiuvatis corrigere hos, aut delere paginam de signis. P. S. Nolite ignorare meas notas, Товарищ герцог Мальборо [die 11 Novembris 2017]

De pagina nova "Ioannes Churchill (dux Marlburiensis)"

Salvete, vestra excellentia! Pagina haec habetne errores? Quaeso adiuvatis me corrigere hos errores. Товарищ герцог Мальборо (disputatio) 11:56, 13 Novembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[5]

Nice catch and sorry, that was my blunder.--Jondel (disputatio) 10:17, 14 Novembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray for Confucius!

You've gotten the text up to 28,181 octeti—which, multiplied by the conversion factor of 1.1, equals 30,999, enough to gain maximum points for an article on the 1K list! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:45, 3 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you! I kind of thought I'd got there. Always wanted to know more about the fellow. There is still the big subject of his influence etc., which I haven't touched (but see your Confucianismus). Anyway, I must leave it for now. Other things exist. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 4 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

De re mea

Salve! Si potestis, corrigite hanc. Puto paginam pensam esse--Товарищ герцог Мальборо (disputatio) 13:47, 9 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Le Roi Soleil

Vu qu'Anedja a aussi donné une opinion, je vais transférer cette discussion à Disputatio:Ludovicus XIV. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:30, 10 Decembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Hi Andrew! Thank you very much for your welcome post a few days ago and for your kind response concerning my first contribution here. You have to know that I'm merely a first semester student of Scandinavistics/Latin Philology and that my Latin writing skills are just developing (that's the reason why I'm writing in English right now, it would definitely take too much time in Latin). If I may ask, could you please have a look on my article and correct possible mistakes and check its latinity (construction in general, subordinate clauses, subjunctives, c. t.)? Concerning the Icelandic place names: they're taken from original sources written in Latin in the 17th and 18th centuries. I would be glad to contribute some more articels, e. g. on Guðbrandur Þorláksson (Gudbrandus Thorlacii), Hólar (Holae), Ole Worm (Olaus Wormius) and create a list of Icelandic bishops... but first things first: I have to focus again on my studies now, I simply used the Christmas holidays for this little exercise in Latin version. Happy new year, I'm looking forward to your answer ;) Frenchnerd (disputatio) 20:50, 2 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)Frenchnerd[reply]

Hi, Frenchnerd. Thanks for your message. Happy New Year to you too. Your Latin skills have developed pretty well already, I'd say. Of course you are welcome to add more to Vicipaedia whenever you can. With the place names, and with names of early modern people, you have done exactly what Vicipaedia aims to do -- find Latin sources wherever possible.

I'm afraid my French subjunctive usage sometimes gets mixed up with my Latin (luckily they are not a million miles apart). But, yes, I'll read and correct if I can. I'm sure that others will too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:42, 3 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:41, 29 Martii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In profili tui anglice commentarius reliquio

vede hic

OK, I read your comment. Yes, I'll help, but don't pin your hopes on keeping the literal "translation" of your name. In biographies we don't do that: others would agree with me I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:11, 6 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note your suggestion that Latin articles could be written about those names. Yes, certainly they could. You could write them. They would have to cite reliable sources (in any language: Latinists are multilingual). Finding such sources can sometimes be difficult with personal names -- there are many unreliable sources on the Web -- but there's no other obstacle. Go ahead. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:59, 7 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:39, 13 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defectio sollertiae

Salve, Andrea, I have problems linking Arcesilas with other wikis. When I click on "Add links", a "Link with page" sheet is opened but the abbreviation "la" offers lojban (autoconverting to jbowiki) in the "Language" field, while our Vicipaedia (lawiki) appears to be nonexistent. ¶ In my imaginary resourcefulness I then entered the English wiki and clicked on "Add links" and added Arcesilas — successfully, or so it seems. In spite of having been added to the languages list, Arcesilas still fails to be shown in other wikis. ¶ At this point, my technical shrewdness died down. I'm writing these lines in your space, believing that you're more skilled than me in wikipedian paraphernalia. Please, if you have the time, could you help adding Arcesilas in the proper way, whtever it is? Martinus Neander (disputatio) 13:44, 16 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I will, but I'll also tell you how to get over the Lojban problem, it's easy. Instead of typing "la" in that little box, type "lat". In two moments, your "lat" will default to "lawiki". In two more moments you can press your tab key, or click in the next box which is now magically available, and add the pagename. I say "two moments" because these steps are not quite instantaneous, but as we get older and our reactions slow down this will no longer seem to matter to us. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 16 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I typed "[[en:Arcesilaus]]" into the text at the bottom, and that seemed to work, creating in the narrow column at left a linked list of wikis that have that article, but then you deleted it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:30, 16 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who "you" is, mi Iacobe. Is it me? I wasn't aware of an edit conflict, but it's all academic because your solution and my solution would both work, we just happened to apply them at the same moment. My solution was to add a space. UV's solution is to perform a "null edit". Any edit at all would work. [For good luck I went and made an innocuous edit on the Wikidata page as well.]

Neander, let me explain to you. You did correctly add Arcesilas by your second method. That was fine, but, because of the cussedness of all electronic things, the database now and then takes a while to do what it should. When I first looked, I could see the la: link on the German page, but no links (as you reported) on the la: page. So (taught by UV long ago) I made an edit, any edit, on the la: page. Iacobus happened to do the same. As a result, the database had to renew itself, and noticed (with a guilty smile) the preceding change at Wikidata. All now seems to be well. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 16 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, thanks for instructions and explanations. This was the first time I run into a problem like this. But certainly not the last ... :-) Obviously, Iacobus addressed me, reminding that he added "en:Arcesilaus" (in the old, pre-2013 fashion). ¶ Iacobe, if this is your standard solution (witness motus artis), it's scarcely to be recommended for the simple reason that, in that way, our Vicipaedia page doesn't become visible to other wikis, no even English. Neander (disputatio) 16:33, 16 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I've checked, adding a link to Wikipedia (as by typing "[[en:Arcesilaus]]") has automatically resulted in making the page visible in other wikis, and then a bot would come along and silently remove the link in Vicipaedia. However, the process may take time. I just checked, and right now most of the fourteen articles I added less than twenty-four hours ago seem to be recognized over in the English wiki. Abstractionismus and Motus artis are among the laggards. Abstractionismus, however, does have a Q-number wherever the Q-numbers are stored. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:56, 16 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a little longer and the extraterrestrials will turn up to make your links for you. They know where the Q-numbers are. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:13, 16 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iacobe, had I known this gimmick, I wouldn't have deleted your edit. Sorry! Obviously whatever existing link would function as a seminal link in this process? Neander (disputatio) 18:46, 16 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recte mones, Neander. (I misunderstood Iacobus and didn't check the history.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:54, 16 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:48, 20 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brasiliopolis

Hi, dearest Andrew, how are you? Please, I put a new in this page, but you know my Latin isn't so good. Please, can you read it and put in Latin cortrect? Thanks a lot for your great help!!! -- Rei Momo (disputatio) 10:34, 16 Maii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The mysterious Egyptian (?)

De "blocked 197.39.89.97 (Disputatio) with an expiration time of 1 diem (sibi nomen imponere vetatur) ‎(Ob scripta sensu sive et Latinitate carentia." ¶ One-day blocking isn't working. He's inserted gibberish into about thirty pages since the beginning of May. The only way to have stopped him would have been to have blocked all IP addresses beginning with the numbers 37 or 41 or 197. He apparently has access to at least twenty-five computers, each with an IP number beginning with one of those three initial sets of digits, e.g., for the last set, 197.38.56.32 and 197.38.104.213 and 197.38.237.13 and 197.38.239.127 and 197.39.11.159 and 197.39.46.167 and so on. So far as I've seen, no other anonymous user has contributed anything from addresses beginning with 37 or 41 or 197. Why not impose electronic capital punishment on all such IP addresses and see who objects. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:06, 21 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this before. It isn't a question of multiple computers but an internet provider that uses a range of IP addresses (as most of them do). It's a nuisance, but I don't feel I could impose such a wide range block in this case. Specific pages are repeatedly targeted, and we can semi-protect them, but I fear the result will simply be that other pages will be targeted instead. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:19, 21 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like to do some semiprotecting, these are pages he's marked up since 27 April:

There might be others. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:17, 21 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More tidying up

De "protegit Susanne Blakeslee [Creatio=Sinere solum usores adfirmati automaticale] (infinita) ‎(Counter-productive edit warring)." ¶ I happened to notice that this miscreant, whose IP address starts 2600..., added several other little biographies a long time ago. Those, too, may have the same errors, which seem to have arisen by copying and leaving unchanged the definitions in some other—and possibly genuine—article, but I don't have time to check. Something to put on the to-do list! Also: that address and at least one other address also starting 2600... have been blocked by some all-powerful authority in some other part of Vicilandia. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:59, 21 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been deleting these pages for some time if they contain false information (as they always do, because the infant concerned has no idea what he's writing). By all means continue to mark them for deletion whenever you happen to encounter them and I will grasp the baton. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:07, 21 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sad thing is that these people deserve a biography, but we can't have biographies with such false material in them! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:44, 21 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added (but you know already) that if you or anyone has time to replace false with true information, that would be the ideal solution. Sadly, however, we all have our own lists of priorities among which the total rewriting of these pages may not claim a high place. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:08, 21 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious algorithm?

Here's a curiosity: this brand-new article has appeared today

N 13:03 Templum Pacis‎‎ (3 mutationes | Historia) . . (+1 003)‎ . . [Autokrator‎ (3×)]

but on my screen its title is printing in bold—which would ordinarily indicate that I've contributed to it, but I haven't. How is that explained?! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:59, 24 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I can see that it happened because you wrote an article Templum Pacis, which was (for a fair reason, I'd say) moved, earlier today, to Templum Pacis (Pennsylvania). A redirect remained from Templum Pacis.

Noticing that, I found that only one other article had a link to yours. I revised that link and then deleted the redirect, because I had learned (by editing the new Forma urbis marmorea) that there would be reason for at least one other article to exist with that same title. I went to en:wiki to verify this (and took a couple of minutes to correct the link on en:wiki). By the time I returned, Autokrator had already created the article on the Templum Pacis of ancient Rome. So this tells us that the system recalled your responsibility for the original Templum Pacis, even though your article had been moved and the redirect deleted.

Whether any article should retain the title Templum Pacis without disambiguation, or whether that spot should be occupied by a disambiguation page, I hardly know as yet. Things happen quickly around here :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 24 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I think Autokrator's move of your page was uncontroversial (though one might revisit the choice and spelling of the disambiguation word Pennsylvania), but I myself ought to have told you that I had deleted the redirect (thus leaving you potentially unable to find your own page). Sorry about that. Real life interrupted me at the crucial moment. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:51, 24 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I'd forgotten about that page, but of course the ancient Roman one takes precedence; however, it's still printing in bold. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:57, 24 Iunii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didacus...

Hi there Andrew, I have noticed an article about me, Didacus Grez-Cañete, has been deleted. I have no problem with its deletion, but the deletion reason shows some injurious statements by user:Disembodied Soul, who is a cross-wiki troll and likely a sockpuppet of user:Ferrotomb, who I'm sure acts on a xenophobe attitude as per other edits in other wikis. Anyways, my request is that you could remove the deletion reason, which keeps Soul's comment permanently available. Thanks. --Küñall (disputatio) 22:21, 6 Iulii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Küñall, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I think the reason for deletion needs to stand permanently as a warning to other editors. See this and other linked pages. Sorry I can't help. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:34, 7 Iulii 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between similar Latin words

Hello, Andrew. It's me again, Marcelo. Don't know if you remember me. I hope you are having a nice day. I had a question about some Latin words and I decided to ask you since you are quite familiar with the language yourself. I don't know if this is the right place to do so, but here goes:

Can you please tell me the difference between the Latin words "italus", "italianus", and "italicus"? I've tried to look them up and figure them out of myself but I get confused. Can you also give a sentence for each of them as an example?

Also what is the difference between "Nomen incolarum" and "adiectivum"

Thank you very much for your time and take care.

Marceloapm (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to discuss this on Vicipaedia, and perhaps in reference to real pages, because I think you are talking about words you have found on Vicipaedia or words you want to use there. So I'll copy this to my Vicipaedia talk page and continue there:

Hi, Marceloapm. Briefly, and as to the ways I use the words myself: "Italus", a noun often seen in the plural, "Itali", Italian person/people; "Italicus", an adjective, Italian; "linguae Italicae", ancient Italic languages; "lingua Italiana", a modern Latin term that we prefer on Vicipaedia for the modern Italian language. If talking about a person, he may be "Italus" an Italian; he may be "Italicus" Italian as an adjective (and these two can often overlap); he can hardly be "Italianus" unless perhaps he is an "auctor Italianus", an Italian language author. But I know one Vicipaedian who used to write that a person was Italianus instead of Italus or Italicus to save himself four letters of typing. As to the difference between "Nomen incolarum" and "adiectivum", that looks like what I say above about "Italus" vs "Italicus" and the potential overlap between them. Similar maybe with "Hispanus" vs "Hispanicus". There can be a similar overlap in English between I am a Spaniard (a slightly old-fashioned word; "Hispanus sum") and I am Spanish ("Hispanicus sum"). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:16, 19 Septembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I have further questions, if you don't mind. In the page "Civitates Foederatae Americae", the "nomen incolarum" states the name as "Americanus", and the "adiectivum" also as "Americanus". Shouldn't the "adiectivum" be "Americus" or something similar? Or is this some sort of rule that I'm not aware of?

Also, when I search for well-known people of my country, which is Peru, they are all labeled as "Peruvianus", is this the same as "Italus" or "Italianus"? Because it sounds like "Italianus", which I think you tried to say that it isn't common to use. Thanks. Marceloapm (disputatio) 00:32, 20 Septembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule, Marcelo. Latin is a natural language, not artificial. We follow usage in existing sources, often helped by dictionaries. That's the general Wikipedia policy: use reliable sources. "Americus" is the Latin forename of Amerigo Vespucci, it isn't an ethnic name (so far as I know). Many ethnic and similar adjectives end in -anus, but if you can find "Italianus" in this sense in a Latin source, you have been looking very hard. However, "Peruvianus" seems to me to be common in Latin usage from the late 16th century onwards. If you search for words like this on Google, you will often find Latin printed books that use them. They are your reliable sources. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:18, 20 Septembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peruanus is also possible, as seen in several species epithets. ¶ The suffixes -anus and -icus are available for making adjectives from nouns and other adjectives. (For example, Caesar calls Sulla's army exercitus Sullanus). They can even be combined. Hence Afer 'Africa, especially of the region around Carthage', hence Afer, Afra, Afrum 'African', Africus 'African', Africanus 'African'. Similarly, Anglia and Anglicus, hence the doubly suffixed Anglicanus, used in an ecclesiastical sense. ¶ These suffixes are still productive (a technical term in linguistics), but the freedom with which we may deploy them here is unsettled. We know that botanists may make new adjectives with -anus, because botany has an organization officially empowered to authorize new names, and it tells botanists point-blank that they may do so; but we aren't botanists. Morphological transformations involving those suffixes are well attested, but novel forms may not be. Native speakers would probably have derided the form morbus Parkinson, and so some might prefer to write morbus Parkinsonianus (as it sounds more like Latin), but people make a reasonable argument that absent an attestation of that specific form, we shouldn't use it. ¶ Incidentally, the neuter plural noun-suffix -(i)ana remains productive even in English. You may have heard of a person named Trump; if someone writes about things called Trumpiana, you'll understand. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:50, 20 Septembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fix them all by hand?

Unless all those new formulas are actually useful, today would be a good time to have handy a reset button so the entire enterprise could be restored to its condition at 02:36, just before the English-language additions began. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:58, 20 Septembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gastrotourism in Greek Antiquity

I got your email and I'll reply. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:45, 21 Septembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Andrew Dalby!

Pro nuntio tuo, tibi ago gratias. In studio latinae linguae novicus sum. Multum legi verum paulum scripsi.

Consilium tuum parebo studeboque moribus et institutis Vicipaedianis. Tandem optimo cognito possibili paginam "Lex Cornelia de iniuriis" corrigam.

Ave atque vale.

--Reperiendo (disputatio) 21:00, 4 Octobris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

de pagina quadam a me scripta et rasa

Salve Andrea! Bene fecisti obsequens intentioni meae delens hanc paginam. Non enim volo quemquam vituperare vel offendere, immo ne videri quidem hoc fecisse. Gratias tibi et vale! --Bavarese (disputatio) 10:39, 17 Octobris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salve et tu, Bavarese. Nihil male fecisti ni scribens ni delens: bonum est quaestiones de arte grammatica ponere. Ne haesites talem rem iterum facere, etiam saepe, si necesse sit ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 17 Octobris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability Initiative

Salve Andrea, it was a pleasure to meet you in Como! I hope you had a safe and enjoyable trip back home. As discussed over dinner on Saturday, I would like to invite you to have a look at the Sustainability Initiative page on Meta, and, if you would like to support this effort, add your name to the List of supporters. Since having a large number of supporters really helps me forward this cause at the Wikimedia Foundation, I would also be happy if you could invite a few of your amicos vicipædianos to sign as well. Gratissime, --Gnom (disputatio) 23:13, 18 Novembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardus Simmons?

My records are showing that last January I brought the text of Ricardus Simmons up to an acceptable encyclopedic level. What I think then happened was that an unknown ignoramus kept replacing the improved text with a false text of his own invention, and after several rounds of that, you (or someone else) deleted the article altogether. Could you restore the text to the point where I last modified it? With appropriate protections in place, it might now have a chance of surviving without devolving into chaos. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:01, 2 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're right, and I forgot that episode when I deleted and protected the page. I'm happy you've reminded me. I will restore it to its best state. It will continue to be "semi-protected" so that only named accounts (e.g. you, of course) can edit it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 3 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure what was the "best state", but you now have a possible version and the full history. See my brief note on the article talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:56, 3 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks. Like many of Vicipaedia's biographies, it's hardly a complete survey of the subject, but at least it has enough text to match the first paragraph in the English wiki. Incidentally, it raises the question of what weight loss might be in Latin; the text has amissio ponderis, an obvious calque, but perhaps not the most idiomatic expression—though one certain to appear elsewhere, given many people's obsession with "fitness" (habilitas)! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:15, 3 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew W. Taylor‎?

Whoever frequently made a mess of Ricardus Simmons gave us Matthew W. Taylor‎ some time ago. See its talk page for some problems! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:25, 3 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's back!

This time, he tells us that Ken Berry was a comic, which he wasn't, and that Berry killed himself, which he apparently didn't, and doesn't tell us that Berry was known as a dancer, which he was. What's to be done? Is it really impossible to block all IP addresses starting with "2600"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:10, 3 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request of deletion

Good evening Andrew Dalby, I want to delete my user page, but I do not know how to do it. Can you help me?--Lucauniverso (disputatio) 18:54, 5 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, deleted at your request. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:29, 5 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facinus matutinum

Andrea, hodie mane meum facinus revocare conatus lapsum calami commisi. Ne plures errores faciam veritus porro procedere non audeo. Vin tu, sodes, quippe qui me sollertior sis, pontem quem ussi reficere? Gratias ago in antecessum. [Neander] 14:43, 11 Decembris 2018 (UTC)

Feci! Respondi apud disputationem tuam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:23, 11 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias quam MAXIMAS ago pro explanatione exquisitissimis verbis confecta! Neander (disputatio) 15:52, 11 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help in latin vocabulary

Hello, Andrew. It's me Marcelo again, we talked a few weeks ago. Can you help me out with a bit of latin? I can't figure out whether to use "maius", "magnum" and where in the sentence to use it. For example, if I want to say "Greater Japanese Empire", would that be Maius Imperium Iaponicum, Imperium Maius Iaponicum, Magnum Imperium Iaponicum, or Imperium Mangum Iaponicum? Maybe I should use a word that I am not even aware of. I can't find this information anywhere online. Can you please help me out? Thanks. Marceloapm (disputatio) 02:54, 20 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "determining and most significant word," and "numeral adjectives, adjectives of quantity, demonstrative, relative, and interrogative pronouns and adverbs, tend to precede" (Allen & Greenough #598), so that may put maius first, as it distinguishes one Imperium Iaponicum from another. Also, Latin seems to prefer not to have two adjectives in a row (unless they're separated by a conjunction), but exceptions come to mind, so that may not be a hard & fast rule. If you're trying to use a comparative adjective, magnum would appear to be false in any order. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:54, 20 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Iacobus: "Maius Imperium Iaponicum" seems to be the better choice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:19, 20 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: with multiple adjectives, the principal exception that comes to mind has the form scriptor scaenicus Francicus, for which scaenicus et Francicus would set up a strange equivalence; however, scriptor scaenicus et televisificus presumably needs the conjunction. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:05, 20 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Universitas Libera Bruxellensis

Hi there! Just to let you know, before you do anything about these things: Belgium had two initially French-language universities that have later become bilingual and finally split in two:
-Université catholique de Louvain/Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
-Université libre de Bruxelles/Vrije Universiteit Brussel

So, there are now two completely distinct universities, one functioning in French, the other in Dutch, the names of which both clearly translate to "Universitas Libera Bruxellensis". And of course they need to be distinguished in Latin as well. Belgians tend to use the acronyms ULB and VUB in both languages in order to distinguish them, so "Universitas (Libera) Bruxellensis (ULB)" and "Universitas (Libera) Bruxellensis (VUB)" might be one way to do that. I'm not saying what to do exactly, but you better be aware of the complexity. (I'm not aware of the seal, by the way, so I'm not saying anything about that either.) Sigur (disputatio) 15:47, 27 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great! The seal is visible in the infobox of the en:wiki article. But it might be that both universities claim the same Latin name. Hadn't thought of that. I won't do anything in a hurry. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:01, 27 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In "Université catholique de Louvain/Katholieke Universiteit Leuven," where does the notion of freedom come in? I'd have thought the best Latin for those names would be Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis. Or were you talking about four universities, two of which are in Brussels? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:43, 27 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it used to be two universities (one of them in Brussels), and after they split them both up, it's now four universities (two of which in Brussels, those translated as "Universitas Libera Bruxellensis"). Those called "Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis" are in Leuven (Lovanium) (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven - KUL) and in Louvain-la-Neuve (Novum Lovanium) (Université catholique de Louvain - UCL). Sigur (disputatio) 23:20, 27 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Las tildes

¡Hola! Constato que borraste las tildes en Cuniculi Claudii. En lugar de borrarlas, puedes poner un conversor como este adaptado a la ocultación de las tildes en tu página de usuario que te borre las tildes automáticamente, pero que deje el código incólume para quienes les gusta leer con tildes. Saludos. Gertindo (disputatio) 17:46, 15 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talem convertorem creare tibi licet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:49, 15 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vale. Pero el escript no va a poner tildes donde no las hay en el código, que eso solo una persona puede hacerlo, sino ocultarlas donde las haya. Así que de las dos una:

o ya las tildes en el código son enseñadas por defecto, y quien, como tú, no desee leerlas, tendrán que instalar el escript en su página de usuario
o ya el escript tiene que estar instalado en toda la la.wikipedia.org para ocultar por defecto las tildes, y quienes, como yo, deseen leer con tildes, tendrá que pulsar el botón arriba

¿Cuál de las dos va a ser? A mí me da igual.

Y ahora, mientras no está listo el escript, te ruego no quites más tildes. Quitarlas es tan fácil, que hasta un bot podría hacerlo. Ponerlas es hercúleo. ¿Nos imaginas a nosotros yo añadiendo contenido por la mañana y tú por la tarde quitando tilde tras tilde tras tilde... tras tilde? Vamos. Es además información que se está echando por la borda, cuando es mucho más sencillo mantenerla en el código y ocultarla en la visión, si le da a uno la gana. Porque tu problema es que se vean las tildes, que haberlas en el código no te molesta, ¿verdad? Gertindo (disputatio) 19:15, 15 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praefero delere accentus e textu Latino et ego. Habemus fere 139 726 commentationes sine accentibus (casibus rarissimis exceptis) in textu Latino, sed habemus nonnullas commentationes cum accentibus in verbis aliis linguis scriptis. Exemplum e pagina Eva Perón: "Maria Eva Duarte de Perón […] Praesidis Iohannis Dominici Perón […] uxor […] Bibliographia […] Alicia Dujovne Ortiz: Eva Perón. […] Berolini 1998, ISBN 3-7466-1399-X." Convertor automaticus etiam false convertebit "Perón" in "Peron", sicut Henricum et Raimundum Poincaré in "Poincare" false convertebit. His rationibus, praefero textus Latinos sine signis diacriticis (exceptis diaeresibus, vide Vicipaedia:De orthographia). Ut valeas optime! --UV (disputatio) 20:29, 15 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orthographia cursusque litterarum, quibus utimur, a multis scriptoribus editoribusque Latinis recentioribus et hodiernis accipiuntur. Igitur ad regulam Vicipaediarum omnium obtemperant: Vicipaediae enim e fontibus fidei dignis iam divulgatis aedificantur.

Iam in paginam disputationis Gertindonis scripsi, et nullo modo mutabo: "Si Latine hic orthographia privata ... scribis, scripta tua fortasse delebuntur: facilius enim delebuntur, si alii Vicipaediani difficiliter ad utilitatem communem cogere possint". Quo dicto, verboque fortasse conscia mente addito, paginam "Cuniculi Claudii" non delevi -- absit voluntas! -- sed emendavi, auxi, ad utilitatem editorum lectorumque cogere conatus sum. Inter "paginas cottidianas" in paginam primam nostram mox promovebo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:24, 16 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~sine dubió crúdélés estis~~ apicés mihi placent. facilius operá eórum prosódiacé legere. ☹ Gertindo (disputatio) 09:53, 16 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC) Gertindo (disputatio) 10:56, 16 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Gertindo haec inscriptus est dum ego textum praecedentem perficiebam. Non ad eo respondendum scripsi -- verba eius nondum vidi. An etiamnunc me crudelem esse iudicabit, haud scio :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 16 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

De Ioanna MacLaren Walsh

I was aware of the category "Curatores Musei Nationalis Historiae Naturalis (Vasingtonia)" but refrained from including it because she's not a curator. "The Smith" has about thirty curators in anthropology (formally so called), and she's not one of them. (In contrast, Adrienne Kaeppler, my coeditor, is.) Unfortunately, I don't know her real (formal) title. It's probably something like "researcher" (investigator?). It might have been available on the Smithsonian's website, but the personnel-related part of the site seems to have been shut down along with the rest of the so-called nonessential parts of the government. (Smithsonian employees have even been forbidden to use their government email addresses.) I'll probably run into her within a month or two and can ask her. Note that the English wiki has a category like "people of the Smithsonian." That kind of miscellany could be useful for a wide variety of institutions, including universities. ¶ Meanwhile, her biography of Eugène Boban, a prime purveyor of faked crystal skulls, is a good read. Some New Age cultists won't be amused. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:18, 21 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her page at the Smithsonian's website is "https://anthropology.si.edu/staff/walsh/walsh.html," but it's not working over here in the United States, where it automatically becomes a redirect to a general page. Maybe it'll work in Europe? For pictures, try here: "https://www.google.com/search?q=Jane+MacLaren+Walsh+Smithsonian&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjet5iMif_fAhVRneAKHUEiA80QsAR6BAgEEAE&biw=1183&bih=848." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:25, 21 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that "curatores" is a bad name for such categories, because we certainly have no need to distinguish between pay grades. Better to think of a more general term if we can ... or to imagine that it is written with a small "c" ... or ...? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:20, 21 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homines Smithsoniani (leaving as a puzzle for the reader whether Smithsoniani is nominative plural or genitive singular)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:27, 21 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad

Here you were right, I had read a sentence in Italian (in a project in Latin), but no I saw that it was the title of the link. sorry again…--Wim b 21:13, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the mistake. No problem! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:19, 15 Februarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

De translationibus nominum "Seaplane" et " Seaplane Base"

Renovatiovicipaediae Andreae salutem dicit. I found myself lost today; as already shown in the title, I was wondering how to translate those 2 terms I need for a page here on wiki. It has been not a long time since I've been into Vicipaedia, so I'm not sure how to create a proper discussion about the topic, but definetely I did notice you as one of the most active user around the site and I thought you could help me. Thank you. RenovatioVicipaediae (disputatio) 23:40, 22 Februarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's often best to ask on the Taberna, so I'll move your question there and we'll see what other editors suggest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:58, 23 Februarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Les Enfants du capitaine Grant

Salve Andrew,
usor novus Vicipaediae latinae sum, et paginam primam scripsi. Peto, si potes, paginam recensere, et errores meos cum clementia aestimare. --Dmitri Lytov (disputatio) 21:16, 7 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clementia procul sit. Paginam tuam laudo. Imaginem fontemque externum addidi. Iacobus formulam "augenda" sine explicatione addidit, sed fontem externum, nisi fallor, postulare voluit. Bene venisti! Permane! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:52, 8 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dalby, you are monkey, not Aryan!

still not in KL/KZ chimney? go there and save us trouble! HEIL HITLER!!!

I fear it may be true. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:45, 23 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dem Schreiber/Der Schreiberin obiger Zeilen sei zugetragen, dass der ganz überwiegende Teil der Menschen dieser Welt, in der wir bestimmt sind gemeinsam zu leben, seine/ihre Ansichten nicht im Geringsten teilt. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 17:02, 21 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lua

Salve Andrew, hodie istas tabularias de Vicipaedia Anglica in Vicipaediam Latinam suscepi:

module:Luae vexillum (en:module:Lua banner)
module:ItaNon (en:module:Yesno)
formula:Lua (en:template:Lua)
module:TabularumInstrumenta et Module:TableTools
module:Tabula
module:Message box

In suscipiendo vero te quasdam eorum (module:Yesno) anno 2018 iam delevisse vidi, et ... admodum incertus sum. Quid tu / alii magistratorum de modulis pensent? Arbitror ... ea mea sententia non utique pernecesse sint. Gratias tibi pro responso tuo. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 12:05, 19 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salve Andrea! Tabulariam antea delevi quia eo tempore, ab incognito apud nos inscriptam, inutilem censuimus, sed res mutantur, et nos cum eis mutamur! Per me, si bene operatur, suscipere licet. Oportet admittere neminem apud nos, quorum cognosco, tabularias Lua aut scribere aut emendare posse ... sed fortasse tu potes? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 19 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias, tibi Andrew, tuo pro responso intervallo brevi! Aetate iuveniore in lingua C programmata scripsi, et Luam linguae C similem esse mihi videtur. Ne confusionem producam ... Andreas Raether (disputatio) 14:03, 19 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saxum Genesis

Gratias tibi ago paginam Saxum Genesis augendo et mutando causa! Nonnulla verba tibi scripsi in disputatione illius paginae; paucas sententias tibi considerandas addidi sed nolebam paginam ipsam mutare. Gratias iterum! --Denwego (disputatio) 00:02, 20 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Denwego! Ibi respondebo ubi necesse sit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:41, 20 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voice from the past

Salve! I happened to be drawn here by a question on my talk page, and realized how much I missed being involved in this community. Alas, it's been hard for me to spend time here; I'm the manager of Incubator and the clerk of the Language Committee, and consequently spend little time here, or enwiki, or simplewiki, or anywhere else I've worked much in the past. (I didn't even spend much time at Incubator or Meta the last couple of months either, but that's a different story.) Anyway, I just wanted to say hello, and let you know that I am still around a bit, if there is anything I can be helpful with. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 21:51, 18 Iunii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the recent past, OK. Yes, I knew you were still around, Steven. It's nice to hear from you. It's true that one has to manage one's time, and I'm quite sure that your work at Incubator and on the Language Committee is very worthwhile -- essential in fact. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 19 Iunii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usor:Nuada

Ciao, l'utente Nuada sta cominciando con i vandalismi già reiterati nel passato. E' un utente recidivo e abile nelle editwar, ti ringrazio per averlo bloccato.--Driante70 (disputatio) 11:23, 25 Iunii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ne vandalismum imputemus. Nuada encyclopaediam adiuvare voluit, nisi fallor, sed suo tantum modo, moribus editorialibus communibus reiectis. Mi paenitet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:29, 25 Iunii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parens

Hello. I was considering creating a translation of "en:parent" (part of the 10 000 pages rally), but then I saw the disambiguation page "Parens" where it is defined as englobing "progenitores". I could use "genitor", but that has two issues: Contrary to "parens", it has a distinct feminine. And my perception is that it would rather be understood as "biological parent". On the other hand, I have not been able to find "parens" as meaning "ancestor", just mother/father. Apart from an anonymous (and Rafaelgarcia's merger request), you are the only one who has worked on that page, so allow me to ask whether you are sure of that broad definition, because "parens" could come in handy. Sigur (disputatio) 17:57, 28 Iunii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Parens" is the word you want. Yes, it can have the wider meaning given on the disambiguation page, but as an extension. "Mother/father" is the more basic and usual meaning. Of course, its use for someone who is not a biological parent but, e.g., a stepmother or adoptive father, is also an extension, but a perfectly usual one in Latin, because such non-biological relationships were an everyday feature of Roman law. Move Parens to "Parens (discretiva)" and create the page, I'd say. Best to copy this discussion to that talk page to see who else will comment. Please go ahead and do that! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:15, 28 Iunii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Thank you for supporting the idea! If you are glad to, I would like to discuss the details of the cooperation soon; Also, thank you for telling about the article Sinica Classicae; I will communicate with the Wikipedian who wrote it. Thank you!--丁子君 (disputatio) 23:55, 4 Iulii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dorchester(s)

Hi, Andrew. Dorechester/Dorcestria/Dorcastria is certainly confusing. Quick google searches are giving me:

For Birinus and Dorchester-on-Thames
- The MGH (which I'd follow) has
  - Dorcestria: hic
  - Dorcescestria: hic
  - No entries for Dorcastr*
- Google Books:
  - No entries for Dorcastr* [6]
  - in Dorcestria/de Dorcestria/Dorcestria apud Mercios (last one is a good 'un): hic
Dorcastria (w/o ref. to Birinus):
- Google Books: hic

Dorcestria apud Mercios has a nice ring to it, plus it is accurate, and has a reference (which I found in a Goergian book [7] but can't really tell if it is itself quoting an earlier text). What could we do?--Xaveri us 13:56, 31 Iulii 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Litterae Iaponiae

Now that we have the new article, with its title in parallel with (most) other such articles, we have a category conflict between Categoria:Litterae Iaponiae and Categoria:Litterae Iaponicae. Does most of the latter want to be sent to a category based on Scripta? These things can confuse even the most eager for consistency! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:34, 17 Augusti 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks for checking, we should retain both categories (and so for any others similar), and it's not necessary to remove pages from one, just put them in the other as well. They are in different category trees, "Iaponicae" among literature by language, "Iaponiae" among literature by country. Since this is an almost-monolingual island nation (cf. Iceland) there will be much overlap between the two, but that's life! I'll write a headnote in each category page to clarify, as I did at Categoria:Litterae Sinicae and Categoria:Litterae Sinarum.

Later today, when I've done one more medieval herbalist, completing my list, I'll look at the interwiki links for those categories. There will be some sorting out to do. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 17 Augusti 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I'm still not sure where the Categoria:Scripta might be though. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:09, 17 Augusti 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's Categoria:Iaponiae scripta. I'll make it a subdirectory of your new one now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:21, 17 Augusti 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And you get the Scriptores too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:23, 17 Augusti 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Userpage

Please protect my Userpage Thank --WikiBayer (disputatio) 13:43, 8 Septembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:38, 8 Septembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosegaferro

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

I opened this little stub, asking you a little help: in the page Villa Franca Veronensis there are some frazioni named in Latin, but I didn't find the Latin name fot this page. How can we do?

Thanks a lot for your important help! Have a nice week end.

Rei Momo (disputatio) 12:15, 20 Septembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a village or small district, it may have no Latin name. That's easy, then: we use the Italian name, as you have done.

I do not understand why there is a footnote link to "Comune di Marne". What is the connection? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:51, 20 Septembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohohohoh, sorry, I didn't take off the footnote of the previous page. I put the right and added another about the church. Thanks again, my dear!!! Rei Momo (disputatio) 20:50, 20 Septembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antonius Sexagius

Perquam iucundum fuit mihi, cum invenerim praepositum in pagina introductoria exemplar frontispicii libri Sexagii de orthographia sermonis Belgici quo ornare dignatus es lineolas quas de hoc scriptore inseruerim inter lemmata Vicipaediana. Nesciebam hoc novum lemma tanti favoris tibi fore. Gratulorque tibi valde pro hoc brabio. Vale semper optimè, optime Andrea.--Viator (disputatio) 18:42, 29 Septembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meta account?

Since I'm one day away from completing the meta:100wikidays challenge, I thought I'd register my participation in it at Meta, but the system tells me that only my IP address will be recorded, so I need to register a Meta account, but then it reports that "IacobusAmor" is already in use, so I need a different name. Is that what I should do (becoming, say "IacobusAmor2")? or does the system have a workaround whereby the name in use over here can carry over to Meta? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:12, 9 Octobris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iacobe, I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to this. I find it hard to believe that there is another IacobusAmor, so I think the account name must be in use by you. If it still doesn't recognise you next time (make sure you are logged in here, then try going directly from here using this link) it would be best to ask for help at Meta (maybe here). Or perhaps someone else will comment meanwhile? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:58, 9 Octobris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the accounts listed at Special:CentralAuth/IacobusAmor (click on the "Edit count" column heading until the column is sorted by descending edit count) belong to you, including meta:User:IacobusAmor. In general, you should be automatically logged in when you visit meta. If you are not automatically logged in, you can log in at meta:Special:Userlogin using your username IacobusAmor and the same password you use on la.wikipedia. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:16, 9 Octobris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. Logging in again seems to work, and so I'll make the appropriate edits tomorrow. It remains a mystery, however, why my account didn't stay logged in when I clicked on a link here that took me over there. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:36, 9 Octobris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

De formula quadam

Salve, Andrea! "Formula:Attributio" categoriam "Paginae conversae" sua sponte generare videtur. Cum quidem fieri potest, ut pagina aliqua convertendo incohata a nescioquo non convertendo substantialiter augeatur, tum mihi quidem deceptorium videtur hanc paginam conversam esse dicere. Potesne tu, amabo, hanc rationem conceptualiter 'contingentem' et supervacuam aliquo modo tollere? Exempli causa prodo apocopen, quam paginam denuo scribendam esse statui, quod paene nihil de linguis classicis praebebat. Istam attributionem, quamquam nunc paginam false categorizat, tollere mihi ipsi vix licet, nam pars historiae est. Neander (disputatio) 13:38, 29 Octobris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... Nomen categoriae mutare possumus, e.g. in "Categoria:Paginae e conversione ortae" aut alio quodam modo sicut melius tibi videtur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:17, 29 Octobris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vae mihi! Ratio ista quam simplicissima nescioqua causa mihi in mentem non venit. Tibi gratias ago. Neander (disputatio) 14:44, 29 Octobris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Optime! Nomen nuper mutavi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:51, 29 Octobris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Movere "Genus nonbinarium"

Hi there. I don't think that anyone else will comment at this point. So, I think that we should now move "Genus nonbinarium" to "Genus non binarium". However, the system won't let me do it, because there already is a redirect page at that address. Could you do it? Thanks in advance! Sigur (disputatio) 19:56, 1 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:04, 1 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auxilium peto.

Mendose categoriae Bibliothecae paginam bibliotheca addidi. Inscius, quo modo id auferatur, te oro, ut ita facias. Gratias! --Bavarese (disputatio) 17:19, 6 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, Bavarese. Nescio cur id difficile sit! Nescio etiam cur categoria "Bibliothecae" ibi mendose stet! Sed, si re vera delere vis, certe potes. Paginam Bibliotheca ad edendam aperi. Ad pedem paginae haec verba videbis:

[[Categoria:Bibliothecae|!]]

Ea verba dele ... ~~Sed illa est sola categoria huius paginae; ergo tibi necesse est, Vicipaediano sagaci, aliam categoriam eo loco addere.~~ Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:55, 6 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rursus legens, vidi categoriam "Bibliotheconomia" inter nexus internos enumeratam. Categorias inter nexus internos deprecamur; enumerationes nexuum internorum deprecamur; ergo hanc categoriam ex enumeratione extraxi et ad pedem paginae, loco categoriae substantivae, addidi. Nunc igitur, etiamsi re vera categoriam "Bibliothecae" deles, categoria quam nuper addidi manebit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:14, 6 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New page

Thank you for your help. Now I am trying to create another page via the new page translation. Can you please have a look? https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:_Insula_Margherita Kapeter77 (disputatio) 01:16, 18 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text reads: "Insula Margherita est insula in Budapestinum. July XX, MMXIII ad Alba XIII. regio est ubi, quia recta administratio est in caput Hungaria. Quidam hotels, metus partis palaestras stadia exstructa, et Margareta Island Water Tower nisi aedificationes non non quod omnis insula est in actu ingens parco quidem in caput ingens parco medii aevi sacris architecturae monumenta, in memoriam propter viam ad parva lacus. Et vehiculum traffic - buses et taxis exceptio - Nemo, tetendit insidias in Arpad pontem militat accessible raedam est. In MMXI, secundum numerum unc Insulanus populi population est III, in tertiam et numerum mansionum."

Sadly, that's not in Latin. It's incomprehensible. Machines haven't yet learned about conjugations & declensions. Nothing can be done about that without the expense of more time than is available. Oh well. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 05:14, 18 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry! Drifting off to sleep, I thought I was writing on my own disputatio page, where an identical invitation exists. I'll copy it there. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 05:17, 18 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, Iacobe. I would have said the same. Kapeter, it's no good starting from a machine translation unless you know Latin, because you are the one who has to correct it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:19, 18 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dalby OK but. A page would be useful. Could you, if you have time, make some better Latin sentences for the island, and then I can create the page, expandanding the Budaest-articles. Kapeter77 (disputatio) 18:51, 25 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kapeter, I'm sorry, but just now I don't have time. I'll write more on your talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:59, 25 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dalby OK sooo if you have time can you please help by... on the Budapest page there are 3 sights and only Gellért has a page. Somehow the other two should be created. I can help but my language knowledge is not enough. Kapeter77 (disputatio) 15:33, 2 Decembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soon afterwards I designed a map for the page ferrivia metropolitana Budapestina. I hope that helped. I visited the Gellért baths just one day after Kapeter wrote this, and I may yet write about them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:23, 12 Februarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you traveled across western Canada 51 years ago with Summertime4. He has sent you an email.

I traveled across western Canada with you 51 years ago. I just sent you an email.--Summertime4 (disputatio) 17:05, 18 Decembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic University of Leuven alumni

Hi, please have a look at en:Category:Catholic University of Leuven alumni. I think we should have three subcategories just like them, because I just realised that we are mixing things up here. What do you think? Sigur (disputatio) 15:46, 20 Decembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about this, but in the case of the biography I just added, the source didn't make things clear to me, so I left the issue for the next person! I'm sure you are right. If you want to add these categories, no objection. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:49, 20 Decembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did check for Philippe Goffin. I'll create the subcategories, then. I just hope it won't mess with the template "Homines hac in categoria secundum annum ultimum vitae". Sigur (disputatio) 15:55, 20 Decembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you add it to your new categories, it may not give correct figures at first, but don't worry about that. If you don't, it will soon be added to your new categories by UVbot and corrections and updates will be made at that time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:02, 20 Decembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bis-Taurinus te admirat

Salve Andrea! Laborem tuam pro Vicipaedia Latina sumptum vere et maxime admiro. Ad festum nativitatis D. N. J. C. tibi benedictionem infantis opto. Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 22:49, 22 Decembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

responsa

Salve, Andrea. Sero, quae ad me scripseras, legi; tempus enim diutius hic versandi mihi defuit. Libenter per paginam tuam discussionis sub "Email this user", sicut suasisti, paucis responderem, id autem non inveni. Accuratius quaeso mihi ignaro perscribe viam. --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:16, 26 Decembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Universitas Publica Lovaniensis -> Academia Lovaniensis

Hi. I suggest that the page Universitas Publica Lovaniensis be moved to Academia Lovaniensis, because there is a source (inserted on the page) from the university itself with that Latin name (which is otherwise attested as well), but the system won't let me (already modified redirect). Sigur (disputatio) 18:33, 2 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sigur. There was nothing depending on that redirect, and nothing of human interest in its history, so I have simply deleted it. You can now go ahead with the move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:40, 2 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

De propositione nequaquam iniucunda

Salve, Andrea. Video propositionem in pagina disputationis mea a te factam te amovisse. Valde doleo, si putas eam, tam necopinatam quam honestam, mihi ingratam vel molestam fuisse. Sed hos dies festivos mihi sumpsi ad deliberandum; insuper tempus, quo tibi responderem, mihi defuit. Valde sum gavisus, quod me munere magistratus fungi posse putatis. Quod certo satis aestimo. Sed varia officia et valetudo interdum adversa me impediunt illi muneri tanta sedulitate, quanta opus est, satisfacere posse. Accedit, quod parum scientiae habeo de multis rebus vicipaedianis ad illud necessariis. Ita respondeo: Libentissime, ut usque ad hoc tempus, etiam posthac aliqua, quae quam mediocria sint mequidem non fugit, contribuam, cum nihil me impedit. Eo simus quaeso contenti! - Tibi, mi Andrea, per novum hunc annum omnia quae tibi ipsi sunt in votis, prospere eveniant!--Bavarese (disputatio) 18:37, 3 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In pagina disputationis tua respondeo (tardius ...) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:19, 11 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Universitas Petri Mariaeque Curie‎‎

To the extent that properly Latinizing the names of universities (not to mention academic things and French things) interests you, the welter of doubtful names for (newish) Parisian universities seen in "Universitas Petri Mariaeque Curie‎‎" might profit from your kind ministrations! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:22, 10 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to forget about the Paris universities -- a largely disreputable bunch (in my personal view). They change their names and affiliations almost every year, and then wonder why they don't score high on the international charts. The one you mention had at least a sensible and grammatical name ... OK, yes, thanks for the suggestion, I'll have a look at that page! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:52, 12 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AE vel Æ?

Salve! Quod est prior, AE vel Æ? --Сивисоколе (disputatio) 17:20, 27 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prior? Nescio. Non sum palaeographus. Sed in textu articulorum Vicipaediae "ae", non "æ", scribimus. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:46, 27 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for creation a short article or a stub for a famous physicist from Serbia and Macedonia who recently passed away

Dear Andrew, may I kindly ask you if it is not hardship for you to create a short article or a stub in Latin on academician prof. Ratko Janev one of the most relevant and popular physicist in former Yugoslavia, and now in Serbia and Macedonia, who recently passed away. Thank you in advanced, Best Regards, 93.86.190.187 21:04, 12 Februarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I probably won't have time right now. Too many other things. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:19, 12 Februarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Andrew, when ever you have time. Its not urgent.93.86.190.187 22:22, 12 Februarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigur has created the article now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:23, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phillipus Godet and Isabelle de Charrière

Hello Andrew Dalby, About the Philippus Godet biographe of Isabella de Charrière read also her wikisource page Wikisource Isabelle de Charrière for more of his articles about Isabelle. Thanks from your contribution and corrections. Boss-well63 (disputatio) 11:11, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasure. Feel free to add bibliography (and other things) there and elsewhere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:24, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

derivatives of feminine -ō/-ūs nouns

Hi Andrew, Thanks for the welcome. Just wondering if I could pick your brain. I'm searching for what we should do in English for derivatives of Greek words like Argō. There is Saphicus (and thus English Sapphic) for Sapphō, which parallels Greek Sapphikos, but there's also Greek Sapphō[i]os, which has parallels in e.g. o-retaining echoic and heroic (Greek hērōikos, fem. hērōinē). And then for Dīdō there's Latin Didonia, Lētō > Latona, and Pȳthō has the older Greek form Pȳthōn, all with an n. So, e.g. with Callistō used as the name of a moon, would the crust of the moon be identified in English as Callistian, Callistoan or Callistonian? I've seen all three in the lit, but assume that most authors are just making ad hoc derivations without knowing what they're doing, just as I've see 'Mimasian' and 'Mimian' for Mimantean. Could you ping me if you respond? Thanks, Kwamikagami (disputatio) 22:29, 9 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just Greek: since about 1900, English has had Venusian alongside venereal (reflecting Latin venereus since the fifteenth century). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:37, 26 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I didn't reply before, but I don't know how to reply even now. One of the tasks I set myself here in Latin is to verify proper names, including derived adjectives. Here we have a definite code to follow, because writers of modern Latin aim at one of two standards: either classical or botanical. We can test what we find in sources against those two standards. Where there's a choice, if we prefer the terms that come closest to one or the other, we know we are doing what other writers of modern Latin will do and what readers of Latin would expect.

But what standard does one follow in English? With the kind of example you give, I personally prefer the term that will agree most closely with Latin or Greek grammar, but if various choices have been made by others already, I have no good reason to impose my preference! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:28, 26 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, to take the examples of Sappho and Venus, there are reasons for astronomers to prefer an adjective that differs from the one that's in use elsewhere. "Venereal" and "Sapphic" both have undertones in English. "Venusian" mentioned by Iacobus, although unacceptable in Latin, is hallowed by English science fiction use; "Sapphoic" is conceivable in Greek (though not actually used) and would seem like a good choice to me. But one could hardly state a rule. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:48, 26 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that there's no English equivalent for the simple adjectival ending -ος/-us. For example, there is a classical adjective Ἀργῷος/Argous, but to make an adjective in English we need another suffix: Argic? Argoic? Perhaps Argonautical is best. As for the question of whether to add a consonant before the suffix, that really depends on the stem in Latin, which can be seen in the genitive. Hence, Venus, Veneris > Venereal, Plato, Platonis -> Platonic. When adopting Greek words, Latin writers sometimes kept the Greek declension and sometimes fit them into Latin patterns. There are two recorded genitives of Dido, -ūs and -ōnis, so theoretically one could make adjectives with or without the n. But for Argo, the only recorded forms are borrowed from the Greek: gen. Argus, acc. Argo, so I'd hesitate to add an n. Of course, as Andrew says, if there's an established usage in a particular language, it makes sense to follow it, at least on Wikipedia. 14:40, 26 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Having more time to look into these, I've seen three patterns with 'an'-type adjectives, disregarding cases like Io and Dido that have dual stems. One pattern replaces the -ō with -ian. The disadvantage of this is that you can't tell if e.g. "Pythian" is of Pythia/Pythius or of Pytho -- and most fem. -ō names are less common than a cognate in -ia or -us, so the feminine -ian forms can easily be misunderstood as masculine. The second is to tack -an onto the -ō, as in Argoan. The third is to add -ian to the -ō, as in Saphoian. I don't know if this is a retention of the iota subscript, since I expect that would be lost in Latin,, it could either be people constructing the adj directly from the Greek, or simply lexical leveling in English. In any case, it seem that in both -oan and -oian the stress is on the -o (as it remains -ō in Latin), so Argó-an and Saphó-i-an. I would imagine the latter might get (mis)pronounced "Saphóyan", as -oian is an unexpected spelling in English, so unless you don't mind people desyllabifying the -i-, it seems to me that the "Argoan" pattern might be the best.

(But that doesn't work so well for Io, since "Ioan" is a near-homophone for "Iowan" (stress is different). I've seen "Ionian" in the lit, though that of course is ambiguous between Io and Ionia. "Ioian" would be the clearest solution for Io (though I've never seen it), but only in writing unless you could get people to pronounce it with four syllables, i-ó-i-an /aɪ'oʊiən/, since trisyllabic i-ói-an /aɪ'ɔɪən/ would be difficult to say and confusing to hear. I suppose you could spell it "Ioïan", though I've never seen that either and if you're familiar with French you might pronounce it i-ói-an anyway. It would work if ppl were consistent with Ióan vs Íowan, but it might be easier just copy the "Ionian" used in the lit. Certainly if it's a matter of astronomy vs geography, it should be clear from context, but in mythology it might be ambiguous.)

Kwamikagami (disputatio) 09:12, 27 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring Greek totally (-an is a Latin termination), I think the clearest in English, and the nearest to what people already do, is Sapphoan, Ioan, Argoan, Pythoan, Callistoan. Any reader of the relevant article would understand these forms and would see how to pronounce them. The homophony with "Iowan" wouldn't really trouble anybody. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 27 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. The only question then would be, when speaking, if you leave the stress where it is or shift it to the 'o'. If you shift it, then Ioan and Iowan aren't homonyms. (Though you'd have to shift the stress of a few names anyway, e.g. Eratō & Chariclō, and "Erátoan" would sound really weird.) Kwamikagami (disputatio) 06:33, 28 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When such classical or faux-classical derivatives are created, it's usual in English to shift the stress forward. Hence Brístol, Bristólian. (I'm a Bristolian, hence the example occurred to me.) Most native speakers will have this rule in their grammar and are likely to apply it. Well, now, in the examples we're talking about, a secondary stress would, I think, remain where the main stress was before: Chàriclóan, Àrgóan. So speakers who don't have this rule in their grammar (some non-native speakers, and some others who stress their English in a way that differs from the usual pronunciations) would not end up saying anything very different: Árgoan instead of Àrgóan. I wouldn't worry about it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:38, 28 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to people's mental grammar, I'm sure you understand. I'm not saying people would look this rule up in a grammar book, where, indeed, they would be unlikely to find it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 28 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply: yes, I think that's probably best, and will make it my default usage. Kwamikagami (disputatio)

Formula:Charta locatrix Rhenaniae (Septentrionalis-Vestfaliae) physicalis

Hi Andrew! Where did you get the data for this template? I tried it out with Krefeld and the dot is definitely a bit too far to the southwest (while the coordinates I used perfectly match here). Sigur (disputatio) 21:32, 25 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sigur. There are only two possible answers. If I used an existing map which was set up on Commons for charta locatrix use, I took the coordinates from Commons. If I created the map (by cropping from a larger one) or used a map at Commons which was not set up for charta locatrix use, I estimated as well as I could and checked the result in applying the first dots.

In this case, the coordinates are at Commons, so I would have copied them from there ... unless I made a copying error, which I guess is possible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:31, 26 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Trying to resolve it here. Let's see. Sigur (disputatio) 18:18, 26 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having located Coenobium Dalhemense with some difficulty, I created this charta locatrix so that I could pin it down on a map. Looking back at that page now, and comparing with maps found via the "Coord" element, that dot seems to be correctly placed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:40, 26 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree: It looks much more accurate when I put it 4 minutes further north and 1 minute further east, just as I had to do with Krefeld to make it match. Anyhow, I'm going to wait for the geeks at Commons to react; it's no good to change anything based on my wild guesses. Sigur (disputatio) 20:43, 26 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'm happy to go with your judgment! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:49, 26 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Latin for "Province" and "Capital"

Good day Andrew Dalby! What is the Latin for "province" and "capital"? I'm planning to add a table with complete list of provinces in Philippinae#Provinciae. Thanks! JWilz12345 (disputatio) 12:55, 3 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provincia is a good word, already in common use in classical Latin.

Vicipaedia has an age-old preference for "Caput", which, used as a pagename, has to be disambiguated "Caput (urbs)" because the word's primary meaning is anatomical. It's not incorrect, but I find "Urbs capitalis" clearer and better. Incidentally, that phrase is the direct origin of the French and English capitale, capital. So I often write [[Caput (urbs)|urbs capitalis]]. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:13, 3 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dalby, I have converted the formerly-bulleted list of provinces at Philippinae#Provinciae into a table. However, it is not yet complete (81 provinces as of today) because others have no articles in Latin Wikipedia as of today. You may check the table if you have time. Thank you for the suggested Latin terms! :-) JWilz12345 (disputatio) 08:32, 4 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As of today (PHL time 2:50pm) I completed the table (81 provinces). And I removed "Negros Island Region" since it was abolished in 2017. If you have time you may check my changes. Thanks again! JWilz12345 (disputatio) 06:56, 5 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannes Petrus Thiollet (scriptor Francicus)

Ioannes Petrus Thiollet (Pictavii die 9 Decembris 1956 natus) est scriptor Francicus (LC, BNF...).https://www.loc.gov/search/?all=true&q=thiollet+jean-pierre

Sorry but that's a fact (cf. Library of Congress Catalog). Maybe you didn't know.--2001:861:4981:4510:94A9:870D:DB7C:E161 08:27, 5 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! Could I ask that you restore the page ? Thanks a lot. Best regards.--2001:861:4981:4510:94A9:870D:DB7C:E161 08:37, 5 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at Disputatio:Ioannes Petrus Thiollet, where the reason for the deletion of the page is explained. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:43, 5 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-bearing municipality names in Latin

Good day again Andrew Dalby! I'm having some difficulty over the accepted or standard norm for Latin translation or names of Philippine municipalities bearing the names of saints as I add city/municipality lists in some articles of Philippine provinces:

For example:

In Leyte Septemtrionalis: Sancti Isidorus for en:San Isidro, Leyte
In Iloilo (provincia): Sancti Ioachim (or Sanctus Ioachimus?) for en:San Joaquin, Iloilo
However, in Caebua I used "Sanctus": Sanctus Fernandus (en:San Fernando, Cebu), Sanctus Franciscus (en:San Francisco, Cebu), and Sanctus Remigius (en:San Remigio, Cebu). I don't know if this is correct in terms of toponym.
In Cagayan, I didn't change "Santo Niño." (en:Santo Niño, Cagayan)
In Isabela (provincia), I used "Sanctiacobi" for en:Santiago, Isabela since I searched it being used in an another place name here (Sanctiacobi (Brasilia)). For en:Santa Maria, Isabela, I used Sancta Maria based on pattern at Bulacan.

I need some guidance on this. Thanks! JWilz12345 (disputatio) 04:12, 6 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Latin for Santa Cruz. I don't know if Sancta Crux is correct or near-accurate JWilz12345 (disputatio) 08:00, 6 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also one more: Santo Tomas (Sancto Tomas or Sancti Thomae?) JWilz12345 (disputatio) 08:07, 6 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "Sanctiacobi" has no source and will eventually be moved. It was probably somebody's guess.

The grammar of the names is that one either uses the nominative case ("Sanctus Iacobus, Sancta Crux") or one uses the genitive with a word such as "Urbs" ("Urbs Sancti Francisci, Urbs Sanctae Mariae").

But our primary rule is to look for sources. You don't have to do all the work, but you should do as much as you can, otherwise you are creating work for other people, which good Wikipedians don't want to do! Remember:

Latin is a real language, still used, and commonly used in the recent past. A country with a large Catholic population has a lot of dioceses, and every diocese has a Latin name. Start there. This is a list of Philippine dioceses. When you open each page, you see the Latin name of the diocese in italics. So, if your city is or was a cathedral city, it will be here, and you can copy and paste the italics when you cite this source in a footnote. This is how you cite it. The four-letter abbreviation is from the end of the URL; the Latin name is from those italics. I'm taking the first saint's name in that list as example:

{{CathHierDiocese|scrl|Dioecesis Sancti Caroli Borromeo}}

gives you

"Dioecesis Sancti Caroli Borromeo" e The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church (situs a Davide M. Cheney elaboratus) (Anglice)

Put that in a footnote. The simplest way to make your pagename is to take off the "Dioecesis" and insert "Urbs". This gives you the name "Urbs Sancti Caroli Borromeo", which is good Latin and is not wrong. You can use it, but also you could then try searching this name and variants in Google Books and see whether you find other examples in Latin texts. You might confirm it, and you also might find other variants of the name that are used more often.

If it's not a cathedral city, you can still do the last part of this. Try searching variants of the name alongside common Latin words such as "urbs" or "civitas" or "insulae" or "Philippinarum" in Google Books, and see where you get. Andrew Dalby (disputatio)

In the citation of that source, why isn't situs elaboratus in the ablative (situ elaborato) to agree with a noun-phrase in the ablative governed by a preposition (e)? or is the grammar supposed to be e X ([quod est] situs elaboratus)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:28, 6 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Because you haven't rewritten it; (b) it could well be ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:55, 6 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aenigma Veronense

Gaudeo paginam tibi profuisse. --Excelsius (disputatio) 13:04, 12 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ovilava et capsa Vicidata

Hi Andrew, after quite a long time I'm back again, at least to start with smaller corrections and additions. I've two questions: Why did you delete the majority of my additions and corrections in the article Ovilava? and second: is there already a functioning Capsa Vicidata for people? Thanks.Utilo (disputatio) 13:18, 13 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very glad you noticed! I had no idea. I must have edited on the basis of your first edit, not your last. Usually one gets a warning message if attempting to do such a thing, but I saw no message. I have now, I think, restored everything that you added. My apologies.

Yes, on biography pages you can add {{Capsa hominis Vicidata}}. After doing so, it's a good idea to check whether any existing image is duplicated: if so, either delete the image that we had already, or, better still, add a different image in its place.

Additionally, under "Nexus externi", you can add {{Fontes geographici}} on geographical pages (I have just done this at Ovilava) and {{Fontes biographici}} on biographical pages. All these templates should show information immediately, assuming the page is properly linked at Wikidata. If they show no useful information (because Wikidata doesn't have any) then they can be deleted again.

I'm really happy to see you back at work on Vicipaedia! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:46, 13 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! - I've just added {{Capsa hominis Vicidata}} on the page Aelia Eudoxia, obviously the form is working, but there are still many English words in it. What to do about them?Utilo (disputatio) 15:09, 13 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that we haven't ever been able to change is the "4. century" (or whatever). This expression is incorrect in every terrestrial language, I think: someone from Mars or Venus must have hard-coded it into Wikidata and no one seems able to correct it.

Everything else can be changed, but each change has to be made at Wikidata, so it always takes time that might be better spent here. This is why some topics most likely to show English words are hidden in our box. But it is a good use of time if the same label will be used on many infoboxes -- as in the case of "Byzantine emperor" and "sovereign". It can be done, in each case, by changing the labels at Wikidata. It isn't easy to explain from over here how to do this, because Wikidata has several possible interfaces. But I will make those two specific changes at Wikidata, and, if you care to follow my tracks, you will see how it's done.

I start by clicking on the "Vicidata" link at the head of the infobox. This takes me to the "Aelia Eudoxia" page at Wikidata. I make sure that my chosen language is Latin. I scroll down to the parameter against which the English word "sovereign" is currently written. I click on the word "sovereign". On that page I find the place where I can insert a Latin label (the existing English label being "sovereign" and the German label "Souverän"). I write in "monarcha" and save it. Then I go back to the previous page "Aelia Eudoxia", reload that page, and I will see my word "monarcha" in place of the previous "sovereign".

I've done that, in fact, in both cases, so you will now see "monarcha" and "Imperator Constantinopolitanus" in our infobox. When Wikidata is running slow, it takes time. Now, this is all very well, but was she a "monarcha" and was she "Imperator Constantinopolitanus"? Not exactly! At this point we get into two other problems with Wikidata: (a) is the descriptor correct? (b) what sex are we all, anyway?

And these are some of the reasons why the box is labelled "Vicidata" at the top. We can try to improve it, but it's not our information, and not a reliable source: caveat lector. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:25, 13 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. It seems to be something like the aerumnae Herculis. I'll do my best so far as time goes. Once more Thanx!Utilo (disputatio) 16:17, 13 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Triumphus Claudii?

Bonum diem! Non intellego symbolam tuam anni 2011 de Triumpho Claudii: de qua re concrete agitur? Quo nexus poni possunt? Giorno2 (disputatio)

Formula haec dicere vult: Si commentatio in Vicipaediis aliarum linguarum de hoc triumpho reperitur, bene erit nexus apud Vicidata addere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:54, 15 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fortasse non bene scripsi: non intellego thema, de quo commentatio (=symbola/η συμβολή neque το σύμβολον) a te olim scripta agatur. De quo triumpho Claudii? Gratias. Giorno2 (disputatio)

Da veniam! Verba tua "quo nexus poni possunt" legi; formula "Nexus absunt" ad pedem paginae posita, credidi te de illis nexubus quaerere.

Satis constat, o amice, me nunquam hanc commentationem perfecisse! Fontem autem iam citavi, quem hic legere possumus, ubi aliquas res de hoc triumpho scribuntur. Sed multo melius erit Suetonium, fontem "primarium", de hac re citare, id quod statim faciam. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:51, 15 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovicus XI

Salve! Ego volui ellipsam formae ERAT facere, ergo: ... Filios 3 habuit (inter quos Carolus [ERAT]) ... Inde Nominativus mea opinione conveniat. Giorno2 (disputatio)

Carolus Theodorus Körner

Sis salvus, optime. Cur propositum meum in primam paginam poetae clarissimi Theodori Körner removisti? Lacrimosum. Giorno2 (disputatio)

Salve et tu, Giorno. Commentationem non tetigi, nisi fallor. Solus, qui post te ediderit, est Usor:UV. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:45, 19 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoscas, errorem feci. Si tacuissem, philosophus mansissem ... Giorno2 (disputatio)

Constantinopolis

Hello.

Constantinopolis does not have a truly and solely mediterranean climate. That is incorrect. It has a transitional climate of three climate types: the en:oceanic climate, the en:humid subtropical climate and the en:mediterranean climate. Please see the climate section of Istanbul and of other Istanbul articles in Wikipedia. Please correct this by using the sources in the Istanbul articles.

Yours sincerely, 31.200.14.219 20:50, 19 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look at it tomorrow. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:52, 19 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hic utens ignotus, qui se Latine scire negat, "Clima mediterraneum" in "Clima temperatum" (notionem per speciem falsam) sine explicatione commutaverat, unde vocabulum revertum erat. Vide disputationem nostram. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:29, 19 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into this. I requested the correction, because as it stands, it is wrong. 31.200.14.219 21:44, 19 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take a family member to the doctor's right now, but I expect I'll have time to look at this later today. Not many people are planning travel just now, and not many of those will check the climate on Vicipaedia before making a booking today, and the text as it stands is quite good already, so, all in all, I judge it can wait a few hours. I'm happy to do it because I recently wrote some climate summaries on other city pages, so I can easily do this one too. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:47, 20 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We came home safe! OK, I have checked now and I understand. I myself originally wrote that sentence on climate -- in 2012 -- based on what the English Wikipedia said then. The English text was corrected and enlarged a while back, and ours could be enlarged and revised to match. I'll have a go at it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:31, 20 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the corrections. (Trivia: Until the 1990s, Istanbul indeed had only a mediterranean climate, and the annual precipitation in 1959 was 1/3 less (as dry as London is today)! According to projections, in the near future, most coastal areas of Turkey will only have a humid subtropical climate with much wetter summers and much drier winters (also in the rest of the country), which is already happening.) 31.200.14.219 17:28, 23 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primi ministri Australiae

Hi Andrew! I'm a little puzzled by [8]. Scott Morrison clearly is the Prime Minister of Australia. This, that and the other (disputatio) 05:34, 7 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message and for working on Vicipaedia. Don't stop.

Yes, of course he is prime minister. So was Milcolumbus Turnbull, and you also edited that page, I think.

Since prime ministers of Australia are listed in the navigation template {{Primi ministri Australiae}} it could be seen as duplication of housework to create a dedicated category for them. And, normally, doing this would remove them from the listing in Categoria:Politici Australiae, of which the new one would be a subcategory. So, think about it. But it's possible, if you so wish.
Redlink categories are strongly deprecated. If you assign a category that doesn't exist, you must then create it. Perhaps you were going to, but there was no sign of it.

If you were going to create the category, and if you still want to, feel free to revert my edits and go ahead! If you wish to work on categories, you might like to know of Vicipaedia:De categoriis which give some guidelines. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:15, 7 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome! I note that the category exists: Category:Primi ministri Australiae. So I've reinstated it (with Categoria: instead of Category: and superseding the Politici category, as you suggested). This, that and the other (disputatio) 11:36, 7 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, when I checked your edit yesterday, the category came up as a redlink!

Ah, I see it now. I checked your edit at Milcolumbus Turnbull, where you had made a typo. So it was a redlink -- but I shouldn't have assumed that the category, when correctly typed, didn't exist! I apologise for the unnecessary revert. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 7 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pisces

In case you hadn't noticed, I've been revising the fishes. The errors that had crept into their cataloging, and even into their names, were considerable. Several families had been placed in the wrong order, several genera in the wrong family, and several species in the wrong genus. (Some of these errors had been in the original texts; others had been correct at the time of publication, but the pertinent taxonomies had been revised elsewhere.) The articles and their categories are mostly OK now, almost exactly matching their analogs in the big wikis, though a few of their categories are a little thin, with only one or two entries. (Don't worry: more fishes will be appearing!) ¶ However, one thing I haven't regularized is this business with categories like "Familiae piscium" and "Species animalium." These characterizations are often absent—and when they're present, they don't seem to follow any regular rules. You once hinted that the reason for such categories will one day become clear, but that day hasn't yet arrived. Meanwhile, that particular kind of category remains a mess, and not just with the fishes. Maybe an explanation in Taberna would be in order? It might be time for a revelation! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:15, 14 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your note. I am engaged with historians of medieval France this afternoon ... just give me till tomorrow to revenir à nos poissons. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:24, 14 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Definitely! Take your time! Fortunately, it's not a problem that would agitate most readers. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:53, 14 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The answer, basically, is, yes, that "Species animalium" and similar "... animalium" for all higher taxa should be added to relevant pages, please, whenever you see that they are absent. Likewise "species plantarum" and all higher taxa "... plantarum". By kingdoms. It's because we haven't had them in the past, but they will be useful in the future, that I asked you and Lesgles to add them as you create and edit relevant pages, and I do it myself too. I think we are the only three currently editing pages on animals and plants, hence I didn't see the need to put it on the Taberna.

If there are similar categories for subdivisions of the kingdoms, I will eliminate them (your example was "Categoria:Familiae piscium", but I don't think it exists). There are not so very many of them, and I have always intended to eliminate them, and now that you point out the potential confusion I will try to do it quickly ... but because they have been created without a system there is no easy way to find them! So, meanwhile, if you encounter pages in an analogous category like (e.g.) "Categoria:Ordines piscium", please replace the category on those pages with (e.g.) "Categoria:Ordines animalium".

I will leave safe and untouched your category system for eponyms e.g. "Species piscium ex hominibus appellatae". They are of course useful in their own right. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:20, 14 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You want to foresee the future? This will be the way (there's no other way) that we and our bots can assemble a set of all our pages that deal with a particular taxonomic level. Which will make updates and improvements to those pages, as a group, simpler, whether manual or automatic. That's why being systematic (or anally-retentive) about categories -- in this and other classifiable regions of the cosmos -- is, I sometimes think, worth the effort :)

And, by the way, I have noticed your work on fishes. It's great to see these pages improving. Fish interest me too, as you know, especially the ones that are fished. We overlap here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:44, 14 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you want "taxonomic level + [animalium, fungorum, plantarum, virorum]"? Just checking. I thought I'd been seeing thicker patterning in Wikipedia: "familiae piscium," "ordines avium," that sort of thing. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:38, 14 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, taxon level by kingdoms. (Purely in addition to what we've always done, hierarchically by nodes e.g. "Categoria:Bramidae".) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:23, 15 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Color in taxoboxes

Ah, I see you noticed the background color in the taxobox at "Melanogrammus aeglefinus. It came from an exemplar left over from the early days, which Wikipedia had forced me to find & use so as to accommodate one of its accursed automatic taxoboxes. Maybe discussing such colors in Taberna would be a good idea. I don't have an opinion on them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:46, 22 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling was that it is a bit distracting and that most readers would never understand the system anyway, or gain anything from it. Hence I didn't implement it and have been editing out the few cases in which colour is directly specified. But you're quite right, it should be discussed. Whether the colour is specified or not, it would be possible to impose it relying on the "Regnum" element. Go ahead and mention it on the Taberna if you like, or I will. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:30, 23 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may have said, I tend to look on the Spanish wiki for taxoboxes to copy. I never thought of looking in the history of the English articles. That's a neat trick! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:40, 23 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Maybe I wasn't clear: I took it from an early taxobox right here in Vicipaedia (so the taxonomic structure would already be in Latin). I should think that the main argument in favor of color is that it can convey a nonverbal message reinforcing the verbal one. If each kingdom had its own color, plants would obviously be (light) green, and fungi might want to be (light) brown, but animals and viruses might be more controversial (maybe pink or light red for the higher ones, because blood). Maybe a widget could be devised to enable users to opt in or opt out. No time at the moment for Taberna, as the gobies (Gobiidae) are beckoning for attention; I'm trying to get them above 16,000 bytes to win all four allotted points. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:44, 23 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To complicate matters: the gobies have been drastically revised, all the way up to the order level, and so I've been spending unexpected amounts of time fixing our previously existing articles & categories. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:09, 23 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppidum Sancti Ivonis (Cornubia)

Hello again, This article has confused two places in Cornwall: St Ive (a village in East Wivelshire) and St Ives (a town in Penwith). The saint who is the patroness of St Ives is called Ia (an Irishwoman) but at St Ive the patron is Ivo of Ramsey. I hope this can be put right.--Johnsoniensis (disputatio) 09:03, 24 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. Knowing that, I was able to find a Latin name for the town. See Villa Sanctae Iae. Thanks for your help. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:11, 24 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find this slightly amazing. The Latin text I quoted today, to give me a correct name for the town of St Ives, is being cited from the same (very obscure) author, William Worcestre, about whom I have just been writing a Vicipaedia biography. So thanks again for bringing me back to him. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 24 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a remarkable coincidence; William Worcestre is a useful source for Cornish church history. It was purely by chance that I looked at the Pincatheca Tate article today as I am not doing much in Vicipaedia. Thank you for making the article correct.--Johnsoniensis (disputatio) 19:17, 24 Maii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancyra

Hello.

The climate section of Ancyra, needs a little correction. The climate of Ankara, while continental, is not a humid continental type (Df) according to Enumeratio climatum Köppen–Geiger, because the annual precipitation is not evenly distributed throughout the year and is also fairly low at around 400 mm. According to Köppen-Geiger, Ankara has a dry-summer continental climate (Dsa) and a cold semi-arid climate (Bsk), like most of the interior of Turkey. Please see the climate section of en:Ankara#Geography for additional information. Can you correct this please?

Yours sincerely, 31.200.12.176 15:33, 3 Iunii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't do this yet, but I promise I will. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:19, 14 Iunii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

telephonum mobile aut computatorium

Gratias tibi ago Infeliciter mihi non est occasio computatorio saepe utendi. Possum uti telephono, sed autem legere multas paginas aut computatorio aut telephono non mihi gratum est. Puto paginas instructendi causa mihi imprimendas esse, circiter decem aut viginti. Quid putas? Robin Terrymonkey (disputatio) 17:14, 13 Iunii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that would really help. Pages are formatted for on-screen reading and for on-screen editing. I would follow Amahoney's advice and get familiar with the edit window, either mobile or full-version. As she says, it is easy to switch between the two.

I'm answering in English because the Latin words for computer interfaces don't come easily to my mind! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:17, 14 Iunii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can, if you want, create a sandbox or Harenarium for yourself (this link will create one for you) to practise editing and formatting. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:43, 14 Iunii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those darned Non Stipula pages!

I see that you've been rummaging usefully in the Non Stipula list. Please retain (or improve!) the Myrias pages, asterisked in the table. I just salvaged Epulum. I'd do more, but, as you know, I'm concentrating on adding Myrias pages that Vicipaedia doesn't yet have (at all). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:10, 18 Iunii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I wouldn't delete one of those: I will improve any that I encounter. I'm actually looking at pages that were "Augenda" in July 2016, deleting a few, improving a few, and finding a few that have been secretly improved meanwhile! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:15, 18 Iunii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Codex Morse

Lemma "Alphabetum Morsianum" utique exsistit in libro Christiani Helfer: Lexicon auxiliare, tertia editio, Saraviponti, p. 381. Iste vir se refert ad commentationem Caelestis Eichenseer in Voce Latina 33/73,63. Item habemus "Alphabetum Morsianum" AUT "Morsense" AUT "Morseanum" in Caroli Egger Lexico recentis latinitatis. Giorno2 (disputatio)

Gratias tibi ago, Giorno2. Paginam movi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:35, 22 Iunii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Die Himmelscheibe von Nebra parata est

In hic locus sub-titulis sunt: commons:TimedText:Die_Himmelsscheibe_von_Nebra_(CC_BY_4.0)_.webm.la.srt

Gratias ago, JK! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:35, 22 Iunii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pagina cottidiana Lambertus de Visscher

Gratias multas tibi ago. --Maria.martelli (disputatio) 18:50, 13 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inadvertent overwriting

Oops. I inadvertently overwrote "Oceanodroma socorroensis" with the text of "Oceanodroma matsudairae" and then tried to retrieve it by overwriting the redirect; its text now looks OK, but its disputatio page remains wrongly titled, and only one of the (two) articles is being listed in the Nuper Mutata. Are any new fixes needed? or are both articles OK as they stand? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:21, 16 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait! Now that I've corrected a typo in "Oceanodroma matsudairae," Nuper Mutata is listing both articles, but the disputatio for "Oceanodroma socorroensis" is still wrong. Should I redirect it by hand? I'd have though that'd happen automatically. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:00, 16 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's not the end of the world! Thanks for telling me, I'll see what I can sort out.

I think the redirect at the talk page was the only problem. I've deleted the redirect, and you could now recreate the talk page Disputatio:Oceanodroma socorroensis and place your usual attributio in it. Tell me if anything else seems wrong. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:03, 16 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird third declensions

Hi there. As a side not on Condate ad Scaldim, I remarked the -im accusative. That made me think of Ali, Alis, Alim which I believed to be one if its kind. Now I'm wondering. Are you aware of any other third declension words with the i kept in the accusative? Sigur (disputatio) 20:47, 23 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secundum Gildersleeve #57: always in amussis, buris, cucumis, futis, mephitis, ravis, rumis, sitis, tussis, vis, "and in names of towns and rivers in -is, as Neapolis, Tiberis." Also usually in six more words, and occasionally in eleven others. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:58, 23 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Physilogus

Salve Andrea! Paginam Physilogus, quaeso, dele! Nihil est nisi lapsus stili. Gratias tib ago.--Utilo (disputatio) 14:40, 29 Augusti 2020 (UTC)[reply]

nimirum ipse delere volui, sed per longa intervalla absentiae maei oblitus sum, quomodo ...--Utilo (disputatio) 15:33, 29 Augusti 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias

Tantum velim tibi gratias dare et dicere nihil perditus fuisse in recensiones tuas paginae Prof. Ibbetson. Jtrrs0 (disputatio) 22:47, 4 Septembris 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We sent you an e-mail

Hello Andrew Dalby,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email surveys@wikimedia.org.

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (disputatio) 18:52, 25 Septembris 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgate

Hello. I do not speak Latin at all, so I have two things to ask you.

Biblia Vulgata wrongly states: "Vulgata dicitur Latina scripturarum conversio, quam Sanctus Hieronymus iussu Damasi I Papae saeculo quarto confecit." This is false; the summary should state, as the English version of the article does: "The Vulgate is a late-4th-century Latin translation of the Bible. This translation was largely the work of Jerome of Stridon who, in 382, had been commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina Gospels used by the Roman Church. On his own initiative, he extended this work of revision and translation to include most of the books of the Bible. Once published, the new version became widely adopted. Over succeeding centuries, it eventually eclipsed the Vetus Latina." Could you put this in Latin in the Biblia Vulgata article instead of the current summary (remember to credit the English article as it is under CC 3.0)?
I have started transcribing the Vulgata Clementina on Vikifons because there is currently no complete Bible on Vikifons. Therefore, if you are interested in the Vulgate, could you check the grammar, spelling, etc. of what is inside the "Apocriphi Libri (Leander van Ess)" section of the Vulgata Clementina on Vikifons? Moreover, I would accept any help, feedback, etc. on anything concerning said transcription. Veverve (disputatio) 00:16, 11 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin is not false: it's wholly concordant with the quoted English text, but less nuanced. Perhaps it once translated an English text that has been revised and made more complex. (Furthermore, the quoted English text silently omits, between the first & second sentences, a long sentence containing many details.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 06:06, 11 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. It is a very good idea to put the Vulgata Clementina on Wikisource, and I am happy that you have undertaken to do this.

I agree with Iacobus that the Latin text of our page Biblia Vulgata is not false, but I agree with you that it needs to be expanded. However, translating directly from another Wikipedia is not the way I work, so you've asked the wrong guy. Bad luck! If it is left to me, yes, I will expand it while checking the sources to be sure that I agree with what I write. Meanwhile it's quite possible that Iacobus, or someone else, will agree to your request and do that translation for you right away. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:36, 11 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IacobusAmor: Damasus only asked Jerome to revise the four Gospels, not to translate any of the other texts which came to enter the compilation which is called the Vulgate. This is why I believe the summary should be changed, as it falsely claims it the Vulgate has been fully done by Jerome, and has been fully made on Damasus' order. Veverve (disputatio) 03:58, 14 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannes Petrus Thiollet

Ioannes Petrus Thiollet page deletionem dolendum videtur fuisse error vester. Vide Viaf.org.--2001:861:4981:4510:50AE:9FAD:C34E:4CCC 14:01, 22 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tibi licet (etiamsi tardius!) restitutionem huius paginae proponere ad Disputatio:Ioannes Petrus Thiollet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:09, 22 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Uctop

Salve! Puto parentheseis delendas esse. Alioqui in pagina Specialis:Conlationes duo deinceps parentheseon ostenditur. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (disputatio) 10:59, 6 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago. Correxi (ut spero) sed dic mihi si aliquid male feci!! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:42, 6 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias ago, omnia correcta videtur. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (disputatio) 14:13, 6 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mala

Indeed, Honeycrisps are my favorites, along with Fujis! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 22:42, 6 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help for Latin grammar

Hello, thank you for unblocking me. Could you help me to correct grammar errors on the "Motus Neo-Borbonis" page? I have already tried to rewrite it but it is still wrong. The first time I did not follow the correct scheme, but now I seem to have respected the rules (example: genitive before the noun it refers to, accusative before the verb it depends on, verb at the end of the sentence, etc ...). Thank you. --AEOS1130 (disputatio) 16:29, 18 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Genitive before the noun it refers to": what? That's generally true of weak third-person pronouns, but not of proper nouns, so Julius Caesar will say "in eorum fines," but "in fines Unellorum," and "eius castra," but "castra Labieni"; but then after a preceding participle in an ablative absolute, he'll shift the genitive to the left of the noun: "dimissis Haeduorum copiis" and "productis Romanorum copiis." Scholars have even found a lexical constraint: some nouns tend to go on the left, and others tend to go on the right. Even well-educated nonnative speakers can't hope to have a perfect feel for this, not least because the "rules" vary by author and period. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:55, 18 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I try to understand that text, but I can't. This suggests to me -- please forgive me (again) if I'm wrong -- that you are trying to write long and pointed sentences in a language that you haven't really learned. Short sentences with a clearly identifiable verb, subject, and object might be a better start. (Latin word order is relatively free, though the guidelines you state above are often valid.)

There's no Italian page "Movimento Neoborbonico", so I thought it reasonable to link the Latin page to the Italian it:Neoborbonismo. You deleted the link. How does that help? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:17, 18 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Status quo ante Trumpum"

Well, there we are (Trumpus, -i): https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2021/Pres/Maps/Feb19.html#item-2 IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:47, 19 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudohistoria Vincentii Bunei

I want to thank you for successfully detecting this pseudohistorian back in 2007. I'll try and get this pseudohistory removed from the Croatian and Serbo-Croatian articles about Vice Bune. Could I possibly get a translation of your article? Google Translate doesn't seem to work. Croxyz (disputatio) 00:28, 20 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Croxyz. Google Translate doesn't seem to be very good at Latin.

That's a long time ago! I had almost forgotten about Vice Bune. Yes, I will translate the article for you. It is very short, of course. You should understand that I do not know any Slavic languages, and was able to use only sources that are available on the Web: otherwise, no doubt, I could have written in more detail. However, as a historian, I do have some experience of distinguishing justified and unjustified historical claims. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:32, 20 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Croxyz (disputatio) 10:53, 21 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put an English translation on the talk page Disputatio:Pseudohistoria Vincentii Bunei. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:34, 22 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help for Latin grammar 2

Ok, thank you for the advice, but unfortunately in Italy (I am Italian) it is absolutely forbidden to mention anything related to politics at school. If you want, I can send you a translation of the page in English: could you help me to translate it correctly into Latin? Sorry for the grammatical errors, but, as you guessed, I am currently studying Latin. --AEOS1130 (disputatio) 16:26, 23 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand now! I'll see what I can do. It may be that an Italian version of your article would be easier for me to work from: Italian is much closer to Latin than English is. Anyway, whatever you choose. Put your English or Italian version on the article talk page. This may take a few days -- I have other things to do right now! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:51, 23 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a beginner at encyclopedia writing to compose a text freestyle is fraught with danger: other editors can't help by consulting coordinate articles in other wikis, and the absence of the article from other wikis (especially the biggest of them) is a red flag, suggesting that the new article may not be wanted. The danger is greater when the beginner at encyclopedia writing is also a beginner at learning the language of the new article. The danger is even greater when the topic in question implies a hotly contested political ideology. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:34, 23 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help, I will post both versions on the talk page. However, the absence of the page in other languages is caused by the fact that I am currently writing them. --AEOS1130 (disputatio) 09:37, 24 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those versions. I'll do what I can! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:57, 24 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I took the liberty of eliminating grammar error warnings to avoid "rushing you". Anyway, sorry if I answer only now, I had removed the link to "Neoborbonismo" because it is not about the movement, but the ideology on which it is based (such as "Conservative Party" and "Conservatism"). I want to specify that the Latin name "Neo-Borbonis" derives from the prefix "neo" (new) and from the surname with which the Bourbon kings signed themselves in Latin: "Borbonis" (in English: of Bourbon, in Italian "di Borbone", therefore, in genitive). Thanks again for your help. Good evening. --AEOS1130 (disputatio) 17:43, 24 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue this on the article talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:39, 24 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitio

An excellent illustration of the first "danger" mentioned above? The suggested definition (on the talk page of the article) is:

The Neo-Bourbon Movement is a cultural movement born in 1993 in Naples with several "delegations" in Italy and abroad.

Whereas a quick check of the Italian wiki leads one to ask whether a definition something like this might be more appropriate:

Neoborbonism (Italiane Neoborbonismo^[1]) is a reactionary, revanchist, irredentist movement, inspired by the historically revisionist writings^[2] of ultraconservative journalists and popular mainly in southern Italy, where nostalgia for the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies still motivates a small number of people.

↑ Vocabulum excogitatum ab A. Todisco, "C'è un «pretendente» al trono di Napoli e qualcuno sembra prenderlo sul serio," La Stampa, 7 Aprilis 1960, p. 3.
↑ Note that the Italian wiki specifically calls the theses behind the movement to be pseudohistorical, and even hoaxes (bufale).

(Note that the word was born in 1960, not 1993.) Historically accurate articles are welcome, but this recipe seems unready for the oven, so to speak. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:15, 24 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry unduly. As I said in two other discussions just above, I don't translate mechanically, I aim to believe what I'm writing; and I have some experience in distinguishing true history from false history. But thanks very much for the reference and guidance. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:11, 24 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but perhaps you're not the "beginner at encyclopedia writing" that someone had in mind. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:21, 24 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. This being my talk page, I took it that it was all aimed at me. I get it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:00, 24 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you translate the page Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Berhampur into latin or other European languages? You can use the content in English and odia and for odia language you can convert it into English for easy understanding and then can translate it easily. Odia article contains more and clear information, on which you can rely. It will be very much helpful if you do so. Thank you ଲେଖକ (disputatio) 10:27, 18 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't usually do straight translation from other Wikipedias. But some others do: you could ask on the Vicipaedia:Taberna. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:49, 19 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Erithacus"

Redirects involving articles on the Myrias list (even apparently correct ones, as you've done here) may sometimes have cost us points at Meta. I don't know exactly why or how to fix it, but something possibly has to be changed by hand, maybe at Wikidata. Just to be sure it isn't a problem at our end, I've adjusted the list here. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:46, 15 Maii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I happened on it by chance and I didn't think of that problem. There would probably be no way to fix it. Feel free to move it back. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:10, 15 Maii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You probably can't move it back, because I edited the redirect after the move. I'll move it back, then. The numbers matter. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 15 Maii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but I don't know that it's a problem—or, if it is, exactly what the problem would be! So maybe just leave it and see what happens? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:27, 15 Maii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would have been a problem. I've moved it back and let's leave it for now ... until, one day, robins drop out of the list ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:48, 15 Maii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

de Vicispecies:Localization

Salve magister! multos post annos lingua Latina scribere mihi difficile est, sed formosas paginas tuas legere et intellegere possum; hae multo me delectant.

(i) Ut in pagina usoris mea, Vicispecies:Localization (Latin) desideratur.

(ii) Ut in Vicispecies:Phorusrhacos longissimus et Phorusrhacidae, fortasse "aut", "et", "genera dubia", "genera excludenda", "genera nondum identificata", "genera praeterita", "nova et vetera nomina" et similia usabuntur.

Si tibi interest...; gratias ago, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (disputatio) 10:25, 16 Iunii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago. Mihi certe interest, sed nescio an mutationes apud Vicipaediam, aut apud Vicispecies, proponis.

Casibus ambobus, nonne tu potes verba mutare? Ego neque apud Vicispecies, neque inter localizationes faciei, operam dare soleo.

Thanks for your message. It interests me, but I don't know whether you are proposing changes at Vicipaedia or at Wikipecies.

In either case, can you not make the changes yourself? I do not currently work either at Wikispecies or at the interface translation utility. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:34, 16 Iunii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(In English, if you don't mind) as per here, I have been providing some equivalent terms on the Wikispecies:Localization talk page, and one of the administrators simply (I think - certainly they are very quick) clicks on the link, copies the translation across, and saves the page; one can switch the language setting and see the results - presumably a Japanese user will have Japanese as default, and instead of seeing "taxonavigation" will see 分類ナビ (Ordo, Familia, Genus etc remain in Latin) re (i), if you think it's not inappropriate, I might as you have suggested above, pay a visit ad Tabernam and add a pointer to my user page (I tried a Template:Collapse, but that Formula does not appear to be used here; the list for localization is rather long to post there); while I might be able to find/add some of the terms - as with nomen - those better versed in contemporary Latin may do much better; if there are any ensuing translations, I can simply copy and paste them (in batches) to the right place on Wikispecies; (ii) can be parked for now, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (disputatio) 14:34, 16 Iunii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what "Template:Collapse" is and I'm not sure if I understand yet. Are you asking me (or someone) to add Latin translations to the list at Usor:Maculosae tegmine lyncis? If that's it, yes, I could do some of that.

Of course, feel free to ask at the Taberna. Maybe someone there will understand at once. (It is very hot here today!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:45, 16 Iunii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is needed - Improving the Content Translation tool

Hello Friend,

Apologies as this message is not in your native language.

The WMF language team is reaching out to you based on your position as an admin in the Latin Wikipedia. In particular, we want to learn about your experience, the issues you encounter with articles created with Content translation.

We appreciate the great work you are doing in Latin Wikipedia to ensure standard and quality articles are not compromised. However, it is a big task to encounter content that is not standard daily, and a difficult decision to delete them because they fall below standard.

Our observations

We noticed that articles created with the Content Translation tool in your wiki are deleted more frequently than in other Wikipedias. We say this because, from our statistics, 5360 articles were added to Latin Wikipedia in 2020. Out of the above figure, only 68 of them were translated using the Content Translation tool. 17 of the articles added with Content translation were deleted. Therefore, the tool's low usage and the deletion rate signals a problem or deficiencies peculiar to your Wikipedia. The Content Translation tool can increase content creation in your Wikipedia and is an excellent way to efficiently introduce newcomers to adding content and expand on existing ones.

Our request

So, we want you to participate in a survey. The survey will give us insight into how we can improve the tool to get quality articles and reduce the number of deletion, hence making your work easier.

Please follow this link to the Survey:

Take the Survey
To know how the information collected from the survey will be used, please read the Privacy Statement.

If you are not comfortable with taking the survey, that is fine. You can still provide us with feedback in this thread or via email on the following questions:

What makes the articles created with content translation fall below standard in your Wikipedia?
What are the common mistakes that editors that use content translation make?
How do you think we can improve the Content Translation tool that will help you with your work or make your task easier and reduce deletion of articles in Latin Wikipedia?

So please, feel free to give us feedback in any way that is most convenient for you.

Thank you so much, as we look forward to your response

UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 21 Iunii 2021 (UTC) On behalf of the WMF language team.[reply]

Innocuous typos?

One usually ignores minimal (say, less than 100 bytes) additions by our liliaceous feline contributor, since they're likely merely to be insertions of links, but today we notice that the caption of a newly added file spells Buffonius as Buffpnius and inserts a curiously inappropriate mention of pi. So we may be ignoring them at our peril. Oh well. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:34, 22 Iulii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid for a moment that might be one of mine -- p for o is something I fairly frequently do. If it's me, however, the inappropriate insertion will be not math- but food-related :)

I cannot see the relevance of pi at that spot; on the other hand, it is (to use your term) innocuous. So, I guess, either quietly delete it or query it on the talk page. Your choice will be as good as mine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:14, 22 Iulii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to query it; my point is just that maybe we should be more attentive to the shorter insertions from that source. Oh well. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:49, 22 Iulii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm sure you understand, if you want to discuss another user's work on my talk page you must invite that user to join in. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:46, 22 Iulii 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protection?

Maybe "The Walt Disney Company" needs protection again: an anonymous IP address keeps inserting links to the English wiki and making other changes. Usores Billinghurst and WikiBayer have already jumped in, but the unhelpful tinkering persists. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:59, 4 Augusti 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were coming from a stable IP address, so I blocked it with an explanation. We'll watch, and if edits to the page continue unhelpful I will additionally protect it. For the present I reverted it to your last edit. Thanks, Iacobe. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:52, 4 Augusti 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Andrew. That may be the best tactic. It's hard to know just what to do when somebody is sincerely trying to help but doesn't know any or much Latin, has hardly a clue about local norms, and doesn't communicate via editboxes or disputatio pages! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:45, 4 Augusti 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. We'll see if the user concerned decides to get an acccount. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:56, 4 Augusti 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a user who uses translation sites for the text, and does it xwiki and is totally committed to these Disney edits whether communities wish for it or not. Some of it is starts as adding the templates from enWP then it will continue with the articles and follow-up with edits to templates. They have stopped using accounts and now simply operating out of Italian dynamic IP address and there is a global special:abusefilter tracking their actions, not that I can see it acting here recently. Billinghurst (disputatio) 23:30, 4 Augusti 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jade?

Salve! Scisne verbum Latinum pro lapide cuius nomen Anglicum est "Jade?" Conor convertere nomen puellare "Jade" in Latinum. "Nephritica?" Gratias. [Johnhillis]

Salve et tu. Vide hic. "Nephritica" Latine dicit jade et suffering from kidney disease. Sed non licet praenomen Latine vertere nisi conversio iam fontibus fidei dignis reperiri potest. Ergo, si de muliere nomine Jade scribere vis, eam "Jade" Latine appellabis. Eheu! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:41, 16 Augusti 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multas Gratias!

Roberti Maier opus Visuelles Wörterbuch Latein-Deutsch, Dorling Kindersley Verlag GmbH, Monaci 2010, ISBN 978-3-8310-9091-4, in p. 288 proponit plasma smaragdinum. - Giorno2 (disputatio) 10:48, 17 Augusti 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vicipaedia Anglica nos docet (locus hic sine annotationibus exscriptus): "The English word jade is derived (via French l'ejade and Latin ilia 'flanks, kidney area') from the Spanish term piedra de ijada (first recorded in 1565) or 'loin stone', from its reputed efficacy in curing ailments of the loins and kidneys. Nephrite is derived from lapis nephriticus, a Latin translation of the Spanish piedra de ijada." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:00, 17 Augusti 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Almanach des gourmands; de commentationibus Latinis convertendis propositum

Primo in vita mea Vicipaediana commentationem Latinam nullis aliis versionibus vernicularibus pactam converti, nempe Almanach des gourmands. Ideo Esperanticum idioma (Almanach des gourmands) praetuli, nam si rem in Theodiscum interpretatus essem magistratus Vicipaediae Theodiscae nimis severi certe omnia extinxissent. Una res incerta tamen manet, de "caseo recocto": fac reveles nomen vulgare Francogallicum, quaeso. Generatim alicubi proponerem visionem elenchi commentationum Latinarum interpretationis dignarum, quae adhuc nullis linguis vernacularibus exstent. Num aliquo modo id iam nunc a computatro intelligitur et monstrari potest? Quaestio altera: Didici notionem "gourmand" (alio ac "gourmet") modo peiore intelligi posse. Num saeculo, quo isti fasti scripti erant, terminus Francogallicus neutralis fuit? - Giorno2 (disputatio) 08:32, 20 Augusti 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laetissime certior factus sum, amice Giorno2, te commentationem Almanach des gourmands Esperantice convertisse! Commentationes de re cibaria Latine evolvo quia Vicipaediani Angli Francogallique, sicut Theodisci, severius novas paginas inspiciunt. Insuper saepissime historia alimentaria male Vicipaediá Anglicá descripta est: fontes enim, qui apud istos "fidei digni" censentur, res falsas dicere solent ... In quibusdam casibus commentationes meas iam satis confectas Anglice convertem, si locus vacuus manet.

Id genus casei recentis recuite ab ipso Grimod appellatur. Nostro aevo pauci Francici sed Itali fere omnes cognoscunt: ab his et per omnem fere orbem terrarum Ricotta nuncupatur.

De conversione verbi gourmand, tam Anglice quam Latine, in dubio sum. Iam bene scis: Francogalli hodierni distinguere possunt gourmet (qui qualitates optimorum ciborum vinorumque recognoscit) a gourmand (qui cenas bonas generosasque amat) et glouton (qui nimis comedit et bibit). Ganeo scripsi, sed haesitanter: nullus lector (mihi dico) Latinam linguam maternam habet, ergo nullum lectorem offendere possum ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 20 Augusti 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias tibi ago quia locutionem "defrutum Anglicum" (= punch), iam saeculo XIX ineunte usitatam, repperisti. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:37, 22 Augusti 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicum punch est "calidum" (Plautus, in Cassell's, p. 803 prolatum) et "potio ex fructuum suco" (Traupman, p. 630), sed si etymologicam huius potionis originem consulimus, videmus punch ex vocabulo Sanscrito 'quinque' significante derivare (cum Graeco pente cognato); ergo fortasse vocabulum idoneum erit "quinquefructus" (confer "quinqueviri") et "potio quinorum," sed eheu! nolumus fingere. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:06, 13 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. etiam "Punjab/Panjab" = quinque aquae i.e. quinque flumina. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:23, 13 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Walt Disney Company

I saw that last year, you removed protection from this page because it was requested that the protection be removed after a full 10 years. However, it looks like it's still a vandalism target, so it looks it needs protection again. I saw a bunch of the recent vandalism is different from the old vandalism. In the new edits, the IPs change links to link to other Wikipedia projects. Since this is Latin Wikipedia, that is clearly counter-productive. I suggest if the page gets vandalized again it be protected until the vandal doing this is officially known to be gone. I have no idea when that will be though. I like peace and quiet (disputatio) 03:53, 6 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edits since your last one were only marginally unhelpful and have been meanwhile reviewed by Usor:IacobusAmor, who added more changes, so I cannot now revert them. There are currently no in-text links to other Wikipedias (as far as I can see). Childish and obsessive edits are a recurrent problem on this page, I agree, and we will protect it if it becomes necessary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:54, 6 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I've seen is he often makes edits that seem necessary, but aren't. Like for example The Lion King (pellicula 1994) and Dumbo (pellicula 1941). Though the remakes exist, the originals are kept as the primary topics. That seems to be part of his game of disruption, making marginally unhelpful edits that look like they're necessary. When he changed it to link to other Wikipedias, it would link to several different projects. For example, One Hundred and One Dalmatians in English or Lady and the Tramp in Indonesian. I had reverted it back, and some other edits have been reverted by WikiBayer. But if you see that happen again, I recommend the protection. Thank you meanwhile for improving the page. BTW, is there anyone here who might be interested in expanding some of these pages? Pages like Lady and the Tramp, Dumbo, and Bambi. They don't always have as much content as would be desired. I saw for example Gordy and Babe: Pig in the City are short pages, which are no longer allowed. I don't want them deleted, as they are notable films, but they need to add more content to them. Like for example The Lion King can describe the plot, but most other pages don't. Some of those cross-wiki articles could be of help for translation, like for example pt:The Fox and the Hound (filme). Also, on The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh the link to fabula is a disambiguation link, but I don't know what it should link to instead. As IacobusAmor pointed out, some of these pages need revising. The Walt Disney Company is marked as Latin-3, while The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh seems to have similar problems. Again, it's recommended that an expert be recruited to expand and revise the articles. They can be translated from English or any other language if possible. I don't know if you or IacobusAmor are interested, but maybe someone else is? I like peace and quiet (disputatio) 16:27, 6 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this detailed comment, which is quite accurate, as I can see. For improving the pages you could ask for help on the Taberna. But in any case I will watch these pages and I will protect them if unwanted activity increases. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:49, 6 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A new example has happened today with "Coco (pellicula 2017)," which unknown user 5.179.176.60 has apparently worsened by changing it to "Coco (pellicula)," ignoring the existence of two other films named Coco, released in other years. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:17, 23 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, @I like peace and quiet, @IacobusAmor, sorry for stepping in but given that you're not sure whether to protect a page or not, maybe edit filters are the answer? I'm not sure how aware are you of the existing of edit filters but they usually act as a grey area precisely between fully protecting/blocking something and letting it free. They're also automatic so... There's an edit filter almost for every occasion and they can modified to the needed situation with little regex. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 15:43, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just in from LangCom

I just got this from Gerard LangCom: The point of the policy is to explicitly invalidate any and all arguments that were used before. There is no point in looking in older history, at best it shows the genesis of the policy.

That is the first clear justification for the policy we have had. I am sure G thinks it is a very clever policy, but really – wow. It is now clear that it was never consulted on, but also that the reasoning is (and I hestitate to say this) beyond weak, but actually simply and deliberately absent.

It's always been clear that the policy is set for LangCom's convenience to shut policy discussions down, but now we have it on record. Or we would if the email archives were working properly.

I'm not sure what the rhetoricians would call this kind of argument but I am sure they have a word for it. --JimKillock (disputatio) 08:25, 13 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GerardM may not have chosen his words wisely -- we all make such errors now and then. A policy can't invalidate an argument. Only a better argument can do that. But GerardM has form ... It might amuse you to know that I quoted him in print, back in 2009, on a related issue. Text follows. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 13 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposals have continued to crowd in. 15 new languages have been approved by the subcommittee (or committee, as it now is); 66 proposals are in the waiting room, and some have been kicking their feet there for more than two years. The talk pages make depressing reading. Three issues recur in all of them. Does the community deserve a wikipedia? Yes, of course, it always does, and several people are sure to say so in the course of discussion. Does the necessary community of enthusiasts to write the wikipedia exist? Before the language subcommittee was set up there was no way of finding this out. Unfortunately there is still no way of finding out, because, although it is possible (and indeed compulsory) to set up a test wiki in advance, it’ll be very hard to find and few if any surfers are going to visit it. These two questions having been discussed inconclusively, the discussion will end ad hoc with a message from a committee member: Currently x.xx% of the most used MediaWiki messages have been localised [i.e. translated into the target language]. Localisation of these messages is a requirement before your request is finally assessed ... Thanks, GerardM. The actual figure varies. For Gagauz it is 93.76%; Gagauz is a Turkish dialect and the proposers surely copied the system messages from Turkish. For Manchu it is 0.00%, because no one [...] has ever tried to write software interface messages in Manchu and the necessary vocabulary does not exist. It would be like translating Paradise Lost into Klingon." (The World and Wikipedia [2009] p. 45)

GerardM's "genesis" is well chosen, I must admit. The policy seems to have come into existence in much the same way that light did. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:35, 13 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We found the email archive and the discussion relating to the 2007 decision. I went through it: 16 emails, three issues raised, virtually no discussion and no mitigations suggested. I also think the decision was in breach of the Committee's Charter in two aspects: the transparency commitment; and the requirement to assess Wikis against "quantative criteria". It is partticularly wrong to use a criterion of no native speakers against one language set and not another, without a public discussion of that. Email here, if you are interested. --JimKillock (disputatio) 20:03, 13 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ecaussines

Vale, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

Adiutum in esta pagina potes mihi dare? Nescio nominem Latine.

Gratias ago!!!

Rei Momo (disputatio) 10:02, 22 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technical matters

Hello Andrew! :)

I'm an admin from the Albanian community where I hold administrative and interface administrative rights on the Albanian Wikipedia and Wikiquote. I mostly look out for the technical aspect on those projects. Lately I've started learning Latin and I wanted to contribute a bit here to help me with my language skills while also helping around the community and hopefully engaging more with other Latin speaking wikiusers. After a few edits I quickly noticed that you're currently lacking the CS1 module, the Lua module responsible for rendering citations. I asked in VP:T if that was intentional and was told that it was not and that bringing that functionality here maybe would be appreciated so I started working on it. Ever since, I've imported and created a lot of module and template pages (you can check my contributions) which are mostly related to the said module in a way or another (and some other missing technical functionalities I've stumbled upon) but there are some changes, like editing MediaWiki pages or page protection which require administrator privileges, which, of course, I don't have here. I saw your name on the administrators list. Do you have some time to help me make these changes? I can list them down if you accept. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 22:57, 26 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klein Muçi. I was travelling when you wrote, without a computer, so I was temporarily inactive. I see from the Taberna that others have been working with you meanwhile, but please tell me if I there is still anything you wish me to do to help you. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 2 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, hello! Yes, that is true. Andreas is helping me on emails deal with the set up of the CS1 module (the citations' module). That module works better with the inclusion of some bots. Well, 2 of them. Can you help me with that? Explain the general procedures of bot approvals here? One of them is w:en:User:InternetArchiveBot, which is approved in many wikis worldwide. The other one is w:sq:User:Smallem, which is a pywikibot I've developed, currently only approved on SqWiki, which automatizes solving some problems with citations and some other tasks. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 22:30, 2 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bot approvals are usually handled by User:UV, who is currently away. If necessary I will get my head round it and do what's needed.

I don't use a bot myself, but I make a lot of links to Internet Archive manually, and I keep a general eye on our bibliographies when I can. My aim is to make them useful even to readers who don't read Latin. I am very glad to know you will be adding these links with a bot. I will show you below the styles I use to make links to books on Internet Archive. Whether your bot will do it in a similar way I don't know! But any useful link is better than no link. If citing a whole book I do this:

* [[Nathaniel Newnham-Davis]], ''The Gourmet's Guide to Europe''. 3a ed. Londinii: Grant Richards, 1911 [https://archive.org/details/b2804938x Textus] apud ''Internet Archive''

If citing a specific page I do this:

* [[Augustus Escoffier|Auguste Escoffier]], ''Le Guide culinaire'' (2a ed. Lutetiae, 1907) [https://archive.org/details/b21525912/page/524/mode/2up pp. 525-526]

Others don't do it the same way: we have no rule. In general, for your information, the main bibliographical information has to be accurate, it should not be converted to Latin. Just the edition number and the place of publication are in Latin. The author's name can be pipe-linked to our article about the author. The may be there sometimes, and should not be deleted, if footnote references link to it: there is no need for it otherwise.

Please do not add the date the link was consulted or verified. That information is important in school essays but is useless to the reader of an encyclopedia: either the link works or it doesn't: if it doesn't work, your bot can perhaps correct it! If you are updating a link, always delete the old dead link. That also is useless to the reader of an encyclopedia. It can be found in the page history if anyone ever wants it. It is very important to keep the edit screen simple: that way, others can easily make corrections.

It's good to know you will be working with us! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply! So, first of all, the plan is to standardize the way citations are added throughout the whole articles by using cite templates. For that, Module:Citation/CS1 will help as soon as it is activated. It is currently being translated by Andreas after I set it up technically. When that module is on, we'll have to gradually update the cite templates to be compatible with it and then the articles (to start making use of these templates). When that happens and we make the switch from using bare citations (what you describe above) to utilizing cite templates, those 2 parameters that you mention above, namely original link and access-date will be needed for the whole infrastructure to work but that's a thing for the future. Utilizing templates will also, hopefully, lessen the text clutter while editing.

The first bot task I wanted to approve, is this: Ahechtbot/transclusioncount.py. I have talked with Ahecht and he helped me utilize the source code in my own bot, Smallem, to use it globally if I wanted to. (He wanted to keep Ahechtbot only for local edits in EnWiki.) This will make possible the Module:High-use to work properly. If you read its documentation in EnWiki, you'll read: Implements {{High-use}}. Uses bot-updated values from subpages of Module:Transclusion_count/data/ when available. For those bot-updated values, we need Smallem. Now, what usually needs to be done is that I create an user page for Smallem and after proposing the bot for approval somewhere by describing its function, like I just did, a bureaucrat flags it as a bot which will allow it to bypass the edit limits and also hides its contributions from the main "latest changes" so it doesn't overflow the feed for human editors. I can of course create the user page for Smallem. Can you tell me what page you use for the flagging proposal if any? There UV can lead the approval process if he's around or maybe you can, given that I see you have crat privileges as well. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 09:57, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find this page by searching for Wikipedia:Bots. It says there that the approval needs to be done in the Taberna. Should I go on with it there after creating the bot's user and talk pages? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:06, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for finding that out! Go ahead and make the request on the Taberna. I will support the request.

I understand about some fields being necessary to the system. We can of course talk afterwards, if we need to, about how the template parameters are converted into text and punctuation on the reading screen. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:24, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby thank you for your good words! :) I'm currently creating the bot's user page which which currently is a mess because it is in Albanian and there may be subpages which won't be needed here. After I finish setting it up, I'm going in with the proposal. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 15:34, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Cite templates": bibliographies

Re "to standardize the way citations are added throughout the whole articles by using cite templates." Maybe this is a good occasion to make a point that I first made in Vicipaedia at least ten years ago. Some people who care about these things (i.e., the tiniest measurable fragment of all humanity) loathe the default style by which templated bibliographic items print onscreen. Some of us, while perhaps not driven to such attitudinal extremes, prefer a different style. For example, Andrew wants bibliographed items to appear like this (see the nowiki coding in his remarks above):

Nathaniel Newnham-Davis, The Gourmet's Guide to Europe. 3a ed. Londinii: Grant Richards, 1911 Textus apud Internet Archive

Whereas people accustomed to the author-date system of the Chicago Manual of Style want it to appear something like this:

Newnham-Davis, Nathaniel. 1911. The Gourmet's Guide to Europe, ed. tertia. Londinii: Grant Richards. Textus apud Internet Archive.

(I myself like to see the year print blue—something I found in the Italian wiki long ago but that was evidently later abandoned—but that's just a personal quirk.) Neither printout matches the default seen in the English wiki, which might be something like this (with Latinization).

Newnham-Davis, Nathaniel (1911). The Gourmet's Guide to Europe. 3a ed. Londinii: Grant Richards.

Except that even the English wiki has its variants; for example, "Dubai" has a bibliography containing three items, each in its own style (the third item is in the same style as the second, but it omits the place of publication). That's because those entries have been hard-coded the way you see them, rather than keyboarded via a template.

What we need is a gadget, perhaps to be placed among our Praeferentiae (under "Modi"), that will make bibliographies print the way individual readers want to see them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:22, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is possible to lend a bot the intelligence to convert all existing references into templates with reasonable accuracy, that's good, because it is the necessary prerequisite for choosing alternative display formats as you would like. Once it's done, you could probably even choose to have the dates in a nice shade of blue. [I think I might go with blue myself. We have one or two colleagues who don't like coloured text, and I would certainly agree with them that it should be kept to a strict minimum, but it is really useful to be able to pick out the date in the body of a reference.]

That's why I like it! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:25, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The disadvantage of using templates is that most people aren't bibliographers and can't use them properly. Therefore an added reference, often in principle one of the most useful kinds of edit by a casual reader, will either (a) not be templated at all, or (b) use the template all wrong. In case (a) the bot could convert it afterwards; in case (b) a mess is made which humans have to correct. Other wikis live with this, and I suppose we could too? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But if the coding of a template is copied from the English wiki, (most of) the desired information will already have been coded. One oddity, though, is that bibliographies appear to be in ill repute in Wikipedia, which prefers to shovel bibliographic data into footnotes, eschewing the ability of bibliographies to serve as checklists. Has such-and-such a source been utilized in the compilation of a given article? No way of telling, except by expending the energy of running a search. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:25, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Cite templates": footnotes

Which is another formulaic mess, ideally requiring another multiple-choice gadget. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:30, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC).[reply]

True. The simple system that I invented and now use could easily be incorporated into the templates. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:57, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IacobusAmor, thanks for sharing your opinion! Personally I'm for standardization because from a technical viewpoint it helps a lot. For example, when using the Content Translation Tool, it's important to have more or less the same templates shared between projects and languages so the tool is able to make the translations possible without ruining the page rendering. You can see one example of what happens when there is no template standardization between projects in one of the articles I created with the said tool here. Check Ismail Qemali. I can, of course just remove that infobox that renders badly but I've left it for now so I can work on the technical aspect of the template and meanwhile have 1 place where to see its results rendered.

BUT of course details like the ones that you mention matter to the people who use them so I do believe they should be able to choose. The tool that you describe would be the ideal solution. With a tool like that you could add all the needed information about the sources and the reader could choose how to render that information and what parts of it to omit. That is indeed a very good idea which I hadn't first thought about. Unfortunately, according to my current knowledge, that tool does not yet exist. It does seem like something that could be achievable through the Wikicite initiative though. Take a look at the Shared Citations subpage. If we could have a "database of Wikimedia citations records" maybe we could choose how we want them rendered when reading the articles. Information preserved in databases is always more malleable than "spontaneous hardcoded" information.

Meanwhile, what I see as the closest practical achievable thing to that solution is to start using different cite templates corresponding to different citing styles, all connected to 1 module. Again, information organized in templates is more easily malleable than the one hardcoded on pages. Currently, most of the cite templates LaWiki has are outdated from a technical point of view when compared to those in EnWiki and that's because they act independently, not through the invocation of a single module or created standardized through the use of meta-templates, technical practices which now dominate the way most big wikis work and make way for that easy "movement" through different projects. The plan is to first bring that kind of functionality here with the update of the needed modules and templates and then add new templates corresponding to the needed changes, if the existing ones are not sufficient. Meanwhile, given that I'm working with EnWiki as a standard, you can take a look at its citing practices in their featured articles and start making notes, either mentally or here, of what you'd like differently from those and see if there already exist citing templates to accommodate your taste or not. (Something like what you just did.) And then, after we finish setting up Module:Citation/CS1, we can start changing it to accommodate suggested changes from you and other users. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 15:16, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Chicago's ideal style don't need to be made: the basics of its author-date system are given here, and a separate URL will take you to its alternate style, which may be closer to the one that Andrew prefers. These are unquestionably the prevailing styles in the humanities in the United States. Styles in the sciences (including medicine) differ, often drastically. For example, the humanities want to see names in bibliographies written as either "Longefellow, Henry Wadsworth" or "Henry Wadsworth Longfellow"—but certain sciences (not anthropology) might want "Longfellow HW" (with no comma, no middle names, no periods, and no space between abbreviations). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:38, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Get agreement to convert to templates first: that's my advice.

There is absolutely no reason to follow United States styles here. Most active editors are accustomed to European styles, with plenty of variation.

Maybe, but most of the entries in most of the bibliographies have been printed in the United States following the house styles of US-based publishers. (As an empirical claim, this impression of reality can be proved or disproved numerically; it may apply only to the bibliographies that I myself have produced, but let's leave it here as a pertinent plausibility.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:48, 4 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Iacobus is currently our only United States editor.

Well, but all (?) the original editors of Vicipaedia and practically all who set its early style (up to, say, 2006) were US-based editors; Justin still occasionally pops in, and Josh is still alive, though now an expatriate. At least one other is some sort of super-duper administrator, who hasn't written articles here for years but occasionally does something administrative. We don't know where certain other editors reside. And of course the whole enterprise was founded in the United States, by Jimmy Wales & Jerry Sanger, and you'll find the headquarters of the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco, California. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:48, 4 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am perhaps the only other active contributor with English mother tongue (I could be wrong of course) and I disagree with Iacobus on nearly every style issue and nearly every underlying assumption! (Though we both like the colour blue.) Discussion of style rules needs to be on the Taberna, not here, and needs to be in Latin, I would say. I will try to translate any such discussion, Klein Muçi, if you need it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:03, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smallem

Hello! Can you translate the text here and here so it is understandable by Latin speakers and I can go on with the request in the Taberna?

Be aware that currently the only task Smallem will do, if it gets approved, will be in regard to this: ...Module Transclusion count needs a robot to help in counting template transclusions to work. In the lack of such a robot, I help.

All the other tasks related to citations will NOT be running until Module:Citation/CS1 is running and I've gotten approval for Smallem again to run those tasks. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:39, 4 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Please also delete the accidental pages I created during its page creation. I've marked them for delete with the appropriate template. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 12:23, 4 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it. Also I'll study the information you link to. I suggest you write an English message on the Taberna requesting to use this bot. If you write it at about 14:00 tomorrow (or after), I will follow on with a message explaining in Latin and supporting your request. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 4 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Latina"?

Salve, egregie Andrea; ad te hac de causa scribo, quod scio te esse inter assiduissimos Vicipaediae moderatores deque Vicipaedia optime meritum. Miror quod, postquam Vicipaedia Latina permultis optimis commentationibus iam est aucta, id quod in serie vinculorum apparet ad sermonem Latinum apud Vicipaediam eligendum est etiamnunc titulus “Latina”, qui sane est nexus per quem ad quamlibet commentationem Latinam acceditur. “Latina” tantum, nisi forte vox sit neutri generis pluralisque numeri, non aptum ad hoc vocabulum esse videtur, cum oporteat dicere “Lingua Latina”. Si longitudo tituli metuitur, consideretur titulus similis alterius sermonis Vicipaedici: “Lingua Franca Nova”. Non timent linguae Francae novae fautores huiusmodi longitudinem, dummodo nomen sermonis quem colunt etiam apud indicem nexuum bene exprimatur. Ceterum “Latine” quoque licet adverbialiter scribere. Ne pravum demum exemplum praebeamus falsamque auctoritatem adiciamus eis qui solent dicere, ut exemplum afferam, “Latinam amo” pro “Linguam Latinam amo”, quid agere possumus? Optime valeas.MARCVS (disputatio) 12:49, 20 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adhuc non respondi: da veniam, mi Marce!

Cui quaestioni verbum "Latina" marginis sinistrae respondet? Mea mente, quaestio est "Qua lingua legere vis?" Cui respondebo, brevitate Ciceroniana vel Plautiana utens, "Latina". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:45, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Censeo tamen, Andrea egregie, haud satis istud constare, quandoquidem, quotiescumque in aliis linguis Vicipaedicis versamur sermonemque Latinum in margine sinistro (nisi forte simus Hebraei aut Arabes) quaerimus, non apparet vocabulum “lingua” (quae Latine, ut bene scis patetque, potest dici etiam “sermo”, masculini generis), sed potius, ut exempla nonnulla afferam, "Drugi jezici”, “In anderen Sprachen”, "En otros idiomas”, “Languages”. Arbitror igitur “lingua” non satis illic subaudiri. Pro responsione autem tua gratias tibi ago. MARCVS (disputatio) 05:46, 6 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

De titulo "Scientia ficticia"

Salve Andrew! In disputatione De titulo "Scientia ficticia" fortasse tuum censum sociare potes.--Donatello (disputatio) 16:06, 21 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Module:High-use

Salve!

I believe you have seen my email. If you have some free time, can you help me translate 5-6 lines in Module:High-use so that we can start using template {{High-use}} in the project? There are less than 10 lines in total and I can guide you through the process. Don't worry if you can't though. I'll ask at the Taberna for help. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 14:00, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try.

You could copy below the exact words you wish me to translate into Latin. Would that work? If I need to see the context, I will look at Module:High-use. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:21, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Follow me on the Module:High-use page as I will use the line numbers for better referencing (beside posting the lines here).

First, lines 20 and 22:

Module:High-use#L-20: "a very large number of pages"
Module:High-use#L-22: "many pages"

The context is something like this: This template/module is used on a very large number of pages/many pages... - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 15:44, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"a very large number of pages" plurimis paginis

Haec formula/modulus permultis/multis paginis adhibetur. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:39, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"many pages" multis paginis

We will have to check the final result: I chose the ablative case but it depends what verb is used in the previous phrase. No problem, let's continue. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:48, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's how we did it in Albanian too. We'll check it in the end in action and fine tune it.

Next line.

Module:High-use#L-40: "approximately XXXX pages"

Context: This template/module is used on approximately XXXX pages (Where XXXX is the number of pages, not to be translated.) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 15:59, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"approximately XXXX pages" circiter XXXX paginis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:02, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ad XXXX paginas. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:39, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Module:High-use#L-47:"roughly XXX% of all the Wikipedia pages"

Context: This Lua module is used on approximately 5,010,000 pages, or roughly 9% of all Wikipedia pages. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 16:08, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"roughly 9% of all Wikipedia pages" fere XX per centum paginarum huius Vicipaediae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:27, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ad XX centesimas [omnium] paginarum huius vicipaediae. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:34, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Module:High-use#L-69: "Attention: The aforementioned stats in regard to transclusion are automatically updated in a periodic manner by [[User:Smallem|Smallem]]."

You can take your liberty on this one. You can say whatever word seems better instead of "attention" if that is too harsh and also remove the "in regard to transclusion" part if you have difficulty with its translation. It's just a generic notice about the origin of stats, if someone may be interested or something goes wrong, so they know where to go for help. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 16:42, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Attention: The aforementioned stats in regard to transclusion are automatically updated in a periodic manner by [[User:Smallem|Smallem]]" Quas rationes (de formularum modulorumque usu) usorem automaticum Smallem crebriter de novo computat. I left out "attention". Some probably don't know what transclusion is in this context, so I said "calculations of the use of templates and modules". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:07, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attende! Quas rationes (de formulis modulisque adhibitis) Smallem, utens* automarius, crebro de novo computat. *Est hoc Smallem usor/utens (humanus) aut machina (programmata)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:26, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit Irish to write a message telling someone to read a message. If they don't read it, they won't read it, will they? That's really why I omitted "Attention". Smallem is a bot (a non-human user). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:02, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must be referring to that famous Irish joke, but one set of my forebears came over to New England from (Northern) Ireland in the summer of 1730, so it seems you could rightly be characterizing me (if only, as you say, "a bit"), except that those forebears' own forebears had been Scottish a century before, so maybe not? ¶ If it's a bot, it surely can't be a "user" (usor/utens) of any kind, so maybe machina programmata or automaria (programmed or automatic), or merely a programma would be better? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:36, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so, any more discussion on this? Should I go on with the first translation or second? :P I'll go on with the first version just for the sake of finishing the job. I believe in the end we'll have to return to it either way to fine-tune the details and we can decide on these things. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 19:08, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Different writers will have different styles and favor different vocabularies. Encyclopedias should probably take the middlest path possible, but finding it isn't always easy. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:36, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just seen the three comments above. I stopped watching for exactly the reason Iacobus gives. As Klein Muçi says, system messages can be easily tweaked at a later stage. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, this is where the hard part starts:

Module:High-use#L-79 requires us to put the subpage name (/thispart) that is used for documentations and sandbox pages. On EnWiki, my wiki and some other main Wikis, this is solved with 2 modules. Here I've imported Module:Documentation (which should be configured at Module:Documentation/config but I've yet to do) for the /doc part but I haven't dealt yet with the sandbox part.

Is it fine that all your documentation pages, that is the explanations for templates and modules, are on the "Template/Module:Name/doc" link? The name that shows inside the documentation page and all its content could be however you like. They will just be located on Name/doc link. There are a lot of modules that ask for those details and they're all standardized to work with /doc-/sandbox-/testcases. Therefore it is common practice sometimes that the link part is preserved like that so that it can help in technical infrastructure and allow for easier maintenance and update but of course, you decide on that. For example, in SqWiki we use "Udhëzuesi" for documentation pages, which means "Manual" but the address of the page is always on /doc for the reasons explained above.

Let me know what you think about the /doc part and then we'll talk about the sandbox and I'll provide even practical examples for that. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 19:38, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the above message has gone unnoticed. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 00:13, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did go unnoticed, see above! Thanks for the reminder. I understand the issue. For the reason you give, I think it is best for the real pagenames to follow the "international" standard. Our local word to insert in Latin text, corresponding to Albanian Udhëzuesi, could be "explicatio". The term "documentatio" has been used on Vicipaedia in similar messages already but its Latinity is doubtful ("directio" is not much better and has misleading undertones). If Iacobus or someone else looks in with a different suggestion I might well agree with it; otherwise, go with "explicatio". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:28, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you! I'm assuming we're good with /sandbox as well considering your explanation so I'm going on with the next part that requires attention.

For sandbox our local term is "harenarium". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Module:High-use#L-88 in [link] - I'm assuming this is the same in Latin, no?

"in". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Module:High-use#L-90 This module/This template is used - I'm assuming "module" and "template" differ in gender in Latin as they do in Albanian. If they don't, tell me.

Yes, formula (from forma 'form, figure, shape') is a classical Latin diminutive meaning 'formula, set form, rule, principle, physical beauty' and is feminine; modulus (diminutive of modus 'measure, mensural standard, rhythm, limit, boundary, rule, manner, mode, way, method') is a classical Latin diminutive meaning 'little measure' and is masculune. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:23, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Context: This module is used on approximately 5,010,000 pages, or roughly 9% of all pages. This template is used on approximately 147,000 pages.

Better word order, if possible, is to say "Hic modulus [in circiter XXXX paginis] adhibetur" and "Haec formula [in circiter XXXX paginis] adhibetur". If that is difficult, "Hic modulus adhibetur [in circiter XXXX paginis]" and "Haec formula adhibetur [in circiter XXXX paginis]" are OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Module:High-use#L-93 and - I'm assuming I should go with "et"? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:13, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"et". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:16, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, please keep that suggestion in mind because we'll need it in the end when we check the overall syntax.

These next ones are a bit tricky:

Module:High-use#L-99: subpages of [[/sandbox|your name for the sandbox]] and [[/testcases|your name for the testcases]] or in [[link for personal sandbox]].
Module:High-use#L-100:module's - template's

Context: To avoid major disruption and server load, any changes should be tested in the subpages of the module's /sandbox and /testcases', or in your own module sandbox.

Translating with context: "in subpaginis harenariis vel experimentalibus huius moduli [huius formulae], aut in harenario modulorum tuo". Is that ok? (I don't know if "subpagina" is current as a Latin word, but luckily it is current in Dutch and we can borrow it back into Latin!) Therefore "[[/sandbox|harenariis]], [[/testcases|experimentalibus]], moduli, formulae". They are different genders, but it happens that the word "huius" (of this) is the same in masculine and feminine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:38, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wondering about what testcases are, those are experimenting places for modules, for new code/changes on them. You'll rarely need them in practice as most code is readily imported nowdays and doesn't need a lot of testing but we need a word for that anyway.

In regard to your personal sandbox, that's a functionality you can activate, if you want. (I can help you with that after a discussion at Taberna.) In SqWiki, every user is granted a personal sandbox link which they can use to create a subpage of their own to experiment different things in regard to wiki work. You can read more about that here. I'd suggest you activate it because I've seen many users here already having their own experimenting subpages set up manually. This will just help by providing a button to do that automatically. If for any case you don't want that functionality, we can remove that part altogether from the High-use module. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 13:55, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: We have around 8 more lines left in total to finish translating. I'm saying this because I know it might had started getting annoying. It annoyed me as well when I reached this point when translating in Albanian some months ago. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 13:58, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, let's continue! Yes, we could discuss the sandbox issue on the Taberna. I have used a sandbox in the past. My usual habit is to create subpages of my user page, so in fact I have a series of subpages right now containing information that will become articles one day, maybe :) I could call them User:Andrew Dalby/Wigati (When I Get Around To It) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 5 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Yes, if we activate the mentioned extension you'd still be able to create as many subpages as you want manually. This just helps new users mostly.

You have written harenario modulorum tuo which, if I'm not wrong it means "you personal module sandbox". Maybe it's a coincidence or maybe you've checked it before but that's Module:High-use#L-102 that we had yet to check. And it comes with a small error. In that line we need 2 expressions:

the general modules' sandbox
your personal sandbox

Why is that important? Because the extension, if we are to activate it, provides just a plain wikitext subpage as a personal sandbox. This doesn't allow you to write properly Lua code on it, those can be written on Lua pages, a page which we will create shortly here called something like "the modules' sandbox" which will serve similar purpose to Vicipaedia:Harenarium but specifically for modules.

Andrew's grammar is impeccable: in harenario modulorum tuo means 'in your sandbox of modules'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:05, 6 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, mi Iacobe! My teachers never once said that to me! If there is an error, Klein Muçi, possibly it was yours? You wrote "... or in your own module sandbox". I wondered if maybe the word "module" should have been omitted here, but I did not know, and translated the text as I saw it. If it's not a "module sandbox", but just a "sandbox", then please delete the word "modulorum". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 6 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Module:High-use#L-107: Changes to it can cause immediate changes to the Wikipedia user interface. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 00:54, 6 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Quo modulo inconsulte mutato, publicam faciem Vicipaedianam subito periclitari potebis". I changed this a little: I said By editing this module inadvisedly, you could suddenly put at risk the Vicipaedia interface. If this wording doesn't work for you, we'll try again.

"Inconsulte" is a handy word. It's quite polite, but it hints that you haven't thought things through. To get an idea of what that means in reality, observe the activities of the British government over any given five-day period. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 6 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha!

Etiam, mea culpa. You're right. I have been thinking of that line beforehand apparently and messed it up.

Can you also translate: the general modules' sandbox?

Generale modulorum harenarium (in the nominative, as the subject of a clause). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:33, 6 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IacobusAmor, thank you! :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:34, 6 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iacobus, thanks for your comments! I hope we'll keep having them once we finish the translations (we're close) and see the module in action. We could use some second, third (and more) opinions on that. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:45, 6 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Module:High-use#L-111: To avoid major disruption

"Ut evitemus turbationem gravem"

Module:High-use#L-112: and server load

"crebrioresque apud servatrum computationes"

Module:High-use#L-113: any changes should be tested in the [sandbox]

"mutationes omnes in [harenario] experiri oportet."

Module:High-use#L-114: The tested changes can be added to this page in a single edit.

"Experimento perfecto, mutationes uno motu in hanc paginam inserere licet."

Module:High-use#L-117: Changes may be widely noticed. Test changes in the [sandbox]

"Mutationes ab utentibus pluribus videbuntur: in [harenario] experiri oportet."

I believe the context is clear overall.

After this we have only 1 more series of string to translate and we're done. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:01, 6 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added those translations line by line above. I didn't find them very easy, and if Iacobus looks in again, so much the better! What about "servatrum", Iacobe? And what about "motus"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:45, 6 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Servatrum looks rightly formed. Not sure about motus. For 'to edit', Cassell's gives librum edere, and 'an editing' must be editio, but whether 'an editing' is the same as 'an edit' may be arguable. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:41, 6 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I felt that "editio" would not be clear to the average reader in this context. I was hoping for an understanding of "motus" something like a chess move or a step in a dance routine: in one move. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:41, 7 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last lines:

Module:High-use#L-121: Please discuss changes

"S.t.p. de mutationibus consule"

Module:High-use#L-121: Consider discussing changes

"De mutationibus consulere oportebit"

Module:High-use#L-125: on the talk page

"in pagina disputationis"

Module:High-use#L-128: before implementing them.

"antequam effeceris."

Again, I believe the context is understandable. After this I'll go deal with some technical details and show all possible banners that can be rendered by this module so you can make the syntax flow naturally in all cases. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 23:14, 6 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. I don't know why the first two messages here are different: seems to me they could be the same. Anyway I suggested a translation for each. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 7 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice observation! They're supposed to render on different occasions but to be honest, on both occasions each phrase could be used interchangeably. I've wondered the same thing when I've been localizing that part.

Anyway, the translation is done. I'll go and deal with some technical details now and be back with all the examples rendered here soon so you can fine-tune it further. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 22:14, 7 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emenda paginam

Salve! Paginam Rodolphi Graziani per transferendum hanc paginam creavi. emenda illam paginam quaesso! Mehdi khazaee (disputatio) 20:30, 7 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Da veniam: tempus mihi caret. 14:05, 8 Novembris 2021 (UTC)

Module:High-use/Fine tuning

Hello back!

So, this is how the text of the template will mostly look on modules: Module:Citation/CS1 (Check in top)

And this is how it will mostly look on templates: Formula:Latinitas (Again, check on top)

The module also allows for some special cases where you can specify the text further manually with the addition of some few parameters as explained here in Usage.

All those special cases and how the text appears on pages other than templates or modules can be seen here: User:Klein Muçi/Test.

Take a look at the examples and especially the usage explanations, tell me about the corrections that should be done and ask all the technical questions you may have. (Check the source code in /Test so you better understand what's happening.) :)

Keep in mind that the personal sandbox appears redlinked because we should have another discussion about that and that extension.

@IacobusAmor, please join the conversation and give us your thoughts on all this. If you think anyone else should participate too, do invite them here.

Finally, keep in mind you don't really need me to further correct anything because you can do so yourself in Module:High-use. You'll be able to see clearly the parts in Latin which are the parts responsible for the rendered text. And you can change those how you see fit. That said however, I'll be happy to make any changes if you require me to do them. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 23:40, 7 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on all the work you've done so far. I will follow up these links tomorrow because I have some real life things to do today :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:23, 8 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the messages are already quite good, but some tweaks are needed, and I will try to do that later today. Right now I have to go and fine-tune the outside world (i.e. clear up fallen leaves). If I encounter a real problem I will revert and ask you for help! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:32, 9 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple of small changes at Module:High-use. The result seems OK to me. Please revert if there is some unwanted side-effect. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:04, 9 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, all the changes are good. (I don't know why I had left the backslashes to begin with.) If you think we're done, we all can start using it with this template: {{High-use}}

We put it into the module's/template's doc page and that's it. As for the numbers of transclusions, those will get updated periodically by Smallem and the results will be here, alphabetically: Module:Transclusion count/data

So to recap: Smallem counts the transclusions of every template/module every month. Those that have more than 2000 transclusions are written in the link above, sorted alphabetically and fed to module Transclusion count. Then we can put the template High-use in templates'/modules' doc pages and it will show the warnings accordingly. Module High-use serves to configure the messages that are shown in template High-use.

Next I'll start a discussion about the activation of mw:Extension:SandboxLink at Taberna. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 19:59, 9 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me around what kind of templates you use for voting? If you use any. I mean templates like: Agree/Support/Disagree/Neutral, etc. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 22:40, 9 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I remember, we don't have such templates at all. On talk pages we just give our opinions: if a consensus for doing it emerges, it's done; if not, not. If it really comes to a vote, e.g. for a new admin, we add our name to a list without any template. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 10 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking about the sandbox link? If you explain in English on the Taberna what effect it will have, I can add a Latin translation. I don't think it's likely that there will be any dispute (but who knows?) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:50, 10 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did that. Take a look there. I wanted to vote myself but I'm showing my support with text. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:19, 10 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Let's wait and see Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:17, 10 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week now. Do you think I should go on with the phab-request given that there are no oppose votes/opinions? Or should we wait more? Maybe, given that you know this community better, you can ping some other users who may be interested in participating? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:25, 17 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I've asked two others today, so let's wait another couple of days, and, if no objections, go ahead. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:04, 17 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. The more, the merrier. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 19:10, 17 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely have a consensus now, so you can go ahead!

Usor:UV points out to me -- I hadn't noticed this -- the warning that the extension can cause mis-clicks because it loads after everything else: hence links to one's userpage and talk page move after rendering. A similar effect is caused by publicity banners: it can be irritating and time-wasting. I guess that there is no way around it: so, after we get the extension, we should observe whether this is really a problem and whether other editors complain. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:16, 18 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I believe Usor:UV has misunderstood that part. That warning isn't referring to that extension but to the gadget that existed before it. The extension was created precisely to solve that part, because the existing gadget caused miss-clicks, given that Javascript elements (what gadgets really are) load after all the other elements have been loaded. I know this because I used that gadget for some time before this extension was activated at SqWiki. But I understand how that part of text can easily be misunderstood considering how it is written. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 23:30, 18 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UV merely pointed me to the page; I read it and I misunderstood it! But that's fine, and thank you for explaining it clearly. UV has not objected to your proposal -- nor have I -- no one has -- so, as I say, you have a consensus :) Just go ahead. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 19 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I misunderstood that part! Thank you for the clarification! --UV (disputatio) 17:01, 19 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, okay then, I'll go on with the phab request and post the results at the Taberna for live updates on the matter. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 09:37, 19 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I translated those few words at Formula:Tracked. If you wish, you could rename the formula itself to "Investigatum" or "Apud Fabricatorem investigatum". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:22, 19 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes, a rename could be wise while leaving the English version as a redirect. I believe the move should be made by you to whatever name you feel like it would be easier to be used by the community. The second name looks better even though I'm not sure it would be better considering that it is far too long. The first one is better in that aspect but maybe you want to reserve that term for a different template related to articles, given the general meaning the word "investigatum" holds? Maybe you can use just "Fabricatorum" (assuming I have the case)? You decide. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 13:40, 19 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is now at Formula:Investigatum. If anyone clicks on that, they will see the words "Apud Fabricatorem investigatum" on the page, so all is clear. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:48, 19 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. :) Take a look at the SandboxLink discussion to see it in action if you have yet to see it. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 13:54, 19 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@UV, yes, I've done the same mistake before activating the extension some years ago. I'll go change the Mediawiki page now to hopefully prevent this from happening in the future again. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 09:28, 20 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Dalby, @UV, I rearranged the word order: mw:Extension:SandboxLink

I believe it'll be more clear now. Take a look, "just for fun". :P :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 09:38, 20 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: if I had read it the way it is now, I would have understood at once. Well done :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 20 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now it is better than before. Thank you! --UV (disputatio) 16:42, 20 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual changes

An anonymous editor overnight has made a slew of what may be unwelcome changes. I've fixed a handful, but others remain for the magistrates to puzzle out. In particular, I've changed "Formula:NexInt" back to the previous version, but it's still inserting a gratuitous apostrophe & new line. Did those errors originate with something that Klein Muçi did? (Hello, Klein Muçi!) Please alert the magistrates! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:24, 22 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a magistrate, I think. Thanks, Iacobe. I've reverted all the edits from this IP address that you hadn't already touched. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 22 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the most consistently awake at this hour, so I thought of you first. Btw, {{NexInt}} seems to be working correctly now. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:58, 22 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you again for reverting the edit on that formula. Klein Muci was the last-but-one user to edit it, but that's surely a mere coincidence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 22 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now (the next day) see what's happened! Mea sententia, interretiale protocollum maleficum ad ultimum supplicium hesterno die amandandum fuit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 03:14, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly better this way, but who knows. Thanks as always for watching. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal sandbox

The extension is now enabled.

Can you please create 2 Mediawiki pages so the name is on Latin?

MediaWiki:Sandboxlink-portlet-label and MediaWiki:Tooltip-pt-sandbox

On the first write the term that you want to call the personal sandbox. You'll see that it currently is named Sandbox - check on top of your screen, on red. On SqWiki we have it called "Personal sandbox". And on the second page write the tooltip that you want to be shown when you hover your mouse over it, a very short explanation. On SqWiki we have it say "Your personal sandbox". - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 19:48, 22 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. For brevity, the name is just "harenarium" (=sandbox), but the tooltip is exactly the same as the Albanian one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:39, 22 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you want to go with that? Maybe new users may be confused with the general harenarium. Or do you think that's not a problem? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 21:42, 22 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait and see. It's desirable to keep that line of links as simple and brief as possible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Can you notify at the Taberna that the extension has been enabled now and offer a very short guide on how to use it? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 09:28, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I test it, the subpage it creates is called "Usor:Andrew Dalby/sandbox". Can't we make it "Usor:Andrew Dalby/Harenarium"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was what we discussed on the last discussion, if you remember. That sandbox and documentation subpages are usually left on the /sandbox and /doc links while being "masked" however we choose. This helps technical maintenance because a lot of modules and templates expect to find the documentation, sandbox and testcase subpage by default on the /sandbox, /doc, /testcase sublink, Module:High use being one of them (that's why we discussed it the last time). This is the part we discussed it, if you want to check it out:

Is it fine that all your documentation pages, that is the explanations for templates and modules, are on the "Template/Module:Name/doc" link? The name that shows inside the documentation page and all its content could be however you like. They will just be located on Name/doc link. There are a lot of modules that ask for those details and they're all standardized to work with /doc-/sandbox-/testcases. Therefore it is common practice sometimes that the link part is preserved like that so that it can help in technical infrastructure and allow for easier maintenance and update but of course, you decide on that. For example, in SqWiki we use "Udhëzuesi" for documentation pages, which means "Manual" but the address of the page is always on /doc for the reasons explained above.

However if you still insist on changing it, it can be changed on Mediawiki:sandboxlink-subpage-name. But if you do that, for consistency we'd also have to change the link for modules' and templates' sandbox subpages and we'd have to manually change most code of modules and templates that make use of the sandbox page to be able to identify the new link. Because templates and modules that utilize a function like that are able to locate the /doc-/sandbox-/-tescase subpages (and tell if they currently exist or no, and offer an opportunity to create such a page if it currently doesn't) by searching for those default terms.

Does my explanation make sense? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:25, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have my own harenarium and trust it's going to remain available. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:20, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tested the newfangled sandbox, and it appears that we can have both a harenarium and a "sandbox." Maybe that's a convenience, or maybe not. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:31, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IacobusAmor, totally. And you can new ones add as much as you want. This discussion is just because many templates and modules want 1 standard, default place where to look for for the existence of sandboxes. If it exists, they automatically show that linked and if it doesn't, they automatically show a link and a suggestion to create it. But other than the "official", default one, each one can create as many personal/module/template sandboxes as they want. A standard is needed only because modules and templates aren't that smart as to be able to locate the many versions of sandbox subpages that may currently exist. They need something standard to check for and they can only speak of that. And given that many templates and modules already come premade with a code to check for -/sandbox -/doc -/testcase it may be a good practice to keep those as the standard links because otherwise we'd have to finetune each template/module imported. In SqWiki, what I suggested to also apply here and what is currently being applied, we've masked them. The button is on Albanian, the text in the header of doc pages is in Albanian and of course their content but only the link remains on original, that is, -doc, instead of -dok or -dokumentacioni or -manuali or -udhëzuesi. Klein Muçi (disputatio) 12:35, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you don't want us to rename all the subpages that turn up when you type "Usor:IacobusAmor/" in the searchbox? Some of the names are already cumbersome. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:04, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@IacobusAmor certainly not. It's a bit funny to me (not in a bad way) that you would follow that logic because apparently that's global. We actually did take such a change on SqWiki which was done with Smallem in 1 day but that was a matter of preference. And the discussion followed the same logical route it's following now (hence why I found it funny). But as I said, that's certainly not a mandatory of what we're talking. An user or even a template/module can have many subpages that serve as sandboxes for different reasons. I'm just saying that between those many subpages it can also have 1 "standard one" which will be the one to be autolinked. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 13:36, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, it is good that the personal sandbox is now called (in Latin) "Harenarium". On the other hand, I do not consider it necessary to rename template sandboxes, template docs and template testcases from their English page names, because not many users will edit these. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 19:25, 24 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, we did discuss this, but (perhaps naively) I just didn't realise that "/sandbox" would be the name visible at the top of the page when I created one. Since we agreed on this, let's leave it as it is and see what comments we get. If it enables Iacobus to have two sandboxes (or, of course, an infinite number of sandboxes plus one) this may even be a good thing! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:33, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text you quote to me in italics above shows us that you explained to me what the address would be: the consequence may have been clear to you, but, as you now see, I did not understand that the pagename as always visible in large letters would be "/sandbox". That's English, not Latin, and it's a highly visible area of the Vicipaedia page. Note Demetrius Talpa's comment on the Taberna: they can do it in French and Russian so why can't we? He's right. I think we must change as soon as possible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:33, 23 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

chicago vandal IPs

Yes, I think so. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 30 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam (musicus)

Hi, sorry to ask here but I can't find admins' noticeboard anywhere. This hoax was created by a crosswiki spammer (who is also impersonating me). Please delete it. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (disputatio) 13:47, 1 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The page has been deleted. I agree, the username seems too close to yours. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 1 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Music or another stuff

Good day or evening! I want to ask you about music category. What about writing articles about music albums, songs, games? Maybe we, users of Latin Wiki, need to expand this Wiki in mass culture? Frontfrog (disputatio) 22:35, 20 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Frontfrog. We get a lot of articles on these subjects (also about popular television series and actors). Currently most of them are created by people who don't know enough Latin to write a sentence. After waiting a few months for possible improvement, articles with no useful Latin text eventually get deleted. It would only take one person with a knowledge of Latin and an interest in these topics to start improving them and add more of them. Could that person be you? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:47, 21 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't know Latin very well. But it will be nice if someone respond. Frontfrog (disputatio) 11:57, 21 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disney LTA

Please delete Formula Draft:Pelliculae animatae a Walt Disney Societate creatae This is abuse by a LTA. he spam Machine ranslation crosswiki. WikiBayer (disputatio) 20:45, 26 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q is uid

Agis ? West chesterdefeat 2600:8805:8086:1200:5557:ADFE:66B:397F 03:57, 29 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:17, 4 Ianuarii 2022 (UTC)

Stewards' Election

Hello, Andrew!

This year is the second time I take part in the global stewards' elections (and maybe it will be so in the next upcoming years) and starting from yesterday the voting is open. As I was rereading my statements and answers to the questions that are being made to the candidates, I found myself mentioning LaWiki quite a lot as it has been an integral part of my wiki work this year. Keeping that in mind, I thought that maybe you'd be interested in making your opinions be heard with a vote in regard to me. I am aware that the relationship of the community with me hasn't gone very smoothly so the votes can also be negative or neutral. And also you can vote for any candidate, it doesn't have to be me. I've mentioned quite a few times in my statements there that I strive for better global integration of small wikis in the global discussions and elections that happen and having some members from the LaWiki community take part in these yearly elections, hopefully regularly, would be a good step in that direction. You can also ask questions to all the candidates which would be even better.

I didn't want to notify at the Taberna about this, worrying that it could easily be considered canvassing, given that I'm part of the said elections.

The elections are being held here.

Of course, you can totally ignore this notification. The right to not vote is very democratic on its own. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 13:02, 8 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usor:193.54.167.180/mixing-sailors.js

Hello. Kindly delete the page, thanks. Minorax (disputatio) 01:14, 7 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Text revision

Hi, sorry to bother. I was trying to get this text translated to Latin. Would you be able to please revise it?

English:

Lingua Franca Nova (“Elefen”) is a language designed to be particularly simple, consistent, and easy to learn for international communications. It has a number of positive qualities:

It has a limited number of phonemes. It sounds similar to Italian or Spanish.
It is written as it is pronounced. No child should have to spend years learning irregularities.
It has a completely regular grammar, similar to the world’s creoles.
It has a limited and completely regular set of productive affixes for routine word derivation.
It has well-defined rules for word order, in keeping with many major languages.
Its vocabulary is strongly rooted in modern Romance languages. These languages are themselves widespread and influential, plus they have contributed the major part of English vocabulary.
It is designed to be naturally accepting of Latin and Greek technical neologisms, the de facto “world standard”.
It is designed to seem relatively “natural” to those who are familiar with Romance languages, without being any more difficult for others to learn.

We hope you like Elefen!

Latin:

Lingua Franca Nova (“Elefen”) lingua designata est ut maxime simplex, constans et facilis ad discendas communicationes internationales. Habet numerus qualitatum positivum;

Numeros phonemas finitos habet. Italice vel Hispanico simile sonat.
It is phonetically spelled. Nullus puer debet habere irregularitates discendi annos expendere.
Grammaticam omnino regularem, creolis mundi similem.
Habet limitatam et omnino regularem appositionem productivam appositionem verbi solitarii derivationis.
Regulas verbi ordinis bene definitas habet, multis maioribus linguis congruens.
Eius vocabularium in hodierna lingua romanica valde radicatur. Linguae hae ipsae sunt diffusae ac gratiosi, plus etiam maiorem partem vocabulorum Anglicorum contulerint.
Dispositum est ut naturaliter acciperet neologismos technicas latinas et graecas, de facto "vexillum mundi".
Ea ad eos qui linguas romanicas sunt familiares, "natura" relative videntur, quin difficilius sit aliis addiscendi.

Speremus te ames Elefen!

Thank you for your help. --Caro de Segeda (disputatio) 20:37, 15 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salve Mr Andrew spem u will, Mirette El Hariri pagina translate facta sunt Egone aliquid mutem, an non?

Haec commentatio non Latine scripta est. Ut teneantur, commentationes bona Latinitate scribendae sunt. Converte igitur, si potes aut opem apud Tabernam postula. Nisi aerumna inter hebdomadem soluta erit, commentatio delebitur. English language English This page is not written in Latin. If the problem is not corrected within one week, the page will be deleted. To save it, please rewrite it in Latin. Google Translate does not produce real Latin, but you can ask for help at the Taberna. Esperanto Esperanto Tiu ĉi paĝo ne estas latinlingva! Se la problemo ne estos solvita ene de unu semajno ĝi foriĝos. Por savi ĝin bonvolu reskribi ĝin en korekta latina lingvo. Interretaj tradukiloj ofte ne efektivigas korektajn latinaĵojn; tamen vi rajtas peti helpon ĉe Taberna. German language Deutsch Diese Seite ist nicht auf Latein verfaßt! Sollte das Problem nicht innerhalb einer Woche bereinigt werden, wird sie entfernt. Um sie zu behalten, muß sie neu geschrieben werden. Übersetzungsmaschinen liefern für Latein kaum zufriedenstellende Ergebnisse; dennoch kann man um Hilfe anfragen bei Taberna. https://la.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirette_El_Hariri HanyMarco (disputatio) 14:01, 27 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:19, 27 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verb. sap.: As a rule, it's a good idea to learn some basic concepts of a language before trying to write in it. For example, the subject of this biography appears to be a woman, but the first sentence (Mirette El Hariri ( natus 3 Decembris 1996 ) est Aegyptius Entrepreneur et Cosmetologiae Peritus) declares: "Mirette El Hariri ([he was] born 3 December 1996 ) is an Egyptian man Entrepreneur and [he's] knowledgeable in Cosmetology." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:46, 27 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suddenly realised what "spem u will" might mean. "Hope you're well". Do you think that's it, @IacobusAmor: Kitchen Latin, text-message shorthand, and misspelled English, in three words? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:39, 4 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems likely, now that you mention it. Humans are so ingenious! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:02, 4 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salve!

Salve, Andrew! Quomodo te habes? Tempus fugit. Wanted just to say hello. :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 17:39, 27 Martii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

N.B. Ongoing vandalism at FIFA (series lusoria)‎. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:17, 11 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another vandal?

Granted, we allow (and should allow!) registered contributors a great deal of latitude in what they put on their personal pages & subpages, but has this material gone over the line? Does Vicipaedia have a policy on this? Google Translate is our friend. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:20, 13 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. I followed your hint and took the necessary step immediately: apart from anything else, the text was not added by the user account but anonymously. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 13 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saulges

Salve, carissime Andreas, quomodo te habes?

Adiutum tuum in hac pagina necesse, quia nomen Gallicum inveni. Mutare possumus?

Tibi gratias ago.

Rei Momo (disputatio) 06:34, 3 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afui, rex Mome, sicut a tabula contributionum mearum videre potes. Philosophiam artemque rhetoricam apud Graecos imbibi. Domum hodie redeo.

Nonne tumet ipse potes, fonte in nota subiuncta citato, paginam corrigere et movere? Fortasse iam fecisti. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:29, 4 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sic!!! Et gratias ago causa responsae tuae!!! Rei Momo (disputatio) 13:17, 5 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neptunus (planeta)

Good day, dear Andrew! Firstly, what do you think about this article? Do we need to improve some language aspects? Secondly, why is the star icon is not reflected (when u see it from any other Wikipedia) since approximatelity May? Frontfrog (disputatio) 05:13, 3 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, FrontFrog. I'll look at the language of Neptunus. Meanwhile I can answer the other question. Each month it is necessary to go to the Wikidata page for the for the chosen article, to open for editing the list of Wikipedia links, to click on the grey medal against the "la" entry, and to select "pagina mensis". Then, after saving, you will see a gold medal against the "la" entry -- and the stars will appear on other Wikipedias. I have just done this for "Neptunus". If other articles were similarly left unmarked, you could go to Wikidata for each of them and do it now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:29, 3 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certamen musicum/Concentus vs. Concertatio (?)

Salvus sis, Andrea. Veniam mihi des, quaeso, quod rem fortasse levioris momenti ad te affero, sed longius iam mecum volvo, quomodo voces vernaculae "concert" et "concerto" Latine melius distingui possint. In thesauris vocabulorum, quos hucusque inspexi, tantum inveniuntur vocabula ad vocem "concert" pertinentia, nempe symphonia, concentus, certamen musicum, quae omnia ad eos eventus referri videntur, in quibus - ut ita dicam - "symphoniae classicae" (e.g. Beethovenianae) agi vel carmina Rock, Jazz cet. cantari solent.
Quid autem de voce "concerto", h.e. de iis operibus, quae eo consilio scripta sunt, ut instrumentum principale aut plura instrumenta profecto secum concertantia primas partes agant grege musicorum vel orchestra concinente?
Post longiorem quaesitionem tandem incidi in duos fontes vocem concertationis adhibentes, ecce:

Valentinus Rathgeber (1682-1750): Chelys sonora, excitans spiritum musicorum digitis, auribus ac animis accommodata et orbi data in bis duodenis, hoc est XXIV concertationibus, quarum 12 partim a violino principali obligato, partim a 2 Violinis Concertantibus (...). Augustae Vindelicorum 1728.

Gallus Zeiler (1705-1755): Orpheus Ecclesiasticus dulci fidium harmonia per XII concertationes ludens, 2 Violinis, Violoncello et Organo. Opus III, cuius mentio facta est in libro Cythara Davidica inscripto et anno 1750 Augustae Vindelicorum edito.

Ex his apparet concertationem id ipsum esse, quod nos hodie voce "concerto" designare solemus. Nobis igitur ea voce utentibus facilius licebit "Violin concerto" vel "Piano concerto" in Latinum sermonem convertere, fortasse Concertatio violinae principali obligatae et Concertatio clavili obligato, etiam "Concerto for Two Violins", forte Concertatio duabus violinis concertantibus.
Quid censes de hac re? Valetne vox concertationis, ut etiam hic in Vicipaedia Latina adhibeatur? An eam vocem fortasse nimis recentem minimeque classicam neglegendam iudicas? Tibi ingentem gratiam habebo, si quando rescribendi tempus tibi fuerit. Petrus Tectander (disputatio) 11:46, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Melius mihi scribendum erat "significationem nimis recentem minimeque classicam", cum vox concertationis in lingua Latina procul dubio exstet, sed musicali significatione prorsus careat. Petrus Tectander (disputatio) 12:01, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De musica paucissima scio! Usor:IacobusAmor fortasse placita sua scribet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:27, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sescentas gratias pro responso tuo ;)) Iacobum igitur rogabo. Petrus Tectander (disputatio) 18:31, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De quibusdam paginis delendis

Salvus sis, Andrea. Gratias tibi ago maximas, quod intervenisti. Quod ad illas quattuor paginas attinet, quas nuperrime ad delendum proposuisti: tibi assentior et auctor sum, ut deleantur, quamvis certe ac prorsus non sint minoris momenti. Melius tamen erit, ut mea fert opinio, si quando a collatore aut collatrice talium rerum optimam notitiam habente ex integro Latine rescribentur. Quid censes tu? Tibi obstrictissimus Petrus Tectander (disputatio) 09:39, 8 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amaro Pargo

Salve, de hoc; Disputatio:Amaro Pargo

Titulum articulum esse puto; Amarus Pagrus. Verbum "Pargo" = Pagrus, cognomen est piscis huius; Pagrus pagrus

Puto etiam nomen in hoc articulo Latinizandum esse: Maria de León Bello y Delgado.

Omnes optimis. 87.223.45.200 20:10, 12 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Vicipaedia cognomina hominum non finguntur. Si homines ipsi aut scriptores de eis iam his cognominibus Latinis usi sunt, valde bene: fontes cita!

Gratias tibi ago propter emendationes utiles nuper factas. Te nihilominus moneo: paginae, quae propter brevitatem textus "Non stipula" aut "Augenda" rubricantur, inter tres menses delebuntur nisi bono textu Latino augeantur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:11, 13 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.

Lest you miss 62.78.244.147, the (unhelpful & blockable?) editor of Carolus III (rex Franciae). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:12, 24 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Threats

See my talk page and the article on Ataturk. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:35, 9 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes. Blocked of course. Delete the message if you wish -- I leave that to you. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 9 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In many jurisdictions, it's evidence of a major crime (see "Terroristic threat"), and whether it should be hidden is therefore unclear. Covering up evidence of a crime can also be a crime! Should it be reported to legal authorities? (If so, which ones?) It's also evidence of ignorance of the difference between an encyclopedia & propaganda. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:55, 9 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. On that specific legal issue, deleting it from your talk page does not cover up the event because evidence of it remains in the history. You may decide that deleting it makes your talk page pleasanter for you and others to read. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:05, 9 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, that's true. Let's think on it. Since the perpetrator describes herself as a girl (not a woman, not a man), maybe she can learn something from a rational response. (Note that she's not the only one who's recently inserted propaganda into Ataturk's life; or is it the same person?) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:24, 9 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My uneducated guess is that it is the same person. Anyway, I have protected Ataturk, though I fear he is beyond my protection, and I will continue to observe. I sent you an email meanwhile. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 9 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De pagini movendis

Gratias tibi ago, revera oblitus sum, quomodo motio rite facienda sit! Utilo (disputatio) 14:14, 22 Augusti 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De nomine Catalauniae/Cataloniae/Catalanae

Salve! Commentationem de Lingua Catalana augere volo. Tamen ex disputationibus eius paginae atque Catalauniae videtur numquam consensum esse de nomine eius terrae et linguae. Egomet huius rei haud sciens sum. Quaeso tu et alii in Disputatio:Catalaunia sententiam, si habes, proferas. Arbarulo (disputatio) 14:33, 25 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

De nomine linguae in Disputatio:Lingua Catalana hodie scripsi, fontibus in ipsa pagina citatis: tu etiam placita tua addere potes.

Regionem usque adhuc "Catalauniam" appellavimus. Non nobis necesse est nomen linguae nomenque regionis ad eandem orthographiam cogere. Si mutare proponis orthographiam "Catalauniae", ad Disputatio:Catalaunia aliam orthographiam suggere, sed, nota bene, inutile est ullam orthographiam urgere nisi fontes fidei dignos illius orthographiae citantur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:27, 25 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias ago! Cum bene coniectaris dissimilitudinem orthographiae mihi non omnino placere, tamen nihil novandum esse reor, nec causas dissimilitudinis explorare meditor. Arbarulo (disputatio) 18:52, 25 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dissimilitudinem non Latine tantum reperimus, sed in plurimis linguis: Anglice Catalan Catalonia, Francogallice catalan Catalogne, Catalane català Catalunya, etc. Fortasse hae formae etiam tibi displicent?

... sed ad quaestionem levem respondere non necesse est! Paginam de lingua Catalana a te aucta impatienter exspecto. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:56, 27 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivity policy

Hi, it seems that there are some inactive admins: [9] Has there been any thought to enforcing the inactivity policy? Rs chen 7754 03:52, 2 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Enforcing" is not a word I would choose. Yes, our policy is to suspend admin rights for inactive admins and to restore them if the admin later wishes to return. What's your opinion right now?

Thanks for the link, which I have made a note of! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:57, 2 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to your community, however a few of the admins have not edited for over 3 years, which can be a security risk. (Though in my opinion 6 months is a bit too short, but that is what your policy says now). --Rs chen 7754 23:15, 2 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, @Rschen7754: thanks for your added comment. I will now initiate a process on la:wiki. There are differences between cases, and you may be right that 6 months is really too short. So I'll ask on the Taberna for consensus to extend the qualifying inactivity period to 12 months, and then send messages to the inactive admins. This will take a few days, but there is no need for the stewards to take action meanwhile: it will be done here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:12, 3 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Links useful to me: Vicipaedia:Magistratus; Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 26#IMPORTANT: Admin activity review)

@Rschen7754: I am sorry that owing to other pressures this has taken me longer than I intended. There has been no objection to making a change to the rules, so I will extend the qualifying inactivity period to 12 months, and send messages first of all to those admins who have been inactive for twelve months, warning that their tools will be withdrawn unless we see them here within 1 month. Secondly I plan to message those who have been inactive for six months, reminding them to reappear soon. Thirdly, one month from now, I will withdraw admin tools from thos admins who have been inactive for 12 months and do not respond. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:04, 20 Decembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iulianus Sands

Hello.

Can you add the disappearance with news sources of the English actor Iulianus Sands in his article? He has been missing since 13 January 2023, after he went hiking in the San Gabriel Mountains in California near Los Angeles.

Yours sincerely, 31.200.22.67 10:24, 28 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't usually do actors, but I expanded the article a little bit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:02, 29 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. 31.200.22.67 19:37, 29 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magistratus

So, I remembered the deadline incorrectly, and lost my status. Per our email correspondence, can we attempt to reinstate me? Thanks, Iustinus (disputatio) 01:17, 31 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Iustine, I'll have a go at it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:07, 31 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was easier than the corollary. You're a magistratus again. Stay with us, mi Iustine! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:13, 31 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False listings in the 10K list

Both Alan Moore and Gary Moore have crept into our version of the list of 10K articles, but neither seems to be found in the list at Meta. The former may have been added by someone who didn't know any better, but the latter was added by someone who did, so I'd guess that the name was once on the official list but is no longer. And to make matters worse, Henricus Moore should be on our list (in the sublist of sculptors), but isn't! I've fixed the errors in the articles, but am hard-pressed for time at the moment. Maybe you can fix the list itself? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:50, 3 Februarii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IacobusAmor: No, I can't. Ann Mahoney does it with a bot when needed. Best ask her. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:53, 3 Februarii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaminum Vitamina

I've moved this discussion to Disputatio:Vitaminum. Hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:41, 12 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to test the two new templates {{Excepta}} and {{Accepta}}… – Yes, I signed it for you ;) --Grufo (disputatio) 20:07, 12 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pars excepta, nunc apud: Disputatio:Vitaminum § Iterum de lemmate – Locus opportunior --Andrew Dalby

More vandals

Congratulations on appropriately handling two of today's vandals, but you missed 37.25.85.201 and 185.244.240.147, which might be the same person using two computers to insert possibly scatological personal insults into the mainspace; see David. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:15, 9 Maii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now at 13:31 and 13:32, you've got two more gambits from the one(s) attacking that controversial Turkish leader. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:17, 9 Maii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannes Teresi

Hi. Would you mind casting your eyes over this article and the recent additions and the means of reference. It seems that it is getting out of hand as an encyclopaedic article, and becoming a wikiquote article. Thanks if you can. Billinghurst (disputatio) 00:48, 4 Iulii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: Sorry, I was travelling and therefore didn't respond till now. In general, if barely-notable people are really publishing in Latin, we allow some leeway: hence I haven't considered this page recently though I've noticed the frequent additions. I'll have a look and report back. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:33, 6 Iulii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No issue, no urgency. I note, I flag for the community. Billinghurst (disputatio) 22:21, 6 Iulii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formula:Petitio

Hi Andrew,

I did not get much feedback, so I will ask you too what you think about {{subst:petitio}}. The page Coronamentum regis Philippi II (1179) might be the perfect opportunity to try! If you want you can just add {{subst:petitio|Movenda|Coronatio regis Philippi II (1179)}} where you would normally write {{Movenda}} (i.e. on top of the page). After you do so, you will be asked to start a new chapter in the palk page; it might be a bit redundant in this case (as we already have a discussion), although to be pedantic it wont't be, because it will be specifically about moving the page to “Coronatio”. Let me know what you think! --Grufo (disputatio) 17:21, 30 Iulii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tested it, I saw what it did, and eventually I used the simple "Movenda" formula. I did that because there is already a discussion, but mainly because the formula as you advised me to use it doesn't highlight the basic message "It's suggested that we move this page". That's the important thing. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:28, 31 Iulii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a comment at Disputatio Formulae:Unienda. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:34, 31 Iulii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andrew. «Doesn't highlight the basic message "It's suggested that we move this page"»: It does, but you need to complete all the steps. At the very end only {{Movenda}} will be left (without any visual difference compared to what happens when you use it directly). However you stopped some steps before the end I am afraid. You need to follow the instructions until the last edit. Maybe you can try it in the harenarium? --Grufo (disputatio) 09:10, 31 Iulii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but why would I want to go through all these steps? I don't get that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:18, 31 Iulii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Coronamentum regis Philippi II (1179) you would have few reasons indeed, because we already have a discussion. But in the case of a page where you still need to write the first message, using {{subst:petitio|movenda|...}} gives you two small benefits:

It prepares a message with the right title for you (we can even add a prepared model for the message body if we want)
After you publish the message the text “profer in pagina disputationis” will contain a link to the exact section where you left the message.

A few words must be added also to the benefits that {{subst:petitio}} brings to Vicipaedia:

It forces editors to leave a message in the talk page when they use certain templates (because as you saw these don't show up until they leave a message in the talk page)
It adds a link to the right section in the talk page.

Point #1 of this second group is the main reason that led me to create {{subst:petitio}}. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:37, 31 Iulii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand better now. As you realise, we can't really force editors to do anything! After all, they can simply walk away. But we can try to persuade them. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:07, 31 Iulii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That is why it is optional. …That reminds me that I should add a tracing category for those pages in which {{subst:petitio}} has been used but the editor has walked away before leaving a message in the talk page (at least now we can trace these cases!). --Grufo (disputatio) 13:17, 31 Iulii 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a test

Hi Andew,

At Usor:Grufo/Experimenta/e3 I am experimenting with {{Confestim delenda}}. I am checking that |mora=sic expires after seven days. I will clear the page myself at that point, but in the meanwhile, please do not delete the page. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:15, 8 Augusti 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angolia

FYI: see the talk page, where I've added some details. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:19, 15 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Wan

Hi Andrew. The pages Grace Wan and Gratia Wan might require your attention. In my opinion the history of d:Q111459086 shows a clear self-promotion effort. --Grufo (disputatio) 08:00, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and other Wikipedias have agreed, but I was just waiting to see if anything more happens. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:34, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salve!

Salve! Si dicis hunc articulum non esse latine, potesne adiuvare hunc articulum latine accipere? 70.68.226.203 09:32, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, no, I don't write about actors. Please do not ask any more individual editors for help. It is clear that you have been trying to spread Grace Wan across many Wikipedias. Promoting actors is not the purpose of Vicipaedia, so you are wasting your time here. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:40, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vulpem hunc articulum in linguam latinam nunc expolire conor. 70.68.226.203 09:48, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non ulterius promoveri. Alios actores vidi plus 10 diversas linguas Vicipaediae habere. Cur plures linguas habere possunt, sed hic articulus vicipaedia linguas plures habere non potest? 70.68.226.203 09:51, 20 Septembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De nexibus addendis

Salve, Andrea, quonam modo possim paginam Coemeterium Montis Parnassi cum ceteris paginis coniungere? Si ex pagina Latina nexum addere temptans "la" in tabella scribo, ad "la .lojban" aliasque quasdam linguas sed non Latinam selectum ducor. Forsitan in hanc tabellam aliqui cimex vel bug irrepserit? Sin autem ex pagina Anglica per "Edit links" in Wikidata intro, nullum invenio edendi locum (Edit). Itaque nullo modo videor hanc paginam cum ceteris coniungere posse. Neander (disputatio) 17:05, 4 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neander: Non "la" sed "lat" in tabella scribere necesse est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:39, 4 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias ago! Neander (disputatio) 18:07, 4 Octobris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T&J Podcast Interview Request

Hi Andrew,

Hope you're well! My name is Christine Laskowski and I'm a Berlin-based journalist and the host and creator of a brand new podcast series called T&J, which is devoted to 6th century Byzantium and the greatest recorded love story on earth – that between Empress Theodora and her husband, the Emperor Justinian.

I'm developing a corollary series of bonus episodes where I have in-depth conversations with scholars about a subject I believe deserves more attention. One of those subjects is food, which is why I’d love to have you on as a guest. The recorded interview would take about an hour.

I have one episode like this already out about 6th century Byzantine travel with Dr. David Parnell. T&J is on Apple Podcasts and Spotify and wherever you get your podcasts.

Let me know if you're interested, and we can figure the rest out from there! I can be reached at tandjbyz@gmail.com

Yours truly,

Christine 89.247.173.174 11:52, 6 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typographia mathematica

Hi Andrew,

May I ask you if you could you add this at the end of our common.css file? --Grufo (disputatio) 20:11, 8 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I don't have permission to do this. I believe I had in the past, but a few pages of this type can now only be changed by an "interface administrator", a newer group, of which I'm not a member. I guess that's the reason. I think our only member is UV. Since UV hasn't been active recently I'll try an email first of all. If I can't contact UV we'll consider further ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:30, 8 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Grufo (disputatio) 22:48, 8 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UV has now responded at Vicipaedia:Taberna#Typographia mathematica. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:46, 10 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andrew. I saw it now :) --Grufo (disputatio) 03:57, 11 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies among the French geographical names

Hi, sorry for not writing in Latin as unfortunately I don't know it well enough. I see that you made major contributions to the French geographical articles, and I would like to ask why there are so many name discrepancies?

Here on Latin Wikipedia a few names of the French provinces named after the Gallic tribes are ending with -ia (Arvernia-Auvergne, Petrocoria-Périgord etc), while the most others are ending with -ensis (Bituricensis-Berry, Lemovicensis-Limousin, Pictaviensis-Poitou, Rutenensis-Rouergue, Cadurcensis-Quercy, Cenomanensis-Maine, Andecavensis-Anjou etc).

Same issue occurs with the city names: some of them are using classical names (Lutetia-Paris, Durocortorum-Reims, Andematunnum-Langres, Augustoritum-Limoges, Segodunum-Rodez etc), while the others are using late Latin names (Pictavium-Poitiers, Petrocorium-Périgueux, Sées-Civitas Sagiensis, Bellovacum-Beauvais, Ambianum-Amiens, Baiocae-Bayeux, Metz-Mettis etc).

Shouldn't the article names follow certain naming patterns instead?

Симмах (disputatio) 21:39, 18 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question. We are like other Wikipedias in making reliable sources our starting point. We follow these for each name (e.g. place name) where we can; if sources supply multiple names, as they often do with places that have been in existence for two millennia or so, our aim would be to offer the commonest alternatives in a first sentence, to discuss any additional useful names in a footnote or a later sentence, and to choose one for our pagename, ideally one that is most frequently used in reliable recent Latin sources.

Many more sources are available online than when we began in 2001, so if you find names that are not well supported by sources, and find alternative names that have better support, please move a page (citing sources) or start a discussion on the talk page. To follow a single pattern across a wide field can be very good, but not always. Actual usage is important, and the reliable source policy takes precedence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:03, 19 Novembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De Eugenio Delcroix

Salve. Gratias pro commentariis de Stanley Clisby Arthur, quos in idioma Zamenhofianum verti. Insuper de photographo eo:Eugene Delcroix commentationem Esperanticam pepigi. Quaestio mea num tu ipse velis etiam de Delcroix Latine scribere. Ne ambo in eadem re operam demus ... - Giorno2 (disputatio) 05:45, 22 Decembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optime! Conabor! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:02, 22 Decembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denique habemus commentationem de Dorothea Dix, quam adiuvabat Ella Bentley, uxor nostri Stanley C. Arthur! - Giorno2 (disputatio) 08:52, 23 Decembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

De paginis autotranslatis

I am not sure if I was too direct here, because then this and this followed. But what is the alternative? --Grufo (disputatio) 21:08, 31 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page Lancelot Hogben was a good start and I thanked him for it. Looking at Glosa and Interglossa I don't see machine translation there. From the history, you intervened in Interglossa very quickly, a few minutes after his third edit: he was probably still at work.

So what made you say "machine translation"? He doesn't confirm it in his reply to you: he might rather have been disappointed at your inability to understand him. What do you think on reflection? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:08, 31 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I intervened quickly. However where I placed the {{Pagina autotranslata}} I am quite sure that they were automatic translations. You can see it by yourself:

Interglossa: Vicipaedia – Google Translate
Kamo no Chōmei: Vicipaedia – Google Translate

(Unless we believe in infinitely typing monkeys that does not need a confirmation from the editor.) What I understood from the user is good intentions (he thanked me when I reviewed these pages), but also the expectation that others will complete what he starts. In any case the sense of {{Pagina autotranslata}} is just “Please don't leave the page like this” – the template even invites to ask for help. I do feel sorry however when I hurt someone, no matter the reasons. And as this was your “salutatio” I am sorry if I ruined it. Maybe you could intervene too in the discussion in his page? --Grufo (disputatio) 22:33, 31 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, working from the latest items on "Nuper mutata", it's easy to intervene on a page when someone is still working on it. If I find I've done that, I always apologise afterwards, and I think maybe you could do the same.

The "autotranslata" template includes a threat to delete, doesn't it? It's appropriate, in my view, when someone dumps a machine-translated page and goes away, and no one wants to improve it. But that is not the case here: (1) He didn't go away, he introduced himself on his user page, he was working on his pages. Many people in many contexts use machine translation as a start, then edit the result. If that's what he was doing, it's quite normal these days and it's the correct way to use it. (2) Giorno2, Iacobus and I had all been working on some of his pages, you too, so evidently we saw some good in those pages at least.

I'm probably miffed because I took the trouble to thank him for appearing here. But this is not personal really: when someone new arrives and starts working I always try to make a friendly and positive comment, if no one else has done it already; I know that others do the same. Potential Wikipedians are strange people (!) but warmness can encourage them, while criticisms and long disputes in the early stages can drive them away. "Don't bite the newbies", they say on en:wiki. They often forget, however, and we also have forgotten occasionally.

I've got a lot to do in February so you may see a little less of me. Enjoy your editing! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 1 Februarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

«The "autotranslata" template includes a threat to delete, doesn't it?» Indeed. It also shows the face of a very mean robot. However I left another message; let's see how it will go. Enjoy your February! --Grufo (disputatio) 14:18, 1 Februarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked in. It went well! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:07, 1 Februarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputatio:Pugilatus pedibus pugnisque

I am he who fight against w:pl:WP:chicago boys. Can you add header to sole topic at Disputatio:Pugilatus pedibus pugnisque, since it is missing there at this protected page? Surely new topics will be there from registered users, NOT these IPs, and otherwise index of content at left will not include it otherwise. 83.30.178.117 10:16, 5 Februarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it. I've added the heading. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 5 Februarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek Wikipedia approval

Hi! I am sorry to bother you but I was wondering whether you could possibly sign this petition in order to get the Wikipedia in Ancient Greek approved. Thank you so much for your help. --Jon Gua (disputatio) 11:07, 19 Februarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did it, but I won't go there again. They made me jump through too many hoops. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:59, 20 Februarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Greek Wikipedia approval

Could you also vote here, please. Thank you so much for your help. --Jon Gua (disputatio) 11:12, 19 Februarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere to vote on that page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 20 Februarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

jane rowlandson

Book she planned on slavery in ancient Egypt completed and published; I wanted to tell you about launch. 2A00:23C7:980F:4201:85F1:3CA3:88C7:1A98 21:31, 26 Februarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for tracking me down, I'd like to know more. I don't want to put my email address here right now, but if you now look at the menu on the left, you might see a line saying "email this user". If that's the case, please send me a message that way and I will be able to reply! If that isn't possible, you could send an email to Maria at Reaktion Books: she would forward it to me -- see their home page reaktionbooks.co.uk -- Andrew

Translation request

Hello. Can you translate and upload the article en:Azykh Cave in Latin Wikipedia? Yours sincerely, Multituberculata (disputatio) 00:00, 29 Februarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll start that article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:14, 29 Februarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article created by LTA

Hi, sorry for writting in english. Please delete Santadas Kathiababa. I requested deletion (although an IP keeps removing it) because the article was created by a LTA, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Srabanta_Deb. Also my guess is they used machine translation to create this article. Thanks. আফতাবুজ্জামান (disputatio) 15:20, 12 Martii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have marked for deletion. Please add a further comment at Disputatio:Santadas Kathiababa if you wish (English is OK in discussions). Thanks Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:02, 12 Martii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: A user was continuing to work on the page, and the subject is notable. So after deleting it according to consensus I pasted the edited text to his userspace at Usor:IacobusAmor/Santadas Kathiababa‎‎, and I moved the talk page there also. He can decide when it is good enough to restore the article to mainspace. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:49, 15 Martii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petrus Nguyễn Văn Hùng

Nihil mali est cum hoc argumento, cur aliqui usores eam per linguas delere volunt? --2402:7500:5E7:D9D1:9C9A:252D:6E86:8A78 04:35, 16 Martii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonus/Newton

Pars excepta, nunc apud: Disputatio:Newton (unitas) § Newtonus/Newton – Locus opportunior --Grufo

subst:salve

Salve Andrew! Tibi scribo tantummodo ut memorem formulam {{subst:salve}} semper per substitutionem ({{subst:salve|...}}) scribendam esse! :-) --Grufo (disputatio) 13:59, 18 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formula:LLH-geog

Hi Andrew. I just added {{Formula obsoleta}} to the documentation of the {{LLH-geog}} template you created. The reason is that the link does not point anymore to the 15th edition (in fact the author replaces it with the latest edition once a year); and if this template is used together with a page number things will break after one year. I have just created {{LLHL24 geo}} – which remains foreven tied to the 24th edition – to solve the problem (when a new edition gets released we can create a new template – e.g. {{LLHL25 geo}}, {{LLHL26 geo}}, and so on). --Grufo (disputatio) 01:56, 20 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about this formula, Grufo. I'm very glad you have reminded me about it and solved the problem! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:57, 20 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome :-) I am seeing now that no pages use it, so it could be easily deleted if you want. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:29, 20 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formula:Movenda ad redirectionem perituram

Hi Andrew. This might add workload to admins, so I would like to know what you think (see Ave Maris stella for an example usage). The main difference with {{Movenda}} is that this template basically says “Don't wait for a discussion, just move the page now if you can”. I am also not so sure about the name. An alternative name was {{Confestim movenda}}, but since the use case is limited only to replacing redirects (anything else would require a discussion), I wanted to express it clearly in the name. Yet, I am still not sure, and the current name sounds just too verbose… --Grufo (disputatio) 20:10, 26 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking :)

Whether one should invite a discussion before moving is a matter of judgment: (a) has there been previous discussion which needs to be revived? (b) are there several possible moves, or is the intended move the only and obvious solution to the problem? If one decides there is only one solution, and makes the move, other Vicipaedians are still free to disagree and start a discussion, so nothing is lost by a move. OK, so the formula for inviting a discussion in that case is {{Movenda}}.
When we move pages we always have to give a reason.
Some moves over redirects can be performed without involving a magistrate, and others can't, but the difference is technical (essentially, I think, what history lies behind the redirect) and the problem is solved by asking a magistrate to do the move. For this case, we want a formula that doesn't invite a discussion but puts the page into a subcategory of "Corrigenda". Correct? So, in my view, the title could be "Statim movenda". The formula should urge the Vicipaedian using it, as well as the magistratus, to check the specific details that are listed. I doubt there's a need for so much text on the formula: the fact that "someone has failed to move this page" is a bit boring and the statement that "a redirect must perish" is misleading because in the end nothing will be lost: it's all just housekeeping. I think the text just has to say "A magistrate is requested to move this page to '...'", and it should require a reason (which the magistrate can then repeat when making the move), so there needs to be space for the Vicipaedian to give a reason.

Oddly enough, in the case of Ave Maris stella I would disagree with the move! If I understand correctly "Maris stella" is a title of Mary, and capitalizing the first letter of that title makes the fact clear, so it's better the way it is. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:38, 27 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything, and this template is only for the technical impediments – i.e. if there hadn't been a redirect the editor would just move the page without a discussion, because they chose to do so (with everything that applies to it). The technical impedement is this: if A is a redirect to B with only one edit (i.e. the creation of the redirect itself), then B can be moved to A by everyone, otherwise an admin is required. The rule makes sense, because there are pages that have become redirects but used to be separate pages with a long page history, and so deleting these redirects would erase their entire history. There is something also in the history of Ave maris stella (the redirect): someone had started writing the page, but as soon as someone else realized there was already an identical page they turned it into a redirect. Situations like these can be much more articulated, and to preserve these articulated cases the rule above was adopted. This would not apply to the simple history of the Ave maris stella redirect, but in other cases an admin will have to decide what to do. However it would still be a technical decision, not one based on consensus, which is why an admin is enough (it is about pages' history, not about content). In the case of Ave Maris stella, after putting this template an admin would make the move (technical); at that point if someone disagrees on the matter, either reverts it or opens a discussion, like it would happen if there hadn't been a redirect. As for the specific case of the name Ave Maris stella, we can discuss about it in its talk page :)

Concerning the technicalities of this template, I think an own category would be necessary, because Categoria:Paginae movendae is to be visited by anyone who want to participate in discussions, but Categoria:Paginae confestim movendae or Categoria:Paginae statim movendae would make sense only for admins, who from time to time will have to visit it (a bit like Categoria:Deletiones celeres propositae). As for the title, something like {{Statim movenda}} or {{Confestim movenda}} (by analogy with {{Confestim delenda}}) had crossed my mind, as I wrote earlier. However that would not send the message that this template is to be used only when the target is already a redirect, not just anything else (but maybe that doesn't matter). As for the text displayed, I have just shortened it (what do you think?). --Grufo (disputatio) 18:20, 27 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and forgive me for not suggesting a Latin wording. I've been quite busy ... In fact there could be other possible reasons for using the formula: an anonymous user, or a user with less than 4 days of edits, might propose an obviously correct move and be unable to do it. That user could now do it this way rather than moving by copy-and-paste, which we strongly deprecate. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 28 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Andrew. I just created an own category for this template: Categoria:Motiones celeres propositae. Now I need to know about some technical details first (I want to know if it is possible to detect automatically if a page is a redirect) and then I will come back with a proposal about the template's name. If we change the scope of the template (e.g. IP moving pages), that will change also the scope of the category (any editor can make the move for the IP, not just admins, and so the category will be of interest for every registered user). I am still not sure about this (maybe IPs could just use {{Movenda}}?). --Grufo (disputatio) 19:37, 28 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right there. I'm happy to leave to you to decide which formula is to be used in each case. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:02, 28 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for now I have created also {{Confestim movenda pro usore sine nomine}}, which is basically a clone of {{Movenda}} that says “If I had been a registered user I would have already moved the page myself. Please, help”. The category here is the same of {{Movenda}}: Categoria:Paginae movendae. Personally I use {{Movenda}} when I want to open a discussion, otherwise I would just move the page myself. So this template covers the “move the page myself” scenario in the case of IP addresses. I have also created the category Categoria:Formulae motionum. Now I need only to find a better name for {{Movenda ad redirectionem perituram}}… --Grufo (disputatio) 21:45, 28 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition. I found the name: {{Confestim movenda praeter redirectionem}}. --Grufo (disputatio) 12:09, 29 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think now we can test {{Confestim movenda praeter redirectionem}}. There are a couple of pages in Categoria:Motiones celeres propositae; one page in the category was due to an error of mine back then; as for the case of Ius gentium, I checked most of its backlinks, and it seems that people already used it as Ius internationale (i.e. not as Ius gentium antiquum), so no big changes are needed. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:11, 8 Maii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion about a new template

Hi Andrew. I created this template by looking at {{fr:traduire depuis}} and {{en:expand language}} – our version is much simpler to use though. Exactly like it happens on English Wikipedia, the template can potentially require a lot of categories – exactly one per language – but that also depends on how often it is used (see for example the “red” categories in our Tonarium page); therefore I would like to know what you think. --Grufo (disputatio) 01:38, 21 Maii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition. I see now that French Wikipedia uses only one global category. Maybe we should follow the same example? The good thing of having separate categories is that they allow native speakers to focus only on their language. --Grufo (disputatio) 02:17, 21 Maii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the choice of language that we initially make will depend on personal opinion and may not be relevant to a future editor, who will be able to check what existing versions could be used. That's not a good basis to create a range of categories, so my first impression is that a single category is enough. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:16, 22 Maii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course a person is free to choose any language they want to translate. Usually articles are very well written in two-three languages and the other languages have only stubs about the same subject, so the well written articles would be the ones suggested. The perspective would change however if instead of the article you started from the category: imagine you are a German native speaker who knows Latin and today you feel like you want to translate something from your language; you would just go to Categoria:Paginae augendae Vicipaediam Theodiscam interpretando and pick one page among the ones that are advertised there as “well written” in your language. But I guess this is something we could add in the future (if ever), and for now we can happily stick to one category. P.S. I have just renamed the template using a more concise name. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:56, 22 Maii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:30, 22 Maii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diyarbakır et Eskişehir

Dear Andrew, I think these two article is OK right now. Best. Vincent Vega (disputatio) 13:18, 27 Maii 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indirect deletions

Hi Andrew! These pages that you deleted used the {{Deletio celeris obliqua}} template:

That is a template added to talk pages to indicate that the discussed pages must be deleted as well (usually this happens when a discussed page cannot itself contain a deletion template, as it is the case of CSS pages). This means that you will have to delete these pages too:

I hope that the use case of {{Deletio celeris obliqua}} is clearer now. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:28, 25 Augusti 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for explaining. I've done that now, and I see that the formula is necessary in cases such as .css pages.

In that one last case above it would have been better to use a delete formula on both pages, because the deleting admin makes a decision based on the page that's visible. For example, one often leaves a talk page undeleted for a while in case the discussion continues. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:43, 25 Augusti 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andrew! I agree, but the user placed the deletion template, not me :-) P.S. {{Deletio celeris obliqua}} has a |disputatio=servanda option in case the talk page itself is worth saving (but of course the admin may disagree). --Grufo (disputatio) 14:30, 25 Augusti 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translation request

Hello, Andrew Dalby.

Can you create an article about the American Democratic Vice Presidential candidate en:Tim Walz (Timotheus Iacobus Walz) in Latin Wikipedia, just like for the Republican Vice Presidential candidate Iacobus David Vance?

Yours sincerely, 31.200.11.5 13:47, 31 Augusti 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair! Maybe someone else will get ahead of me; otherwise, yes, I'll do it as soon as I can. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:20, 31 Augusti 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They did get ahead of me! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 31 Augusti 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I decided to ask you as well, because I thought the original uploader, to whom I first posted this request, might be a "one timer" and might not upload an article or edit in Latin Wikipedia again. 31.200.11.5 15:55, 31 Augusti 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's no problem, and it's good if current events bring us new pageviews and new contributors. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:59, 31 Augusti 2024 (UTC)[reply]