You've adumbrated four "Poetae formalistici" and two "Poetae formalistae". Since there are six, it's more efficient to create the category than delete the redlinks, but please tell me which form of words you prefer! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:33, 8 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The agent-noun derived in recent times from newly coined words ending in -ismus commonly (but not exclusively) ends in -ista, and poeta formalista ('formalist-poet') might work as a double noun, much like participant-observer, a term of art in anthropology. Consistency is to be effected in such words whenever possible, but which pattern is best remains unclear. For yet another option (with faults of its own), see the hidden code in the basic article on the subject of new formalism in poetry: Novus Formalismus. (Whether to capitalize the names of movements is a topic about which people will no doubt have opinions.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:31, 9 Ianuarii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You had probably forgotten the discussion at Disputatio:Iudicia de magia apud Salem acta. Because of this, while merging your page with the existing one, I also changed the categories. I don't think we ought to say that these ladies were witches, though some people certainly thought they were!
It's nice to see you back. I realize I still have far to go with latin but I would appreciate if you would hint a bit more to what would be wrong with the article.--Jondel (disputatio) 06:58, 1 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your corrections to Jeepney and your inputs about 'a kind of'. Portmanteau is great word to know but we can't use that word in Latin don't you think? Besides, in many current English dictionaries, it is a kind of travelling bag.--Jondel (disputatio) 09:34, 9 Aprilis 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Romance languages suggest retroactio, retroalimentatio, realimentatio. Retroago is an attested classical word, so retroactio might be possible as a {{convertimus}}. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:01, 7 Maii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like very much to suggest retroalimentation. The others seem like 'drive/push back'.Btw I can hardly do wiki these days because of my job.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:17, 21 Maii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While awaiting your reply there, I noted the redlink category names "Pelliculae documentariae atrae-et-albae" and "Pelliculae nigrae-et-albae". I'm going to delete these redlinks because (apart from being inconsistent with one another) these forms don't sound like real Latin to me. If I'm wrong, maybe cite a parallel? If I might be right, maybe consider instead "Pelliculae unicolores" or "incolores"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:52, 20 Maii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear IacobusAmor, I noticed that you created the Categoria:composita inorganica in 2010. In English inorganic[1] and in French inorganique[2] is used (with an in privativum), while in German[2] and Dutch[2][3]anorganisch is used (with an α privativum). Earlier in English anorganic[4] and in French anorganique[4] was also used, but English anorganic seems to be nowadays restricted to "denoting tissue (e.g., bone) from which the organic material has been removed".[1] The adjective inorganicus is not attested in classical Latin.[5] In case one would find such a word, one would expect that it would resemble the ancient Greek adjective ἀνόργανος,[6] instead of a hybrid derived from Latin in- and ancient Greek ὀργανικός. In Neolatin one can find anorganicus[7][8][9][4] and anorganus,[8] the latter more closely resembling ἀνόργανος. By the way, English inorganic is also translated in modern Greek as ἀνόργανος.[10] I would like to suggest a move to composita anorgana. In ancient Greek ἀνόργανος is both the form for the masculinum and femininum with ἀνόργανον for the neutrum. My source for anorganus only specified the masculinum, but we could use anorganus/-us/-um (M/F/N)? I would like to know whether you would agree. In case this request is unfounded, I would appreciate it, if you could explain possible objections. With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 14:54, 14 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question. I hadn't thought about it, but Google suggests that inorganicus is in well-established Latin use, going back at least as far as Francis Bacon (hic), and of course to the works of Linnaeus (hic) and other authors (e.g., The Elements of Materia Medica (1839) and Cursus philosophiae naturalis, de inorganicis, de vita vegetativa. . . (1912)). The OED traces English inorganic(al) back to 1621, but anorganic only to the late nineteenth century. If in an encyclopedia, as in dictionaries and biological taxonomies, prior use has pride of place over later use, then Bacon and Linnaeus trump Kraus (1844), Siebenhaar (1850), Schlockum (1879) and Divry (1982). Generally, like you, I cultivate a classical style, though we have to allow for the exigencies of technical terminology. Regarding categories, perhaps it's best to wait for the return of Andrew, nostri regis categoriarum. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:32, 15 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's of interest: Cassell's Latin Dictionary, focusing on the classical idiom, reports:
Dear Iacobus, thanks for the sources. It seems that inorganicus is slightly older. The earliest source I can find currently is from 1700 for anorganicum and from 1673 for anorganus. I know that the principle of priority is used in botanical Latin. In terminici technici from other disciplines, like anatomy for example, priority is less of a concern as many terminici technici change over time. The official nomenclature committee declared that they do not want to change terms to often, but over the last 120 years some terms went through three or four revisions. Although the official nomenclature committee dictates to use their latest approved list of anatomic terms, different spellings/forms can be found within the same list, with some spellings more adhering to classical Latin or their ancient Greek roots than others. Kraus' earlier publication Kritisch-etymologisches medicinisches Lexikon was devised to correct incorrect forms and spellings used by his contemporaries and predecessors. Although I can not find inorganicus in his Lexikon, I think he would probably remark that the form would be falsch and would suggest anorganicus. Unfortunately Kraus didn't list the more rare anorganus as can be found in Siebenhaar's dictionary. But I find it an excellent idea to wait for Andrew's input! With kind regards and thanks for the response, Wimpus (disputatio) 11:04, 16 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to invite me to comment, gentlemen! On the minor issue of how to form the feminine (you probably knew this, Iacobe? Greek adjectives normally have a feminine in -a/-e if they are simple words, but in -os if they are compounds) I believe that it is very rare in Latin to transfer -us -us -um from Greek, and that it would startle readers, so we should prefer -us -a -um.
On the major issue, I really don't know what's best. In an article we can of course list all three attested forms, but in a category name we have to choose one. My initial inclination is to say that if "inorganicus" goes back as far as Bacon, and is additionally close to the form in many modern languages (though admittedly not modern Greek), it will be much more familiar to readers and may deserve a slight preference for that reason. Also, to me, Greek "anorganos" ought not really to have the required meaning: it ought to mean "without an organ". What do you say to that, Wimpus? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:46, 24 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Andrew, thank you for response and insights. Regarding the feminine: there are a lot of Greek loan adjectives in the Tensaurus Italograecus[11] that have two endings, i.e. -os for the masculine and femine and -on for the neuter. And there are by the way alot of feminine loan nouns that end on -os (anhydros, diametros). In case one wants to import a word from Greek into Latin one can stick to the Greek form on os. Some people[12] however cast doubt on the Latinitas of this procedure to keep the Greek ending intact:
"Of course, there can be no question about the existence of forms in -os for Greek -ος and -on for -ov in a certain class of writers of the Silver Age, when, according to that same Juvenal, Rome was more Greek than Latin. Apuleius occasionally so transliterates; but it is simply one of his many Greek mannerisms. Pliny the Elder is responsible for the most of the transgressions of that law which are to be found in the dictionaries; his reason for such violation of the Latin law is found in his desire to present the technical or scientific words of his Greek original in an untranslated, unchanged form. The same phenomenon, with the same reason underlying, is to be found in the Church Fathers. And so we have, hammo-chrysos, hady-osmos, ophidion, gingidion, and many more; most of them, as I said, are Pliny's Latin, but Pliny's solecisms or mannerisms should not be good enough for any one when a better than Pliny (in point of Latinity, at least) can be found; and the law both before and after Pliny was: Greek ος is Latin -us, and Greek -ov is Latin -um."
For a Greek adjective of two endings one can create a masculine adjective on us. But do we have to create a third ending on -a for the feminine? In the Tensaurus Italograecus there are enough examples of Greek loan adjectives on ος/ov that became -us/-a/-um in Latin. However, are these exact forms in each gender attested? Miller[12] comments on this procedure:
"In general, it is arbitrary and inexact to make adjectives of three endings in Latin out of Greek adjectives of two endings. The old Latinists used the form in -us for both masculine and feminine, and -um for the neuter; e. g. curo-troph-us (-os), masc. and fem., curo-troph-um (-on), neut.; dory-phorus, masc. and fem., dory-phorum, neut.; disco-phorus, masc. and fem.; eu-petalus, masc. and fem.; poly-stomus, masc. and fem., -um, neut. The only exception I find given in the Latin dictionary is di-somus, -a, -um; but that is erroneous and should read disomus,- um."
I only have difficulties in finding these aforementioned forms as adjectives (as adjectives: curotrophoe[5][11], it seems like a plural feminine). So I have to try harder. But, it seems a complicated issue.
As you have mentioned, Ancient Greek ἀνόργανος is translated as "without instruments"[6] or "without organs (zonder organen)"[13] and ὀργανικός is translated as "serving as organs or instruments, instrumental"[6] In this respect, it seems like ἀνόργανος is related (negatively) to ὀργανικός. But to make it more complicated, in Ancient Greek the adjective ὄργανος/η/ον is also attested with the meaning "working, forming"[6] as well as the verb ὀργανόω, "to be organized"[6] (hence anorganus as "nicht-organisiert"?). So, could anorganus can also be seen as the opposite of organicus? As I mentioned earlier, English inorganic is also translated in modern Greek as ἀνόργανος.[10] Or is ἀνοργανικός also attested as translation of English inorganic? I must admit, that I am more accustomed to the form with the alpha privativum and not with the in privativum as in my native tongue (Dutch), the adjective is anorganisch. Maybe I have created even more confusion. My apologies :) With kind regards, Wimpus (disputatio) 21:39, 24 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
↑ 2.02.12.2Haan, H.R.M. de & Dekker, W.A.L. (1955-1957). Groot woordenboek der geneeskunde. Encyclopaedia medica. Leiden: L. Stafleu.
↑Everdingen, J.J.E. van, Eerenbeemt, A.M.M. van den (2012). Pinkhof Geneeskundig woordenboek (12de druk). Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
↑ 4.04.14.2Foster, F.D. (1891-1893). An illustrated medical dictionary. Being a dictionary of the technical terms used by writers on medicine and the collateral sciences, in the Latin, English, French, and German languages. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
↑ 5.05.1Lewis, C.T. & Short, C. (1879). A Latin dictionary founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
↑ 6.06.16.26.36.4Liddell, H.G. & Scott, R. (1940). A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
↑Kraus, L.A. (1844). Kritisch-etymologisches medicinisches Lexikon (Dritte Auflage). Göttingen: Verlag der Deuerlich- und Dieterichschen Buchhandlung.
↑Schlickum, O. (1879). Lateinisch-deutsches Special-Wörterbuch der pharmazeutischen Wissenschaften. Leipzig: Ernst Günther’s Verlag.
↑ 10.010.1Divry, G.C. (red.) (1982). Divry’s modern English-Greek and Greek-English desk dictionary. New York: D.C. Divry. Inc., Publishers.
↑ 11.011.1Saalfeld, G.A.E.A. (1884). Tensaurus Italograecus. Ausführliches historisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Griechischen Lehn- und Fremdwörter im Lateinischen. Wien: Druck und Verlag von Carl Gerold's Sohn, Buchhändler der Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften.
↑ 12.012.1Miller, W. (1897). Scientific names of Latin and Greek derivation. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 3(1), 115-143, p.127 Lapsus in citando: Invalid <ref> tag; name "”Miller1897”" defined multiple times with different content
Gildersleeve (#338) implies it's a Greekism, a verbal tic of Sallust & Livy, and "much more common in the poets": "Good prose uses the Ablative for [it]." No matter how we look at it, your cordem isn't the accusative of cor.IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:16, 25 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know now, cordem was a mistake, good catch! I will try my best to avoid Greekism, but shouldn't we use more of fundamental grammar? Books on higher prose are not too available.--Jondel (disputatio) 16:35, 26 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for intruding, o amici. In these terms the alternative to "prose" is "poetry". I don't think it's a good idea for us to try to write like the poets :) We really are writing prose. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:05, 26 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is great to have people like you around. The rest of us are not Latin specialists, eg we need to stick to basic grammar. Which also brings me to the question, I see a lot 'this is used in poetry' in my Teach Yourself Latin book(can't remember any grammar rule now). I'm, sure it is ok to use them here right?--Jondel (disputatio) 18:16, 26 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how peculiar or self-conscious you want to sound. If a grammar says "used in poetry," it's probably warning you to be careful about using it in prose. As a rule, check any hints about usage that dictionaries give. They may say point-blank that a word is poetic: for 'sword', Cassell's offers "gladius, ensis (poet.), ferrum (esp. in general or abstract sense)." Or you may have to figure it out for yourself from the citations given: for gladius, Cassell's cites Caesar, Cicero, Vergil, Livy; for ensis, it cites Lucretius, Livy, and Vergil. Those sets of authors alone tell you that gladius is going to be perfectly acceptable in prose, but ensis has the danger of evoking poetry, or at least sounding a little odd. Maybe the situation there is like sword and blade in English: the latter (like ensis) can be found in prose, but it's not the usual term, so it might lead a reader to wonder what's afoot. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:09, 26 Iulii 2014 (UTC)[reply]
cari amici IacobusAmor e Jondel, allora vi dico che i numeri delle statistiche, purtroppo non è *perfetto*, perchè non è facile avere numeri ufficiali, ma solo su Istituzioni come la EUD o la WFD qualcosa sui numeri si sa qualcosa ma non sempre purtroppo...
quanto ai termini per favore non scrivete NON UDENTE in quanto è un termine offensivo, quindi propongo di usare semplicemente i termini come Deaf People, ok??
se avete dubbi o problemi da chiarire riguardo alla conoscenza della Comunità Sorda, chiedimi pure...
Iacobe, if you feel interested in the sign language articles, that makes me happy and I'll leave them alone for a bit. There is definitely a need for one Latinist, but not necessarily two :) If, on the other hand, you'd rather not, just let me know. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:29, 4 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Language-related topics engage my keyboard in general, but the textual hiccups in question have elicited from the little gray cells about as much as they're likely to, at least for the moment. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:25, 4 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Surdus, so we should use deaf people not deaf? Homines Surdi or Homines surdium? For myself (To Andrew and Iacobe) I don't know if there is anything I can add now. So I'd be leaving the articles alone for the meantime. --Jondel (disputatio) 11:44, 4 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As was implied before (on another page), homines surdium doesn't make sense: surdium isn't a word, and even if it were, it wouldn't look (in the slightest) as if it might be an adjective modifying homines.IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:25, 4 Augusti 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you removed two supercategories that all other comparable categories have, and left one blue and one red supercategory in their place, thus making the categories more difficult for others to find
you added hidden text in English
We ought surely to aim always to leave pages (even category pages) in a better state than we found them in. I think (tell me if you disagree) that you left these two in a worse state than you found them in.
You are, of course, correct to flag Usor:Mabelina's changes; she seems to be a beginner at Latin. But the edit history this morning looks a bit like an edit war -- is that really useful? I've been trying to clean up a bit of the mess she's left (she? with no user page I'm going by the username), and it may be more constructive to correct the grammar instead of just flagging the pages, time permitting of course (it's looking like one of those crazy semesters). I'm not going to do anything drastic here; verbum sapienti.... A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:19, 11 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to you both & thank you for your concern re Pro Merito Melitensi. I can assure you that it is out of innocence & my definite rusty Latin (as if it were ever perfect!) that I am finding it difficult to perfect the Latin phraseology. My reason for introducing the article is because this Order happens to be among the few extant examples of Latin in usage today and which has no recognisable equivalent name in the vernacular, hence I thought it would be of interest to our Latin readers. What to do next? & thanks again for your help. M
PS. but it is not only me who has been editing this article, hence a bit of confusion on my part as to whose previous edits to follow/correct/etc... Thanks again.
They were all helping, or at least trying to. At bedtime, 17 of 54 words were problematic, and now at breakfasttime, 15 of 55 are. Jondel's overnight ministrations (not all of which were successful) raised the score from 69 to 73, on the scale I once experimented with: still a –5, but better! (The scale from minus one to minus seven, and the descriptions like "Latinitas huius paginae magnopere corrigenda est," predate my arrival in Vicilandia.) If we were to back-translate the text into English, you might be surprised at how bizarre the diction is, but no time is available today. For starters, ask yourself why, in the caption, you changed (the correct) Crux to Cruce ; since all captions lacking a visible verb are sentences fundamentally of the form "[This is an] X," it wants to be in the nominative case. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:17, 12 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Salve Iacobus & thank you for your kind suggestion re eques Venerabili Ordinis Sancti Ioannis. I concur that it is a minefield trying to word some modern-day formal protocol satisfactorily in Classical terminology - but I guess it is worth it, otherwise our Latin readers could quite excusably assume that things which have (d)evolved continue as was to the present day!
I hope you approve of using in vulgare for Ursula Mirouet, and it is my intention to expand the UM article and others (where I know something about the subject), but since so many of my recent posts have been amended (notwithstanding that my Latin is/hopefully becoming less) rusty! it has been difficult for me sometimes to know whose edits are good ones to follow... Perhaps you could be so kind as to give a brief overview of Ordo pro Merito Melitensi? which I introduced being one current institution which has no recognisable name in the vernacular, & of course hoping that the subject itself is of interest to some! Thanks again & till soon M
Time is lacking, but if you really want to improve the text, start by learning something about declensions & conjugations. This is your text as it stands:
Ordo pro Merito Melitensi est ordo meritum Suprema Ordinis Melitensis (breviter S.M.O.M.) anno MCMXX condidit. Pro viris feminae non solum membrorum Æcclesiae Romanae qui sibi afferentit ut auxilioque operam det honore et decus Ordinem Melitensis retributur. Honores per decretum Summo Consilii sunt concessit motu proprio pro Magno Magistro ordinis.
This is more or less what it's saying, with each problematic word rendered in a similarly problematic way:
The Order for Maltese Merit is an order, a merit. The Funeral Rites of the Maltese Order (briefly S.M.O.M.) in the year MCMXX it founded. For men and a woman's not only of the limbs of the Roman Tchurtch whooch conveigheth to himself so that it might apply himself and to assistance by honor and a dignity to the Order of a Maltese is repayied. The Top of the Council has honors by decree. It granted by a motu proprio on behalf of the Grand Master of the order.
The wrong (or extremely problematic in context) words are:
meritum, Suprema, S.M.O.M., condidit, feminae, membrorum, Æcclesiae, qui, sibi, afferentit, auxilioque, honore, Ordinem, Melitensis, retributur, Summo, Consilii, sunt, concessit.
That's 19 words out of 49, giving a score of 61, which on the scale I devised long ago is a –6. Even this isn't as dire as –7, which indicates that a text isn't written in Latin, though it would be hard to argue on the basis of what the text is actually saying (see the translation above) that it belongs in a published encyclopedia. Two or three times the text has (perhaps generously) been marked –5, and several times you've removed that indication, in effect asserting that the Latin is satisfactory. Let's fix that right now (inserting –6). Meanwhile, see if you can figure out what's wrong with the words listed above. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:48, 18 Septembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Ordo pro Merito Melitensi conditus anno MCMXX a Ordine Supremus Militaris Melitensis (breviter S.M.O.M.). Ordinem meritorum pro viris feminisque non solum fides Ecclesiae Romanae pro honore et decus ad Ordinem Melitensis retributur. Honores concessit per decretum Supremus Consilii motu proprio pro Magno Magistro ordinis."
This article has only just been started & at least hasn't received a -7 Latinatus mark so, in addition to quite a few other areas where Vicipaedicia could be improved, is this going to be easy for me to do with messages such as the following!
{{Non stipula}}
Haec pagina nondum stipula est. Oportet inter 7 dies admeliorare. Paginis minimis Vicipaedicis necesse sunt:
Titulus, in prima sententia litteris pinguibus repetitus
Textus (e litteris 200 vel pluribus compositum) qui rem utiliter describat
Nexus extra-Vicipaedianus (sive et fons bibliographicus) qui rem satis corroboret
Nexus interni caerulei ex hac pagina et in hanc paginam; categoriae caeruleae (aut formula {{Dubcat}}); pagina annexa apud Wikidata (aut formula {{Nexus absunt}})
Aliquid maius, huic encyclopaediae congruens, e.g. textus (explicationes, historica, exempla); imago cum descriptione; nexus externi utiles plures; bibliographia.
I think a hiatus might be better than constant wrangling..? M [= Mabelina, commode signare iam nolens, 05:47, 19 Septembris 2014]
Statim autem adiecit commentario Ursule Mirouët hora 05:23 diei 20 Septembris 2014 priorum verborum auctor:
Rumoris huius exploratur atque Ursule innocentiem probitate.
You raised a good point at Disputatio Categoriae:Musici Iaz but it would be better if at the same time we could make all the names agree. I see that at Disputatio:Jazz you suggested, long ago, "Iazensis musica" and cited a source. There was no follow-up, but I don't see anything better about the later alternative "Musica iazzica", so we could now go with "iazensis" as you then proposed. Or we could accept "iaz", quietly assuming that it is the notional base form of "iazensis". What would be your preference? You're our greatest musician, after all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:44, 4 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We were told that "z" always scans long, so a doubled "z" would imitate non-Latin orthographies and imply a weird pronunciation. Neander keeps warning about using unmarked order in lemmata. Putting these considerations together gives us musica iazensis or musica iazica. Declinable forms are always useful, and even English has jazzy.IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:38, 6 Octobris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling the first paragraph is all made up. The transvestite bit was what first made me suspect something, but actually it's hard to find any reliable source that says Comus was a god in Greek mythology. Can you find any? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 3 Novembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A while ago I was standardizing geographical categories across the world (I mean, the small world of Vicipaedia). Thinking about what kind of thing categories so named actually contained -- all sorts of geographical things that were not towns -- I renamed those that already existed to "Categoria:Res geographicae ..." and went right on and created categories under that name for all countries (for listing see here). But I didn't touch the ones you had created for single US states, because they were OK as they were and there was no reason to fiddle with them (for listing see here). Now that you are doing some more US geographical pages, it strikes me that it might be a good idea to change these too (e.g., Categoria:Conformationes terrestres Floridae to Categoria:Res geographicae Floridae) and then, if you want to make new ones for the remaining US states, they could follow the same pattern. We could change the existing ones automatically, if UVbot will help. Would you object? If you have a reason for preferring "Conformationes terrestres", please say so and we can leave them as they are -- it seemed to me too long and abstract a formulation, but you might view it differently! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:36, 1 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Res geographicae is fine, but these and other permutations are sometimes too much for the little gray cells to keep straight—which is why the first thoughts that usually come to mind echo the formulations in enwiki. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:42, 1 Decembris 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That change is all complete now, and if you want to create further categories "Res geographicae ..." for US States that don't have them yet, by all means go ahead. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:32, 21 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that Societas Avium Cohortalium et Ovorum Civitatum Foederatarum, one of your translations, retained the "Defaultsort" of the English page. "Defaultsorts" from an English page need to be deleted when you're translating, because they make the page file under its English name, normally wrong for us. This one made it file under "U. S. ..." although the pagename you chose (rightly I think) was "Societas ..." No one looking through the category page would understand why this title beginning with "S" was filing under "U".
There is the exception of people's names -- we need defaultsorts for those, adjusted from the English ones, to make pages file under the person's surname. But other defaultsorts need to be deleted.
Thanks for your comments on the Taberna. I have created formula {{Attributio}} (example of use: {{Attributio|fr|François Hollande}}) to be placed on a talk page. I have to admit this has an advantage over the summarium method in that it links automatically to the history page of the original. And it is quick. So, anyway, as they say in American restaurants, enjoy! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:36, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another thing I hope you may enjoy using. The new formula {{Creanda}} should be very little trouble and would help potential translators to get to work. When translating from en:, instead of simply making links which you know will be red, consider using this formula. Instead of
[[Collegium Amherstianum]] -- or
[[Collegium Amherstianum|Collegio Amherstiano]]
you write
{{Creanda|en|Amherst College|Collegium Amherstianum}} -- or
I see: you have to click on "(en)" to get the interwiki link. Interesting, but too much for tomorrow's contributions. Surely not needed for Linnaean names? Maybe to be used just here & there? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:18, 30 Ianuarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I agree, with Linnaean names it's hardly worth the trouble. The most useful occasions would be (a) if you think creation is "urgent", (b) if (because the Latin name is a translation) it might be difficult to find the relevant page on another Wikipedia. I notice you sometimes include an original name in hidden text in such cases. Instead of doing that, you could now think of using this method.
As you already see, if you wanted to turn any existing redlinks into this form, you simply change the final ]] to }} and change the initial [[ to {{Creanda|en|Englishpagename|.
Haec nuper videns categorias (quas alii corrigere possunt!) et imaginem (= aliquid maius) addo. Fontem iam observo in nota subiuncta positum. Igitur formulam removi: an recte feci? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:10, 3 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I probably noticed its entry in Categoria:Cryptographia when I was translating Alanus Turing, but I don't recall whether I read its text. Can Vicipaedia's machinery generate a list of who reads (or at least opens!) a given article? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:55, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said so in that discussion, while knowing all the time that quite a lot of the "Non annexae" pages are your creations ... But I think it possible that the problem of the "non annexae" taxonomic pages could be solved by a bot, which could possibly put a Vide etiam on the nearest available higher taxonomic node. That's what I do, without wasting more time on reflection, when I see such pages, but, possibly, a bot could do it quicker! We might ask a friendly bot owner about that ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:58, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That's not an ideal fix, but it'd indeed annexify all but a handful of the unannexed pages I've created (and some that others, including perhaps [is it] Hendricus under multiple anonymous IPs, have created), and it'd be much quicker than the progress I've been making along those lines, so it seems like a good plan. However, so I could continue improving the lot by hand, would there be a way of generating a list of something like "taxonomically ranked plants & animals not linked to an item at the next-higher taxonomic rank"? (I.e., species not linked to a genus, genera not linked to a family, and so on.) That might generate some surprises! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:55, 4 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were mistaken to say that Annecium is translated from French: I started it, and the history suggests it has just gradually developed from there (and hasn't reached very far yet!) Did you have a special reason for thinking that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 8 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does a link to the page have to do with it? A link to another wiki would most often mean the creator of the page is a tiro, but it doesn't in itself mean the page is a translation. To know that, I guess you'd have to ask the writer, or, if you really suspect copyright violation, compare the texts. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:30, 9 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's what the anonymous contributor did and continues to do, even today, just as I'd been doing for years. The likeliest default interpretation is that the link indicates the source of the text, not some random link that the author chose so as to tease the custodians of history. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:21, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It had that special meaning to you, as you explained elsewhere, but generally it would mean that the contributor just hasn't learned to use Wikidata yet. We can't just assume that someone else is translating from any particular source: if they are, they should acknowledge. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is all between you, Helveticus, and the anonymous IP. Doesn't interest me a whit :=) Let's just acknowledge our own translations, we don't need to guess at other people's. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:27, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you re-read, you'll see that your question there was about "people unfamiliar with wikipedia (perhaps in any language) who in good faith contribute translated articles without the acknowledgment discussed above". We do really have to look out for misguided copyright violation. Nothing to do with this. If you want to worry about the origin of these short stubs about French communes -- far too short to have any relevance to copyright issues -- you're a free man and can worry about it all you like, but it doesn't have anything to do with a suggestion of mine. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:21, 18 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
†For example, just last night I translated an article from the English wiki that doesn't cite any of the published biographies of the subject, so I added those in, all three of them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:27, 13 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When you add "Non stipula" to a page, I think it's important not to mark the edit as "minor". It could be a final warning for the page, so to speak. The more Vicipaedians who are aware of it, the better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:39, 24 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
... but, in case I haven't said so clearly enough, I'm very much in favour of this work. We have many pages that ought either to be improved or deleted, and you are finding them. I am rescuing some, but selecting the ones that seem to matter more :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the hidden text you had added to this page.
In one case (the Association of Jesuit Universities) I think there are two better ways to do what you did with hidden text: (a) adding the English name visibly, in parentheses, in italics; (b) adding the English name with the Latin names in a "Creanda" formula, as we discussed a little way above. That's the way I chose in this case.
In the other two cases, there was a link in the text, which you followed with a suggested link in hidden text, marked "melius". I don't see why, if we think something is simply better, we wouldn't do it for real. Hidden text is only seen by the small minority of readers who open an edit window. So most readers won't see what you think is "melius", and those few who do see it will not know who it was who thought something else was "melius", or why he thought it, or, if he thought it, why he didn't do it. And I am one of those; so I just removed your hidden text in those two cases, not knowing its purpose.
I think there are a very few cases where hidden text may be useful to all (usually when it says "Don't break this formula").
Those cases aside, I'd say in general adding hidden text to a page you're working on is fine, if you afterwards remember to remove it. If you forget to remove it, or if you add it to a page that someone else is working on, I'd say it's usually a nuisance, because some other Wikipedian then has the job of removing it. Maybe you disagree -- I know you add hidden text often. Anyway, since I think it's generally a nuisance, and I happened to know this is a page on which new Vicipaedians are working (see my talk page) I removed it quickly from this page because I thought it set a bad example. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:53, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden text is for editors, not readers. In Universitas Gonzagae, I've now unhidden it by applying the creanda to the rest of the links. To my eyes, the "(en)" doesn't help the readability. ¶ That's a good point about marking texts "m" in coniunction with "Non stipula," but the well-trained fingers sometimes forget. Long ago, when I created Cultura, Vicipaedia's longest page and surely one of the longest pages in all of Wikilandia, those fingers marked it "m" (an option no longer available at the creation of pages). ¶ Busy today. . . . IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:32, 27 Februarii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your change to Universitas Gonzagae. I think that's a good solution, [but I've removed some less relevant/less helpful links.]
I see what you mean about the legibility in formula:Creanda. Some wikis using a similar formula deal with this by making the (en) a superscript [en] like a footnote reference. Might that help? We can easily vary the format.
Since you noticed a French commune with 8 inhabitants -- and I guess it will have pages in 25 Wikipedias, i.e. 3+ pages per inhabitant -- you might like to laugh over the fact that an English village (Broad Chalke in Wiltshire) with about 700 inhabitants, a 1000-year history and several famous past residents was represented on only 3 Wikipedias, till I added a Latin page today. And that's not unusual -- I have found many similar cases while gradually adding English towns and villages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 12 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we covered the world with as much thoroughness as we cover French & Italian hamlets, we'd have hundreds of thousands of articles from East and South Asia! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:31, 13 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the National League of [US] Cities, the United States are the home of about 20,000 municipal governments, with an average of about 15,000 people each. Extending that proportion worldwide would imply the existence of about 500,000 municipal governments. Throw in the hamlets and we'd be swimming in articles! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:45, 13 Martii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fontes inveni et addidi. Lectoribus nostris (ut mihi videtur) utilius est fontes Latinos citare si possumus. Hoc autem casu artes grammaticae Graecae, Latine divulgatae, appellaverunt "primam et secundam declinationes" illam quam nos hodie "primam" nuncupamus. Propter hanc rationem fontem Anglicum insuper addidi, recentiorem, cuius terminologia cum tua consonat.
Iacobus noster recte fontem vel bibliographiam postulavit. Regula apud Wikipedias omnes est "Wikipedia non est fons fidelis". Ad notabilitatem et fidelitatem comprobandas necesse est fontem externum (aut plures) citare -- id quod paginas nostras lectoribus utiliores reddit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 9 Aprilis 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been reverted once more, I'd have asked about it in Taberna. Maybe putting the attribution into the text is the way they do it in the Esperanto wiki; for most readers, it probably looks like mere clutter. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:37, 21 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Salve! Thanks for your emendations on the Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok. Just one questions: as you may have noticed, I referred twice to the preface of the book in the Notae. Couldn't they also count as fontes, because aren't they technically extra-Vicipaedian sources? Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 15:04, 29 Maii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Iacobe. Why do you take out the hyphens from ISBNs? They are irrelevant to machines, but I think they are useful to human eyes because they distinguish elements of distinct meaning and make the number easier to grasp -- and we are writing for humans. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 15 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. 3 seems to be an argument for not bothering with bibliographies at all rather than for copyediting them, but, as it happens, I disagree on it anyway. I also disagree on 2. In general we don't follow the model of library catalogues in our bibliographies, so, although I don't dispute 1 (and thanks for the link!), I don't see it as strongly relevant. OK, I'll ask at the Taberna in case anyone else has a comment.
Melius erit regulam apud nos constituere ne editores futuri inutiliter labores aliorum mutent. De legibilitate, non de utilitate automatica, disputatur: apud machinas 0-19-860617-8 et 0198606178 idem sonant. Forma punctuata saepius in libris ipsis videtur (nisi fallor), forma soluta in catalogis bibliothecarum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 16 Iunii 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have nearly completed a project whose aim is to make sure we have biographies of all current heads of state and lists of their predecessors. The last area I have to deal with is Oceania. At Duces civitatum Australianarum et Pacificarum hodiernarum the navboxes I still have to complete are listed but I'd be really pleased if you would look at the names of countries and pronounce (Oceania being an area of your expertise!) on whether the names we are using are ideal. I'm especially doubtful about Palau, which we seem to call Belavia, but I don't know why. Should we be happy with that name? (I notice that the adjective "palauensis" exists in taxonomy.) If we want to change, now's the time. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:01, 22 Augusti 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you haven't replied, maybe the name Belavia is a mystery to you too! The creator of the page was Rolandus, a figure from our past, but no sign of where he got the name from. Anyway, I've asked on the Taberna in case anyone can shed light on it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:54, 9 Septembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My encyclopedia was advised by indigenous people to write "Palau (Belau)." There seemed to be some feeling that Belau should be used by native speakers of Palauan, but foreigners should say Palau. Indeed, the latter fits better with the phonology of many Oceanic languages (including the Polynesian ones, which have no /b/). This Belavia looks to be derived from Belau, but what's the source of the Latin? Presumably the Vatican would know. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:08, 9 Septembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd to say that all natives should say one thing and all foreigners another :)
Yes, I fear oddity stretches far beyond Palau. Though "Myanmar" is officially preferred as spelling, how many know how to pronounce it? And indeed, how many casual speakers can get close to Côte d'Ivoire (French, Canadian or Ivorian accent) or to Timor Leste (Portuguese, Brazilian or Timorian)? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:39, 9 Septembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found no source at all for "Belavia", not even apostolic, but if there really is one, of course we could follow it. Otherwise "Palau" seems to be practically universal in the Wikipedias, so we had probably better follow that trend. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:19, 9 Septembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We've discussed this briefly, long ago, and I know it's a possibility that is still in your mind. In mine too. In fact we've both done it -- you for Bostonians, me for Monemutenses. The question is, should we do it wholesale?
I shied off not because of any rooted opposition but (a) because of the amount of labour involved, (b) because we haven't yet got articles about enough cities, or verified their Latin names. But, meanwhile, technology overtaking us, it could now be largely done by a bot. This information (where someone was born) is stored at Wikidata, from which a bot could extract it to add the appropriate category to each biography on Vicipaedia. If we afterwards correct or verify a Latin name, a bot could probably change the category name to match.
We would need to make some decisions: the form of category name (it would have to be something that could be applied automatically); whether it covers all cities and towns and villages down to the smallest, or, if not, where it stops; and whether we take over the bot-produced result to make our own changes and additions afterwards, or leave it permanently automatic.
My default ideal has always been to follow the English wiki, so generally, I'd accept categories for cities (and surely Boston & New York would meet anybody's criteria for having enough wikified inhabitants)—but if bots can do it, so much the better. Discussion is better placed in the Taberna. Meanwhile, I have categories to bluify—but then we see in the disputatio for Erich Polz an implication that German and Germanic are the same languages, and then we see that my edits in Ocelum Genuensium have just been reverted, restoring the blank sections and putting the Notae below the Nexus externi. (Maybe the Italian-hamlet style won't distract overmuch if it's confined to the peninsula and can be kept from infecting other lands.) As Roseanne Roseannadanna used to say, "It's always something!" IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:18, 1 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we could transfer to the Taberna. The problem with city, internationally, is the lack of an international definition: in French for example both town and city are ville ... I'm not sure what's best. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:08, 1 Octobris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile my project for next year (having done enough world politicians for the time being) is to improve our coverage of world cities, I mean, those with considerably more than 12 inhabitants. This will as a side-effect confirm a whole lot of names which could then be applied to city-of-origin categories. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:46, 20 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That will most definitely be helpful. Btw, when you get to North American settlements, you'll find that many kinds of them—cities, towns, townships, boroughs, unincorporated locations, and so forth—have exquisitely precise definitions in the law. "Independent cities" (e.g., Fairfax, Virginia) may be located wholly within counties but are legally outside them. Correlating Latin terms with local concepts could sometimes be problematic. I've already added Oppidum Novae Angliae, a particular kind of town. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:26, 20 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about to create a few categories of this kind as examples. When those few exist, I'll ask for comments and possible adjustments before doing any more. Your comments will be eagerly awaited. Watch this space ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:55, 27 Iunii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have created some categories for Categoria:Homines per urbes digesti. You can see them all there, mostly new, but including some miscellaneous ones that you, I and others had created already. They are worded "Incolae Romae" etc. Corresponding categories on other wikis are usually worded in English "People from Rome", in German "Person (Rom)", in French "Personnalité liée à Rome", etc.
I suggest that we follow a guideline of ensuring there is a category for the city (creating it if necessary) before creating a category for "Incolae" of the city. That way, we can be sure that the same name is used and that the categories will be easy to find.
I am building them up by incorporating subcategories for
I wonder whether it is worth the effort to manually maintain "born-in-this-city" and "died-in-this-city" categories. Wikidata can give the answer if needed: here are two quick-and-dirty queries for people with an article on Vicipaedia that were born in Marseille and for people with an article on Vicipaedia that died in Marseille. (Note that these queries are quick-and-dirty in the sense that they currently only show persons for which Wikidata specifies they were born/died in "Marseille" itself, and currently do not show persons for which Wikidata specifies they were born in parts of Marseille, e. g. in the "2nd arrondissement of Marseille" - but it would probably not be too difficult to adapt the queries to include at least some parts of the territorial entity as well.) --UV (disputatio) 20:04, 6 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting, UV, I had a feeling you would notice this discussion. Your point about the use of Wikidata is important, and your example searches are very interesting. Given that only a few readers will use CatScan queries directly, are you thinking that we could and should persuade a bot to use Wikidata to produce born-in-city and died-in-city categories? (I imagine that the French wikipedia did this.)
A major question is, how reliable would that information be? I had noticed that Wikidata sometimes gives a place of birth or death that is either more specific (a district or even a building) or more vague (a province) than we would like. Also, naturally, Wikidata sometimes takes an apparently false place of birth or death from a Wikipedia that happened to have inaccurate information. The false and too-vague data should eventually be improved on Wikidata, and in that case would eventually be corrected in a bot-produced category. On the other hand, as you say, the query used by the bot would have to be shaped as well as possible to deal with over-specific data, because such data will probably increase: general policy on Wikidata seems to favour it.
My current feeling is that in spite of imperfections it would be useful to create these two subcategories automatically for those cities for which we have an "Incolae" category (probably a growing number). This would save manual labour, while still leaving us free to add the simple "Incolae" category directly on pages for people who didn't study or teach or come into the world or die in the city, but notably lived and worked there. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:21, 7 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that Wikidata encourages the use of very specific places of birth and death (e.g. hospital or road or urban district over city), and you are absolutely right that information on Wikidata is sometimes inaccurate and sometimes vandalized (just like information on Vicipaedia or any other wikipedia).
I have no objections at all against an "Incolae" category for people who notably lived and/or notably worked in a city.
It would surely be possible for a bot to produce and to update born-in-city and died-in-city categories, using information from wikidata. I, however, do not have the time to do this myself, and furthermore I am not sure whether such bot-generated and bot-maintained categories are the way we should go.
We might, however, consider creating a template that we could use on our "Incolae" categories and that provides two links very similar to the two links above: one link to the query for people born here and another link to the query for people who died here – either as a first step towards such categories or as a replacement for such categories. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:57, 7 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: I've gone to the circus and shall have no time for a few days. ¶ Too bad an encyclopedia can't always distinguish between a (legal) residence and a domicile. For example, a US citizen can be a resident of one state (for the purposes of voting, paying taxes, getting a driver's license, and being counted in the census) while spending most of his or her time (that is, "living") in another. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:17, 8 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, an encyclopedia can make such distinctions in footnote-supported text. I can imagine citing news reports about British and European politicians who notably don't seem to live where they claim to, or seem to live in several places at the same time. Wikipedia categories, though, don't help in such cases: they are ON/OFF, and you can't footnote them.
I take UV's point. Perhaps the suggested template is a better idea. Although I see some value in the well-stocked born-in and died-in categories available on French wiki, I must admit that it is a limited value. The fact that I was born in Liverpool isn't notable to me or to anyone else -- the hospital happened to be in Liverpool -- and there are many other such cases. When writing short political biographies I say where the subjects grew up whenever it differs from the place where they were born: the place where they grew up, and the places where they studied and worked, are significant in their lives. Analogously, an "Incolae" category that editors have chosen to add in each case will have greater value than a born-in or died-in category. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:32, 8 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neat, but there's one problem, I think. It didn't strike me before. These queries result in a list of Wikidata pages that contain links to Vicipaedia pages. OK, but Wikidata pages are user-unfriendly: most readers would not understand how to get back to Vicipaedia from there. Is it possible to make queries resulting in a direct list of Vicipaedia pages? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:18, 9 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
… and I have now improved the queries: They should now include people born in hospitals, urban districts etc. as well. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 15:26, 9 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, a few months ago you uncommented a section in Geometria about axioms. Do you happen to know what axiom system it is? They're not the ancient Euclidean axioms, nor the more modern axioms of affine (or projective) geometry. If they're some unknown system, I'd like to replace them. Bavo C. Jozef (disputatio) 19:38, 30 Novembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Iacobe. I realise I was deleting redlink categories the same day you were creating categories. If I deleted any that you were about to turn blue, revert me without a qualm. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:25, 17 Decembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. I'd intended to do the categories soon after adding the articles, but they must have slipped through the cracks. I've recently been working my way through categories for the batch added on 30 November, and am about halfway through. Unfortunately, this is a busy time of year. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:28, 17 Decembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Salve Iacobe. Certe recte scripsisti sepia pro saepia. Sed animadvertimus Plinium Maiorem pluriens saepiam scribere et Ciceronem in sua Natura deorum l. c. in editione Teuberiana item de saepia agere. Qua de causa saepiam vocabulum non plane falsum iudicandum esse egoquidem puto. Vale. --Bavarese (disputatio) 15:18, 20 Decembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sinete, o amici, me intervenire sermoni. Equidem puto saepiam hypercorrectismum esse, quo librarii medii aevi usi sunt. De Plinio quidem nihil certi nunc dicere audeo, utrum hic hypercorrectismus ex ipsius an ex editoris manuscripta deteriora secuti calamo ortus sit. Quod attinet ad Ciceronem (Nat.deor. 2.127), solum in editione Plasbergiana (Teubner, 1917) saepiae scriptum esse videtur, quamquam editionem Axianam (Teubner, 1933) consulere nequivi. Ceteris in editionibus sepiae scriptum est. Praesertim editionem Josephi B.Mayor dico auctoritate gravem, quem H.Rackham secutus est in editione Loebiana (1933). Neander (disputatio) 19:35, 20 Decembris 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Neander: Salve. Quid scriptum sit in editione Axiana anni 1961 (sc. in editione stereotypica editionis secundae 1933), cognitum habeo: saepiae, ut scripsi. In apparatu critico nullam invenio adnotationem pertinentem ad hanc rem. Sed non affirmo vocabulum saepia propabilius esse quam sepia. Immo - immortalis Linnaei praesidio - non mediocriter sum miratus legens saepia, non sepia. Valete. -Bavarese (disputatio) 21:51, 20 Decembris 2015 (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) 18:52, 1 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few them—Ahura Mazda, Aphrodite, and all other major godlike entities; Apostolus and all other consequential religious & philosophical terms; Carcharhiniformes and all other taxonomic terms at and above the level of ordo; Perotinus and all other historically indispendable composers, artists, and so on—are impossible for any respectable encyclopedia not to have and probably therefore shouldn't be deleted. Trivia like My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic and out-of-the-way hamlets not so much! (Insert arguments about notability here.) Maybe there should have been a category like "non stipula, but must not be deleted" for those. Just kidding! A proliferation of these formulas may not be a good idea. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:05, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have the choice: either add non stipula, or add a cogent sentence and a source! It doesn't take much. But it's time to do one or the other, surely. A ten-word article about a major topic does us no more credit than the absence of an article. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:13, 6 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cannot afford to lose articles for silly reasons. If you see the grammar is poor, then you yourself should fix it instead of putting a deletion tag on it. Philmonte101 (disputatio) 23:28, 11 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with Andrew, who invented the augenda formula, and UV, who imposed the pessima formula. It isn't an article: the augenda formula tells you what it lacks and, if it's to survive, what it needs. Meanwhile, if you care to save it, you might want to improve the text, which at the moment stands thus, with a literal English translation:
North Coast Inland Trail (Anglice) est et sternet sibi Ohium.
There is (in English) the North Coast Inland Trail and it shall stretch Ohio out for itself.
That's the likeliest syntax that makes the grammar of the whole text work. Of course, variants of vocabulary are available: for example, "it overthrows Ohio for itself" (but that and others are even more bizarre than the one given above); also, se sternere is an idiom meaning 'to lie down', but "it shall lie down, Ohio" leaves Ohio unexplained, unless Ohio is undertaking the action:
There is (in English) the North Coast Inland Trail and Ohio shall lie down.
Was the original a machine translation? If so, you see, via literal English glosses of it, why machine translations are generally deprecated. For the question of how long impossible texts may survive, see various discussions in the Taberna, where talk is often in English so it may have the widest possible audience. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:19, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't directly involved in the point that Philmonte101 raised, because I didn't put the "Delenda" tag on the article. Mine was the "Augenda", which says approx. "improve within three months". But, to be frank, I was being generous and optimistic. If an article consists of 10 words (4 in English, untranslated, and 4 which don't seem to make sense) Vicipaedia can afford to lose it. It would be easier all round to delete it and start again. Hence I think "Delenda" was a practical solution. But if Philmonte101 wants to improve the article (there was no sign of that initially), that's even better.
Hmm ... afterthought ... I'm no oracle, but does the "101" by any chance imply "US student beginning Latin"? If there's a class that wants to work here, we can happily work along with that and help. The teacher just needs to speak up, and we can discuss. Articles can be marked {{In progressu}}Nomen formulae mutavit --Grufo {{In usu}} "please leave alone -- work in progress" or {{Succurre}} "please help". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 12 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A North American beginner's attempt, especially if guided by a teacher, is likelier to have the syntax of
Thank you Iacobe and Andrew for your hospitality and being accommodating. To Philmonte , please understand that there is a lot of things that need to get deleted in any wiki, really. We do want quality articles here don't we? Allow me to beef up the North Trail as best as I can, although, I do need to study more Latin. I highly recommend Latin yourself Philmonte, it would be good for your.Jondel (disputatio) 12:56, 15 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your edits to the article I created. What do you mean by the maxdubium sign? I'm not exactly sure! Do you mean the Latin's bad (it seems OK to me) or that the article is (it is getting off the ground!) Knucmo2 (disputatio) 20:47, 23 Ianuarii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iacobe, I'm not sure if I understand your question (regarding arcus caelestis): "But is it really a phenomenon (and not a res)?" What I'm wondering in particular is how definig arcus caelestis as "res" (instead of "phaenomenon") would add to our understanding of the definiendum. Neander (disputatio) 13:23, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I do either, but as long as it's linked to phaenomenon to show that it's not a noumenon, it's probably OK. Cantius himself contrasted rain (a noumenon) with a rainbow (a phaenomenon). I wasn't sure that you actually wanted to go there, and a general term (like res) would avoid the philosophical allusion. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. One of the reasons I didn't provide "phaenomenon" with an internal nexus was that I wanted to hold to everyday use (like in the English wikipedia and elsewhere) instead of swamping into Kantian questions. We can't have any empirical knowledge of noumena, except that they (must) exist. It's my understanding that rain and its causal relation to rainbow are all phenomenal. Neander (disputatio) 15:00, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Phaenomena": appearances in the air or sky (Lewis & Short, citing Lactantius and alluding to the Latin versions of Aratus) -- as I expect you both know already. It doesn't appear to me that Cicero used the word "Phaenomena", but Germanicus [if it was he] probably did. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:23, 13 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You were right to tag Hilarius Putnam, of course, but (forgive me if you really knew this perfectly well already) for new pages in 2016 the best tag to use is {{Augenda}}. This is because it can be dated e.g. "Augenda|2016|03" and because it allows just 3 months' leeway rather than 6. Fewer of them are appearing, month by month, thank goodness. It will be easier to shepherd them, tend them, and even slaughter them if they can't be saved, in monthly cohorts ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 24 Martii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of your very old pages. There was a lot of English still in it, which I've tried to clean out (I suspect you never really finished it off): therefore the count goes down, and it's among the 10,000 pages. Thought I'd mention it in case you have a spare moment to add some nice Latin to it :) If you want that English back as a basis for further work, just revert me. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 2 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spare moments are few & far between these days (aside from times when coffee is being sipped and the little gray cells are resting, able to do little more than add the NS formula without thinking), but after your ministrations, the text still has 7,840 characters, which times 1.07 = 8,389, still above the intermediate (8,000) cutoff for the 10K list. The higher cutoff is 16,000, unlike the 1K list, whose cutoffs are 10,000 and 30,000. (The authorities like to confuse us.) So perceptions of urgency are not required! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:02, 2 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Iacobe. Please don't move any constellation pages without checking the official Latin name. The Latin names are international, easily checked on any serious astronomical site, and I think all our pages agree with them till the two you moved today. The anonym who is adding. names and references maybe doesn't know this, and the references and added names do no harm, but they shouldn't Trump (if I may use the expression ) the modern official names ... Which I will source myself if necessary when I am no longer limited to the editing that an iPad can do ... Greetings from beautiful Tenos. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:30, 11 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Iacobe! My daughter and I did a lot of hill-walking but no astronomy. Now that I'm back, I'm adding sources for our Latin names of constellations.
Interesting that our anonymous editor went on to alter the Latin names on the German article de:Liste der Sternbilder in verschiedenen Sprachen (mentioning in an edit summary that you had moved the relevant Latin pages -- hence was evidently watching you carefully). Also that in adding footnotes to our page Dorado (constellatio) this editor pretended that the sources support only "Xiphias" whereas in fact those sources, now that I've checked them, support the official name "Dorado" as well! These clues suggest that the editor has an agenda which doesn't simply favour encyclopaedic Latinity; or, at least, should be persuaded to get an account and explain. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:04, 20 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may have seen my latest comment in that discussion: if you care to add a source and a few words of text, then of course the page becomes a self-respecting stipula and there's no earthly need to delete or merge it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 22 Aprilis 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put in my twopenn'orth if you gentlemen permit. The senses of office and "officina" may overlap but they are far from identical. For the head office of a large business, my old dictionary suggests "sedes" or "domus". For the office as the section of any business where they do correspondence etc., maybe "scriptorium" (but it's not a classical term in this sense) or "tabularium". But what will Iacobus say? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:07, 1 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both Cassell's and Traupman define 'official' only as publicus. Traupman amplifies that by adding the example domus publica for 'official residence'. For websites, that would seem to be the most appropriate way to go; however, I've sometimes used proprius in the sense 'personal, individual, special, his/her very own'. Officialis is postclassical; see L&S. ¶ According to Traupman, a place of work is an officina, a political office is an honor, and a duty is an officium. In the case of officina, the element of work is apparently the key point: some sort of labor must occur there, as the term can be glossed 'shop, workshop, manufactory, laboratory', and even 'place where fowls are kept', presumably because the work done there is the laying of eggs and the hatching of chicks (L&S). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:25, 1 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to Ainsworth's (the early-19th-century dictionary), the navy-office is the curia navalis, the place where you'll find a prince's master of ceremonies is a salutatorium, and the place where you'll be tortured & executed ('the hangman's office'!) is a carnificina—but otherwise, the welter of examples given illustrate only senses having to do with things that must be done (duties, functions), by their silence perhaps implying that we use the term office in reference to a location much more readily than our ancestors did. That, in turn, might be a caution against looking for a single, general way to translate the term. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:55, 1 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your insights are valued, Andrew and Iacobus. You are aware that in Vatican/Catholic Latin, 'dicasterium' appears? Anyway is 'tabularium' ok for 'office for daily business transactions'? The future article will leave out 'function' or 'role' meanings.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:33, 1 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the discussion in several disputation pages but haven't had the occasion to add anything. Certainly the Loeb Library edition capitalizes adjectives (and adverbs!) derived from proper nouns. If you want an example, here's one I found in quite literally three seconds: Reatina rura 'the country about Reate' (Suetonius, vol. 2, p. 302). Also, in dates, I should think writing III. Kal. ian. for III. Kal. Ian. would look strange (Ian. there being an adjective), as would graece and latine and such. (Both Cassell's and Traupman capitalize them all.) Certainly capitalizing proper adjectives & adverbs has been the mos Vicipaedianus since the beginning. ¶ Generally, when contributors pop up to push a particular theory, they work on one particular item or set of related items and then disappear, so the damage to consistency is negligible. An example of that is the fellow who changed every (attested!) televisificus to (unattested!) televisivus—with extensive disputing about why the latter is better—and then vanished. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:05, 4 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That reminds me: one thing that lowercase-loving writers don't appreciate (or should we say not value highly) is the distinction that variable capitalization can make between, for example, mos Vicipaedianus 'the Vicipaedian custom' (referring to the Latin one) and mos vicipaedianus 'the wikipedian custom' (referring to the whole enterprise, the collection of wikipedias). This is the same point as Africa Orientalis 'East Africa' (a formally defined region) and Africa orientalis 'eastern Africa' (some vague area, perhaps accompanied by hand-waving). But I digress. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:05, 4 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
De litterarum maiuscularum usu in gentilicios:
Scriptura romana distinctionem inter maisculam et minusculam non cognovit. Scriptura mediaevalis cognovit distinctionem, sed non habuit regulam certam. Vide quodlibet manuscriptum mediaevale.
Unde haec regula oritur? Ex lingua anglica. Eruditi anglici opera latina, grammaticas et thesauros secundum propriam ortographiam scripserunt. Propter linguae anglicae potentiam hic mos hodie servatus est etiam ab multis scriptoribus hispanis, italicis et lusitanis (qui non habent hanc regulam). Conclusio: lex non est, sed mos. Tu, more anglico, scribes “Romani”; ego, more hispanico, “romani”. Sed nec fiat mos regionalis lex universalis. Latinitas longa, vita brevis.
De nomina moderna transferendo in latinum:
Ego non video “José Plácido Domingo” versatum in linguam anglicam: “Joseph Pleasing Sunday”, ne quidem “Joseph Pleasing Domingo”. Nec “George Walker Bush” in linguam hispanam: “Jorge Peatón Arbusto”, ne quidem “Jorge P. Bush”. Et cetera, et cetera. Spqv (disputatio) 18:40, 5 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tell it to Laurentius Rabe (1465–1527), the Silesian scholar & poet, who called himself Laurentius Corvinus. Tell it to Heinrich Schütz (1585–1672), the preeminent early Baroque German composer, who called himself Henricus Sagittarius (auf Deutsch hic). Tell it to Philipp Schwartzerdt (1497–1560), the German theologian, who called himself Philippus Melanchthon ('Atra Terra'): he changed "his surname from 'Schwartzerdt' (literally 'black earth'), into the Greek equivalent 'Melanchthon' (Μελάγχθων), a custom which was usual among humanists of that time" (emphasis added). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:16, 10 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haec deformatio vel pervertio aperte risu (vel irae) dignum est. Homines romani et mediaevales latina nomina habebant. Homines moderni (praeter summos pontifices vel raros viros illustres) sua nomina in propria lingua maneant. Spqv (disputatio) 18:40, 5 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
De regulis ad nova vocabula latina fingenda scribam in extenso alio loco. Parire monstrua sicut: “teleiussibulum”, “laophorium”, “chamulcus”, “diamesolabeta”, et cetera vitandum est. Spqv (disputatio) 18:40, 5 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salve Spqv! Conversio praenominum, multum alibi disputata, statum regulae apud nos accepit. Hic etiam est mos multorum qui hodie extra Vicipaediam Latine scribant, ut in Vaticano (Rainerio Mariae).
Recte dicis vocabula recentia saepe utilia esse. Sin bonum locutio vel vocabulum classicum classicum exstat, eo uti malumus. Exempli gratia, in pagina disputationis Andreae de vocabulo "mercatus, -i" scripsisti. Fortasse haec declinatio apud scriptores Medii Aevi reperiri potest, sed cur non "mercatus, -ūs", quod apud Ciceronem, Livium et alios reperitur? Lesgles (disputatio) 23:39, 9 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salve, Spqv, maiuscularum usum Anglicum tibi displicere non miror, cum mihi quoque alienus videatur, nam in terris septentrionalibus idem fere mos maiuscularum scribendarum est ac apud Hispanos. Multi tamen sunt qui credant urbanum esse usui Anglico morigerari. Paucis ante diebus titulum "Bésame Mucho" iam octo fere annos conservatum in "Bésame mucho" mutavi. ¶ Ut dicis, "lex non est, sed mos," et de moribus non est disputandum. Cum quidem aliqua uniformitas praeferenda sit, ego pro mea parte ex auctorum Romanorum editionibus philologis (Bibliotheca Teubneriana, Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis, Les Belles Lettres) rationem scribendi deprompsi. Dicat quispiam, ne horum quidem morem sibi consistere. Fortasse ita, sed "pictura grandis" uniformitatem satis bonam exhibet. Neander (disputatio) 08:11, 10 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A cautionary note: remember that were talking about coding here, not about how texts appear on readers' screens. Coding texts in uppercase/lowercase style enables readers who wish to see nothing but lowercase text—or nothing but uppercase text, in the antique Roman manner—to use gadgets to do so (while it enables readers who wish to see uppercase/lowercase style to do so); coding texts in lowercase style prohibits readers who wish to see uppercase/lowercase style from doing so. The former enhances individual liberty; the latter squelches it. Those are the potential extremes. What seems to be in play here is the degree to which uppercase/lowercase style should be hard-coded. Expressions of anguish over the evils of English, which have explicitly appeared in talk pages from time to time over the past ten years, are't necessarily free of the appearance of what used to be called a cultural cringe. Ironically, they sometimes ignore actual English style, which, for example, has the Great Pee Dee River and the Little Pee Dee River, but together the Great Pee Dee and Little Pee Dee rivers (lowercased because rivers isn't part of the name of either entity). Or, to cite a possibility where a preference for lowercasing adjectives leads into logical error: Virginia Occidentalis (a state west of Virginia) and Virginia occidentalis (an area in Virginia): those are not the same things, though universally lowercasing adjectives makes them so. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:50, 10 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In case it's of interest, Captain Grammar Pants [sic] laid down these rules in Facebook just twenty-nine minutes ago: <<If you are located in the South, you may capitalize the word because it is a place. You might live in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, but you can still have friends in the East. However, when someone travels south to Brighton or north to Darwin, do not capitalize the direction. A key memory trick is to note that if it’s “the West,” with “the,” then capitalize. If it’s “driving west,” do not capitalize. As for the adjectives southern, western, northeastern, etc., capitalize them when they refer to a cultural identity (e.g., “Western thought”) but not when they are just regular adjectives (e.g., “the southwestern states”).>> Note the "key memory trick." Latin lacks this the, and therefore can't make this distinction with a word, but it can do so with a capital letter. ;) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:37, 10 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
“Mercatus, -us” habet sensum vetus (locus ad quem mercatores emendi vendendique gratia conveniunt) et sensum modernum secundum modernam scientiam oeconomicam. Igitur melius est: “agricultura elianensis mercatus aliarum nationum aspiciebat”. “Mercatores” error non est sed in hoc casu melioris electio non est.
De usu maiuscularum: In omnibus linguis semper possibilitas confusionis est. Scriptores et lectores italici, hispani et lusitani proprias linguas comprehendere possunt, quamvis anglica regula de gentilicio vocabulo non utuntur. Quod ad me attinet, ego bene intelligo “civitas Graeca” et “civitas graeca”, “rex Persarum” et “rex persarum”. Optasne forsan universalem grammaticam? Pulchrum propositum; sed cur, casu, anglica grammatica universalis est?
De nomina moderna: Post s. XVI multi nomina latina sibi imposuerunt, velut Renatus Cartesius (René Descartes † 1650), et cetera, et sic legimus opera latina qui iidem scripserunt. Alli non mutaverunt propria nomina, velut Immanuel Kant († 1804), qui scripsit latine dissertationem “De mundi sensibilis forma” et nomen germanum non mutavit. Vide opera eius. Sed illo tempore multi de philosophia eius latine scripserunt et nomen eius mutaverunt: Emmanuel Kantius. Quoque Thomas Hobbes († 1679) in Hobbesio mutaverunt, et cetera. Ergo hodie licitum est haec nomina latina uti. Sed qui ipsi nomina non mutaverunt neque nullam relationem ad linguam latinam habent, cur mutare? Omnes linguae (Vide Vicipaedia) dicunt “George W. Bush”; sola Vicipaedia latina in “Georgio” mutare audet, etiam “Bushius” uti. Omnes dicunt: “José Plácido Domingo”; sola Vicipaedia latina: “Iosephus Placidus Domingo”. Pessima sors evenit praesidenti Barack Obama, cum Baracus euphemismus anglice (= bad ass) etiam est, hodie toto orbe notissimus, et omnes actoris “Mister T” memori sunt. Et cetera et cetera. Ridiculus mos delendus est. Num sola nomina latine scribere scimus? Utrum encyclopaediam an rem comicam Vicipaediam latinam esse exoptamus? Spqv (disputatio) 10:31, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Brevissime (si permittis, mi Iacobe) verba mea interpono. Vicipaediani hic, sicut in aliis linguis, a fontibus externis incipiunt. "Baracum" scribimus non e mente editoris cuiusdam, sed quia fontem Latinum habemus. Praenomina, quae formam Latinam traditionalem habent, convertere solemus non quia consuetudinem e novo invenimus, sed quia scriptores Latini temporis nostri (e.g. scribae Vaticanae, editores qui titulos Latinos divulgant, oratores universitatum, etc.) eandem rem faciunt, morem maiorum sequentes. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:58, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non quidem omnes scriptores, mi Andrea, nam scriptores Nuntiorum Latinorum praenomina missum facere solent. Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, John Kerry, Sergei Lavrov scribunt, quamquam, si opus est, Vladimirum Putin declinant. Ut iam antea monui, morem nostrum nimis orthodoxum esse puto, nec hos laudo Vicipaedianismos: Kevin Costner apud nos Coemgenus Costner, Tamara Smirnova apud nos ex arcanis Thamar Smirnova, Brigitte Bardot apud nos per miram metathesin Birgitta Bardot, etc. Veniam da, si insolentius haec profero. Neminem offendere volo. Neander (disputatio) 12:57, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me non offendis! Neque Coemgenum neque Birgittam (tamquam nomina) amo. Usum nominativi nativi casuumque obliquorum declinatorum iamdudum suasi et ego, si recte memini. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:12, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the world at large, translating forenames into local languages appears to be the default, not the exception, and it cannot therefore surprise anyone. Certainly the world has millions of boys formally named (in Spanish) Juan Pablo in honor of the man whom we call in English John Paul but whose proper name was Ioannes Paulus. Indeed, the Polish wiki, in his native language, translates his name into Jan Paweł. The Samoan wiki calls George III Siaosi III and Elizabeth II Elisapeta II. Plenty of similar examples can be found, even in the rarefied atmosphere of Wikilandia. The practice called ridiculous above may in modern languages be the norm; at the very least, it's not at all unusual. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:48, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An norma sit, i quaere! Sed, sicut dicis, saepe fit. Graeci hodierni qui syngraphos habent ibi duo nomina praebent, Graece (stylo classico) et Anglice. Insuper praenomen demoticum habent. Igitur Georgius Papandreu est Γεώργιος apud situm parlamenti Graeci, Γιώργος in diariis, "George" apud Anglos, "Georges" saepius apud Francicos: in syngrapho suo, si recte intellegi, praenomina habebit Γεώργιος et George. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:03, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iacobe, papae et reges/reginae hypocoristica quadam vi et sensu a vulgo distingui videntur. Licet Jan Paweł inter Hispanos Juan Pablo sit, Jan Matejko inter Hispanos non Juan Matejko appellatur. Neander (disputatio) 15:20, 13 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, almost. The Augenda formula was because the article wasn't complete, with sufficiently long text and reliable external sourcing. The Vicificanda formula was because some of the styling wasn't quite right; it's mostly OK now, but a few quirks remain, like the number 18.664, which is in the wrong form (Vicipaedia follows ISO). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:12, 22 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stipula = 'stub', which Vicipaedia defines technically according to criteria specified by the {{Non stipula}} formula, less completely by the (new) {{Augenda}} formula. Latinitas = 'Latinity', a judgment of (mostly grammatical) quality from 1 to 7, where 1 is best. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:39, 23 Maii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Whenever you have time, please check it out. If you need a hand with categories, just ask me and I'll try to help you. --Katxis (disputatio) 14:55, 2 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ut ait noster Andreas: "I want to be helpful but I cannot spend time on your pages every day. I am only one user, like you, and I have my own work to do. I suggest, if you want help with each page, that you ask each time at the Vicipaedia:Taberna. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:41, 22 Iunii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iacobus I just want to express that I appreciate your research about this usage and hope you continue doing this kind of research here at wikipedia.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:55, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iacobus, I realize you are busy but could you help me out with this article, what you find dubius or incorrect. Thanks in advance.--Jondel (disputatio) 15:42, 3 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ow knock yourself out, PARTY!!! Anyway, tonight we dine in HELL! I will be posting the English version and hopefully Neander (and you would help me out :) ).--Jondel (disputatio) 00:14, 4 Iulii 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salve, Iacobe. Inspicias quaeso paginam hymnus eiusque indices omnes fere rubricatos. Hi cantus, ut mi videtur, nullo modo hymni possunt dici. Sunt, ut tu ipse in pagina discussionis affirmas, res aliae. Nonne delendi sunt? --Bavarese (disputatio) 14:56, 5 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salve Iacobus, ut vales? May encourage you to continue placing dubsigs, they are very useful both for learning and fixing the latin. I may be working to fix the nympha marina, for example to replace ascitur with collegitur or additus.Thanks and best regards.--Jondel (disputatio) 01:10, 7 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iacobe, ethicam deontologicam tantis erroribus scatere vidisti, ut commentationem latinitate maxdubia scriptam esse iudicares. Cum tu et ego soli textum ediderimus, nec credo te textum a te ipso editum vituperare, fieri potest, ut meam latinitatem repudiaris. Itaque rogo, ut errores in textu repertos indices. Neander (disputatio) 13:21, 31 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]
from the page on Ieremias Bentham, and as you see here, the "Latinitas|-3" came along for the ride. I didn't notice it! Since your Latin is far better than mine, you can be sure that I wouldn't intentionally mark it maxdubia! (I'll go and delete that rating now.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:45, 31 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you might want to think about rephrasing "Rectum Bono praefertur." It's perfectly good Latin, succinct & clear, but impressionable teenagers are going to snicker that it means 'A rectum is preferred to Bono.' (!!!) Maybe lowercasing bono would help. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:52, 31 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you certainly have realized, I have a near-compulsory dislike of initial majuscula. :–) Now that I for once used this stylistic gimmick, the result is deplorable: comparing Bono with rectum, and preferring the latter! Phew! Maybe it's better, indeed, to return to my old habits. Neander (disputatio) 15:58, 31 Augusti 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salve,
please forgive me using international language instead of Latin, but I did not have much Latin at school. Thank You very much for reviewing my articles. I think Edwin Atherstone should be in Latin Wikipedia, as he wrote chiefly about ancient wars, battles and disasters. Perhaps another, more detailed, article about The Fall of Nineveh should be made and - one day I hope - will be written. Another thing is about Stropha regalis. I had no source for Latin name of the stanza, it is just a translation. I do not know, if somebody ever wrote about the form in Latin. You surely know that the strophe is called also Chaucerian strophe or Troilus strophe, but I did not find any text written in Latin with such terms. I just thought that Kynaston's work should be appreciated. May be, his translation is the only example of the use of rhyme royal in Latin. Although non sum dignus, I would like to write something else for Latin Wikipedia, but I am afraid I will work very slowly. Thanks once again (Anagram16 (disputatio) 23:20, 3 Septembris 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Any honest attempts to contribute are welcome, so please feel free to continue, and good luck! One of the best Latin poets of the nineteenth century is said to have been Walter Savage Landor. He got into legal trouble for some of his Latin insults. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:02, 17 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IacobusAmor, thanks for the Muisca articles you translated into Latin. For me it's too long ago and too far down in my brain to actively use Latin, but nice to see. What about adding a category Muisca, to have the (hopefully) future articles organised in one category? The detail I am building in en:wiki may be too much for now, but 1 cat for "Muisca" would be good? Keep up the good work and I will hopefully add more Muisca soon. Ex nihilo nihil fit. Cheers, Tisquesusa (disputatio) 00:35, 17 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course a category can be added as soon as anyone's sure Vicipaedia will have a plurality of articles on the subject. A category that remains populated by only one article is at some risk of being eventually merged or deleted. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:17, 17 Septembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the Latin equivalent you cited, "Secretary of Labor = Minister Laboris". What do you think about this yourself? I asked myself the question just recently when making navigation boxes for other US "Secretaries". Eventually I saw no reason not to use the word "secretarius". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:29, 20 Novembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose they're both OK. I've been treating governmental departments as ministeria, and so their heads might just as well be ministri (of whom the chief is of course the primus). For the political sense of 'secretary', Traupman gives the generic term (ad)minister—but then he gives six examples: secretary of agriculture, commerce, education, the interior, state or foreign affairs, the treasury = agriculturae provehendae, commercii, eruditionis, rerum interiorum, rerum externarum, aerarii praefectus. So that's not one, not two, but three possibilies! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:50, 20 Novembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For a governmental agency (distinct from a department), I've been using agentura, which seems to be unclassical. The distinction has just become urgent in the United States because Donald Trump apparently wants to hire his son-in-law to work for him in the White House, but a federal antinepotism law forbids such a thing in governmental "agencies"—and so Trump's apologists are now arguing that the White House isn't an agency. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:56, 20 Novembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A propos, you might care to glance at your pages in this category. Some are currently marked "augenda". All they lack, I think, is an external source. It may even be that one source would serve for all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:52, 4 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mos vicipaedianus. Maybe you didn't notice that I inserted two correct links whose bad versions you'd deleted (if you'd tried harder, you might have found them: gens Iulia for the wrong [[Iulia (familia)]] and Bucolica for the wrong [[Bucolica (Vergilius)]]); one of the other red links will be turning blue today because of an article that's about to be added (because the red link enticed me to work on it). Also, the page in question (Aeneis) is one of the 10,000 officially most important pages, and for purposes of the competition at Meta, longer is better. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:33, 27 Decembris 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's really good to have some articles about languages of this group. How about the suffix -ana? Do we need to do that (given that e.g. English doesn't)? Should we do it without a source for the adjective? My feeling would be that "Lingua Angal", like the English, works OK and means that we aren't inventing anything. But what's your view?
Well, unless you have a source, I'll move those pages. Several years ago I verified all the names of language pages, moving those whose "Latin" name couldn't be verified. Let's keep up that standard: nolemus fingere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:01, 26 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, what? (Sorry; missed this.) It seems like a productive suffix to me. (Indeed, it's officially so in botany.) The English Engan languages presupposes Latin linguae Enganae, not linguae Enga. Similarly Papuan and Papuana. And so forth. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:34, 26 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine, but the English does warrant a differentation between lingua Enga ('Enga language') and linguae Enganae ('Engan languages'), the anus suffix serving a linguistic function; compare the icus suffix for protolanguages. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:35, 27 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, and I think the English names for the groups, containing that Latin suffix -an, indeed give us just the precedent we need for names in -ana. You pointed this out above, incidentally showing that my initial comment wasn't perfectly clear (I was probably rushing to save the page before dinner). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 27 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. One or two more biota named after him have no entry in any wiki yet, and I haven't had time to compile an article on them de novo. Feel free to do so, if you like! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:24, 27 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note the genitive seen in obamai. Do zoologists know that they're using an archaic form here (obamāī)? They've probably decided to form genitives universally by adding i to proper nouns. With names ending in a, botanists wouldn't do that, would they? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:43, 27 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You were right to reinstate the "FD ref" against "Lingua Mandarina normalis" -- I carelessly deleted it while preparing a version of the beginning of that article to go on our pagina prima. Do you have anything to add at Disputatio:Lingua Mandarina? All comments welcome! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:49, 31 Ianuarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said anything about interference. I was just trying to be useful in suggesting ways you might help with the project. That, after all, is the central question: how can we improve scope and the Latinity of Vicipaedia? I'm not an administrator, so feel free to take your questions elsewhere. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:57, 12 Februarii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Salve amice! Ut video, in pagina fascis heri laboravisti. Certe eam partem frumenti, e qua fasces fecisti, caulem appellare licet. Sed usitatius et testibus melius probatum mihi vocabulum culmus videtur esse. Tu quidem de ea re quid sentis? Vale! --Bavarese (disputatio) 10:27, 2 Aprilis 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qua pro causa definitionem in Wikipedia Anglica iam in paginis privatis converteram ut commentarium de culmo in Vicipaediam mox inonerarem. Ideo ambo texta nunc misceo. Manent autem haec verba:
==Malting==
In the production of malted grains the culms refer to the rootlets of the germinated grains. The culms are normally removed in a process known as "deculming" after kilning when producing barley malt, but form an important part of the product when making sorghum or millet malt. These culms are very nutritious and are sold off as animal feed.><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.fao.org/ag/AGA/AGAP/FRG/AFRIS/Data/467.HTM | title=Malt culms, malt sprouts, malt coombs | publisher=Animal Feed Resources Information System}}</ref>
Hi, Iacobe. I doubt that "Timothaeus" is a usual spelling: I think the name comes from Greek Τιμόθεος, which converts normally to Latin "Timotheus". The spelling "Timothaeus" is fairly rare on Google. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 25 Maii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A few have problematic nationalities, so they're being left for later. It's surprising how many countries have no poets. Sadly, one is finding that many of these articles, especially those that date from the early days of the project, were typed with characteristic sloppiness, and their coding wantonly includes extra spaces, extra blanklines, unnecessary italics, gratuitous instances of "right" and "250px" in illustrations, the use of "mortuus est" where "mortuus" is better, and so forth. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:25, 7 Iunii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So many of those pages copy-edited, so many still to do. Let us praise the Vicipaedian who gave us such entries rather than no entries at all, but I only wish that, having typed them, he had paused for a moment to read them :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:58, 7 Iunii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help in analysing the article. Please feel free to provide constructive advise or even correct it. I will be making some corrections. Thanks in advance.--Jondel (disputatio) 07:01, 28 Iunii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When we have a duplicate image because of the addition of an infobox, there's sometimes another way to deal with it. If the image is not a mugshot (I hate the term, but they use it as standard on Vicipaedia Anglica these days), it may be better to insert a mugshot as the preferred image at Wikidata, and to retain our image on our page ... which will (a) with luck, have an informative caption, and (b) no longer be identical with the image that comes through from Wikidata. This is what I have done at Guillelmus II (rex Siciliae) and Lucius III. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but note the problem with bibliographical formulas that random recasting turned up in Lucius III. The best way to handle bibliographic entries might be to use a formula that will produce text in a style chosen by readers. Sometimes one sees hard-coded styles or formula-produced styles that make one say "Ugh," but some of these formulas are obscure enough not to be modifiable without bothersome research. This is an ancient problem. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:47, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the bibliographical issue was (was it on those same pages?): my general response is that we ought really to be able to agree on a bibliographical format, but it would require discussion and compromise. If that happened, we could keep to the agreed standard in future, and all formulae could be adjusted to match, quite easily in most cases. I don't think anything's hard-coded. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:15, 12 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hunc effectum produxit interventio tua: Delle Donne, Fulvio. 2003. {{{3}}}, "Gualtiero" in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (Romae)? 60: 224–227. Auctoris nomen D.J.A. Matthew minime redarguisti, quia Dalby id fecit? Et quid sit de latino disputando? --Enzian44 (disputatio) 00:40, 13 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened to look at that page this morning. I removed your hidden text in English: surely it's bad to add hidden text, especially if not in Latin, to a page that is in a good state? It makes the page worse in general. Specifically it makes it more difficult for other editors, especially those who don't use English, to edit. I notice that the hidden text was about the problem you raise in our discussion just above. Always happy to discuss bibliographical formats, but let's do it where others can join in :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:41, 13 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was an almost empty page to which I added some curriculum vitae. So, what made you then add "ScDub"? Was it some terrible mistake of mine? Do tell ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:57, 28 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you couldn't remember the Latin for "conductor", why didn't you at least say what was wrong? A tiny bit unhelpful to put a tag like that, without explanation, on a page which has two inaccurate words. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:40, 29 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through your recent contributions, hoping to spot a potential pagina mensis, and this caught my eye. You're 100% right, needless to say. Maybe you are aware of what I'm going to say already, but just in case you're not: there is an anonymous user who quite frequently inserts low-grade vandalism with edit summaries like "fixed typo". Curiously, in this case, it wasn't exactly vandalism: a reasonable person might really feel that Michel Temer is not among the must-have illustrations for an article on Brazil. However, whether this means that the said anonymous user has suddenly come out as left-of-Genghis-Khan, or has a politically active twin sister who uses the same edit summary, or it's a complete coincidence, isn't clear, at least to me ...
I didn't know that, about low-grade anonymous vandalism, but now that you explain it, it seems likely—and human nature being what it is, we can predict with a fair degree of confidence that the world has produced more than one such perpetrator. (I hadn't noticed it here before; maybe you're speaking about other wikis?) ¶ As for paginae mensis, have we done Petrus Seeger? As you probably know, you can find my contributions in the series of annual pages of which this is the current one. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:03, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, I was trying to remember the name, of course I'd seen the Pete Seeger article. It will surely be used. I'll put a comment on the Pagina mensis page asking for other suggestions. Don't hang back. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:13, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That article has a thickly revelatory historical photo, showing the First Lady of the United States being entertained by a U.S. Army soldier who at the time was (secretly) a member of the Communist Party, surrounded by blacks & whites in a city where the mixing of the races at social events was generally prohibited. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:24, 30 Iulii 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Iacobe. I notice that you continue to use both "Non stipula" and "Augenda". And why not? Both exist! But I was wondering whether both of them need to go on existing, or whether we can merge them. What do you think? The advantage of "Augenda" is that it is dated (to the month) automatically, making it easier to see when a page is out of time. A substantive difference between the two is that "Augenda" offers three months, "Non stipula" six months, but that's really just history and I don't believe there's any reason to continue with two different deadlines.
I thought we'd agreed that inadequate articles contributed before some fixed date (July 2016, perhaps) were to get the "Non stipula" formula, and any such articles contributed after then were to get the "Augenda" one. Maybe the agreement was unclear. ¶ Many times, however, I've asked myself if especially the older "Non stipula" ones shouldn't be sent to some sort of limbo, rather than the death row (so to speak) where they now live, subject to random execution. After all, some of them are in the 10K---or even 1K---list, and Vicipaedia can't afford to go without them. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:55, 20 Septembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I feel sure you're right and we did say that initially, but I am wondering if the distinction continues to be useful.
As to being on death row, I see what you mean but I regard these formulae as being the "limbo" rather than the "death row". I don't think I have ever deleted a page that was in the 10,000 (or maybe there was one, consisting of nine totally useless words) and even with other pages I'm sure we all often improve them, to push them over the bar, rather than let them fall. If we're worried about this, incidentally, we could agree that six months is a better deadline than three months. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 20 Septembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I was just intending to remove the expired "succurre" formula; so you did right. As a rule, all pre-breakfast edits should be subject to more scrutiny than properly caffeinated ones! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:55, 20 Septembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What it means is: That Beneharo accepted the Spanish conquest of the island. In all the Latin articles of these Guanche kings he speaks of this, of the kings who fought against the Spanish conquerors and the kings who peacefully accepted the conquest.
Pagina mea habebat magnos erroros, quaeso adiuvatis me corrigere hos erroros, sed scio Latine male. Debeo scribere: nescio Anglice item. Scribitisne Russice?
P. S. Nolite delere paginam meam, Товарищ герцог Мальборо [die 11 Novembris 2017, hora 13:58)]
Videbam huius verbum in vocabularo Dvoretscii. Tamen, quaeso corrigere mea munda in pagina de signis diacriticis. Товарищ герцог Мальборо [die 11 Novembris 2017, hora 13:58)]
Salvete! Habebam usum diclinationis antiquae in verbo error: alternatio o et e in principio huius diclinationis erat (legebam de historia morphologiae Latinae) Et nota vestra exacta est. In Latina Classica (et Latina vulgaris item) "error" est verbum diclinationis tertiae. P. S. Gratias, commilito. Cognitiones vestrae in Latina magnae sunt, sed meae malae sint. Товарищ герцог Мальборо
Si de historia morphologiae Latinae legebas, optime, o amice. Sed hic scribenti, adiumenta petenti, tibi melius erit consilium accipere: linguá Latiná "erroros" error est :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:43, 12 Novembris 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ubi est linguá Latiná in historia huius linguae? Non videbam haec verba in libro. Videbam tantummodo alternationem diclinationis tertiae. Товарищ герцог Мальборо
Forgive me for intruding -- I have no idea of the context of your discussion, Donald Trump and Michael Wolff must have monopolized my attention -- but double infinitives are quite often seen in the context of an accusative and infinitive construction (with main verb of saying or thinking, existimabat in this case) if the leading verb within the construction (posse in this case) would regularly demand an infinitive anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:08, 8 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I can't seem to find the link, I'm obviously mistaken. Although I've been avoiding this usage. Thanks Iacobus and Andrew for clearing this up.--Jondel (disputatio) 12:30, 9 Ianuarii 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... at Septentrio, because by removing the old interwiki links you demonstrated that, for some strange reason, no Wikidata link had taken their place. So I created a Wikidata link, and then restored your edit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:04, 9 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.
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.
I noticed you rephrased an existing hidden argument about the fruit in the Garden of Eden. I've deleted it now, because surely disputes are for the talk page and the best thing to do with hidden text is, almost always, to remove it.
As to the point raised, there's not much wrong with the Latin sentence as it stands, is there? Some people do call it an apple, and some artists have painted it as such. I guess one could expand the sentence to say that the texts don't support this identification and there are many others. Would that be your solution?
But I guess what's really needed is a Latin page corresponding to en:Forbidden fruit. The identification is discussed at length there, and illustrated with a Breughel/Raphael painting in which it certainly is an apple, though Adam seems to be looking at the wrong (pair of) fruits. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:07, 6 Aprilis 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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!
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.
Hi, Iacobe. Your edit to this template was maybe a slip of the pen? I reverted it. A template (formula) isn't an encyclopedia page, needn't be wikified, and shouldn't be lengthened. It wants to be as short and efficient as possible. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:47, 5 Maii 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, here am I reverting again. That move to Syndroma Skuminianum: the rule is to cite a source when you move a page, unless you do it to improve poor Latinity. In this case you weren't improving, because (a) syndroma is feminine (if I mistake not, Watson) (b) "Skuminianum" seems to be a made-up word. Tell me if I'm wrong.
I found and cited a source for "Syndroma Skumin", see the footnote, but I'm not satisfied with it: it's a wild wiki and could well have been written by our own contributor immediately before our page was created. However, if there is eventually no good source to be found, "Syndroma Skumin" contains no invented words and would therefore remain acceptable as a translated term, if I understand our guidelines correctly. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 9 Maii 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, go ahead, but it's borrowed from classical Greek συνδρομή, 1st decl. feminine, already used by medical authors to mean 'concurrence of symptoms' etc., so I'm thinking those people have made a mistake.
I agree -ianus and -ensis are actively used in classical-to-current Latin to form new adjectives. If I encounter apparent neologisms of this kind in our text, and they read naturally, and I can understand them, I generally leave them alone. But in pagenames our rules surely don't allow us to make up such words. Since our pagenames are (willy nilly, via Google) an almost universal source on the Latin name for things, and it's good that Vicipaedia (willy nilly, via Google) is taken seriously on this, we should be careful with pagenames and follow our guidelines.
Of course it's just great if Ephemeris, or the Vatican, or the Linnaean nomenclatura, or a university oration, or any recent Latin publication, gives us the word. That's quite different: we use the word and cite the source. Others can see where we got the word from, and judge the name accordingly. We don't help anyone if we make up words in pagenames. Let's face it, it is common in classical-to-modern Latin to borrow foreign names in an unchanged or transliterated form, and most modern languages do the same. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:11, 9 Maii 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who writes syndroma, -atis commits an understandable mistake called hypercorrection. It's true that the shape of syndroma suggests a neuter noun for anyone with some knowledge of Greek, but ultimately, each word has a life of its own. The natural Latin counterpart of Greek συνδρομή is syndroma, -ae like the counterpart of Greek κόμη is coma, -ae. Neander (disputatio) 16:15, 9 Maii 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understood the a-declension in ancient greek for singular (nom., gen., dat., acc.) is: συνδρομή, συνδρομῆς, συνδρομῇ, συνδρομήν; plural: συνδρομαί, συνδρομῶν, συνδρομαῖς, συνδρομας. Would that be correct? Further, I read, it may be possible in latin to use to form of declensions, a latinized and a greek version:
Apud varias dissertationes inaugurales I found several forms of συνδρομή, f. with greek declensions: nominativi "syndrome", accusativi "[2]syndromen", ablativi "syndrome". Somehow it appears to me, the greek derived forms could the preferred ones. What do you think?
It's amazing how often a chance edit of yours lays bare the fact that something deeper may be wrong with a page. I have now tagged Syndroma Skumin for deletion. On the disputatio page see my references to the repeated deletion discussions on en:wiki. And please comment, either way :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:54, 9 Maii 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A mystery! The doctor's bio in the English wiki does cite the syndrome, but with a link to the French wiki. The Russian has a suffix that seems to make the term Skumin's syndrome or the Skuminian syndrome. No more time today. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:26, 9 Maii 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Salve, Iacobe! Conlator "2A02:A03F:5050:C100:69F0:9420:F30D:545B" maluit civitate Italus &c scribere, et quidem recte; cf. Cic. de legibus 2.5 "ortu Tusculanus ... civitate Romanus". Neander (disputatio) 11:39, 15 Maii 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for struggling to keep this in its proper place. I have blocked the other user. I notice that the version I restored has L-3. It's a pity that such a busy page is marked thus (though it's not the only one!) Could you possibly try to judge what might be wrong, and, if you can't put it right yourself or the problem is too general, indicate briefly on the talk page where work is needed? That would be really helpful. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:22, 7 Septembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No time at the moment for any major work, but my memory is that parts of the text are more or less L-1, but some sections are L-3 or worse. Maybe the average could be raised to L-2. As for the renaming of the page: I defended the lemma but thought it best to let a magistrate handle the redirects, lest I inadvertently do something to make the situation worse. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:49, 7 Septembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if yours truly on 11 Iulii 2011 raised the rating from L-4 to L-3 (where it's remained ever since) but had earlier lowered it from L-2 to L-4. Clearly something to check when time becomes available! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:03, 7 Septembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As with the Big Bang (but unfortunately Wikimedia was not functioning at that epoch, hence the mess the universe is in right now) a mass creation can be mass deleted. As soon as I saw your alert I did that. Another time, no need for you to edit them all: the single message was enough. But thanks for your tireless vigilance! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:30, 20 Septembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's good news indeed that you have a reset button—as long as it's applicable globally. What if 100,000 different IP addresses more or less simultaneously added 100,000 articles each? Could that kind of attack be instantly undone too? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:06, 20 Septembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the text (which maybe you never saw) just in case the creator wants to emend it: otherwise "delete" will certainly be the answer. In the meanwhile, note the term "ius-winger". How would you go about explaining to Google Translate that it doesn't quite work? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:58, 6 Octobris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article when it came into view on my screen consisted of a blank page, which naturally wanted to be deleted. "Ius-winger" LOL. Not even "ius-alator" or "alaficator." :D IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:38, 6 Octobris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that adding three templates all at once, even to a highly unfinished page, is too much: it's like three punches in the nose. If the "augenda" template is attended to, "delenda" will become false; if the "augenda" template is ignored, deletion would follow. Hence, logically, use "delenda" only if the prescriptions given under "augenda" would not cure the problem. Does that work?
It is, probably, impossible for unfamiliar users to create a fully satisfactory page via a mobile, but the system encourages them to try. We're mopping up the mess. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:55, 20 Octobris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait! It might be said that the Augenda formula doesn't require the text to have a lemma. Novices need to be told precisely the kinds of changes they should make. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:05, 20 Octobris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can say "wait!" too. I think I really mean, roughly two templates plus {{Nexus desiderati}}. We have to have interwiki links. But that one is a small template at the foot of the page, more like a dig in the ribs than a punch in the nose ...
It could be said to be there in the phrase "textu, qui rem definit," but novices may take the rem as being the title, rather than the (boldfaced) subject of the first sentence, so the wording of the Augenda formla might want to be more explicit. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:48, 20 Octobris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added the need for a lemma. One is compromising between the perfect and the possible: not all tirones know how to do boldface (but any subsequent editor can add boldface for them, so I didn't demand it); but then, not all tirones know what a lemma is ... Still, it may help! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 20 Octobris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Macte! Sed in "cum nomine paginae congruens" melius congruente? Sive quam speciose congruente paginae nomine (the model syntax in Bradley's Arnold being vera animi magnitudo 'true greatness of mind')? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:29, 20 Octobris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's maybe worth explaining, incidentally ... I see now the history of "Ricardus Simmons" with all your reverts and all your improvements, but I never saw any of them at the time when you made them because you marked them all as "minor". You're a highly trusted, highly experienced user, so I don't check your minor edits, and I don't suppose any other magistratus checks them either. That's why your capitalized appeal to sleeping MAGISTRATUS was never seen by me, nor, probably, by any magistratus, even when we woke up. By ticking the "minor" box you were saying "No one needs to look at this", and that included the edit summary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:37, 3 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have reverted you today -- Jeff Dunham's Latin was worse than I thought. This happened because I had improved it and had then carelessly reverted myself. 31 December resolution: no more reverts. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:54, 31 Decembris 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your much-needed improvements, also the move of an image to the top of the page. I moved it back again -- here's why. There was already one image at the top (a map); if we put multiple images at the top of any page, it means, on a mobile screen, you have to sweep downwards some way before you see any text at all. Half our readers, or more, are on mobiles, and many of these with short attention spans, and it's better if they see at least some text before flicking on impatiently. In fact the Wikimedia people who do the mobile design recommend no image before the first paragraph of text. Personally I think that would be pointless or counter-productive -- and an enormously laborious change on all the Wikipedias -- but only one image before the text is probably a goodish idea.
As to which image should come at the top, that's quite another question, one that is well worth pondering, if we hope to catch the eyes of the same mobile readers. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 5 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about putting all such files but the first immediately after the first paragraph, as I've just done with Petropolis (Dacota Meridiana)? Since we don't know how they're going to sort themselves out later, when articles will be expanding, often by a huge factor (five! ten! twenty! forty!), we might as well just put them in one place and let later graphic designers choose their best locations. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:00, 5 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason, and for general design reasons, it's surely better still to sprinkle them through: one at the head of each section or each paragraph ... Which is roughly what we normally do anyway ... A big bunch of images at any point suggests a badly designed article. If starting a stub one might add a couple of extra images that seem essential so as to have them ready when expanding, but why more? Those who come along afterwards to enlarge the article will want to choose, and will have more and different images to choose from than we have, and can look at en: and other wikis to get more ideas: to spend time choosing for them would be a waste, wouldn't it? ... But I must admit, life is short, the art of writing a Vicipaedia is long, we merely do our best :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 5 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not wishing to divert a discussion that's going on elsewhere, I comment here: everything else (as in Lord High Everything Else) is crying out for use as a descriptor either of the set of humans who are potentially relevant to that association, or of the set of humans who are not potentially relevant to it. But I'm hanged if I know which. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:52, 16 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've seen that you have recently changed an "articulus" into a "capitulum". No strong feelings about the question on my side (although according to the Pons dictionary, "capitulum" is as much late Latin as "articulus"). I just want to make sure it's all thought through, because laws also have "chapters". That particular treaty e.g. has titles which have chapters which have sections which have articles which have paragraphs. If we make that titulus-caput-sectio-capitulus-paragraphus, would that actually work (I was going to write "pars" for "section", but some laws also have "parts")? If you think that's good and there can be a consensus about it, I'm willing to follow. Sigur (disputatio) 20:14, 24 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Long ago (2006? 2007? 2008?), if memory serves, some reasonably skilled Latinists noticed that beginners were typically using articulus to denote articles in Vicipaedia; after discussion, the consensus was to use commentarius or commentariolus or commentatio or something like those. But as you point out, the structural hierarchies inherent in constitutions, laws, and treaties do invite multiple terms, each denoting one level, and so maybe the obvious parallels of articulus for 'article' and sectio for 'section' would be a good idea, so feel free to propose a complete list (in Taberna). For reference: Cassell's has caput and condicio for 'article' = "a clause or item in a law or agreement," and Traupman has caput for 'article' = "clause in a law" (reserving articulus for the grammatical sense of the English word). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:57, 24 Ianuarii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but when I follow your link I don't see any definition of condicio that corresponds to what is meant. So, what is the noun then that expresses that Communitas condita est. Sigur (disputatio) 12:59, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This (in the original languages):
traité instituant la Communauté (économique) européenne Vertrag zur Gründung der Europäischen (Wirtschafts)gemeinschaft trattato che istituisce la Comunità (Economica) Europea verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese (Economische) Gemeenschap So, completely different try: Foedus Communitatem (Oeconomicam) Europaeam instituens? Sigur (disputatio) 14:31, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Iacobe, correct me if I say something silly. I think this also wants a verb form, as in Sigur's last suggestion ... but not a participle. It wants a gerundive: "Foedus ad communitatem ... instituendam". Am I on the right track? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:00, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now that we know what it was trying to say, once again we've had the same thought, though the genitive (foedus communitatis instituendae) may also do. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:09, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like yours better, and it's even closer to the French example (historically the Latin gerundive actually became the French participle). The Italian method, using a relative clause, might work but would be more clumsy. Evidently Germanic languages go for nouns. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:17, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great. So then the Lisbon Treaty in full blossom (i.e. Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community) becomes: Foedus Olisipone ictum Foedus de Unione Europaea et Foedus Communitatis Europaeae instituendae mutans. OK?
And while I have you here: You're OK with "mutans" as well? Because I've translated "amending" elsewhere, I'd rather get it right.
Mutans is usually transitive, and de X mutans makes it intransitive, and 'to amend' is emendare (or corrigere). Maybe the best solution is to break it apart with a clause: Foedus Olisipone ictum, quod foedera Europaearum unionis communitatisque instituendae emenda(vi)t. That's a mouthful! Otherwise, I'm busy at the moment. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:31, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For some time when you're less busy: What it needs to be is a phrase that could have been the title of the first page of the treaty if it had been written in Latin alongside all the other language versions that exist. One thing this means IMHO is that we need to keep the titles of the two amended treaties as they are (except for inflection). There is a '"Treaty on European Union" (French: 'traité sur l'Union européenne") and a "Treaty establishing the European Community" (French: "traité instituant la Communauté européenne"). Lumping that together the way you do may sound nicer, but it seems to me too liberal a translation to be correct. And would one really use a relative clause in that way in a treaty title? It sounds weird to me, but maybe I'm just not familiar enough with Latin treaty drafting. And yes, I see they did it in Italian, so maybe... (Of course, this is only to be used once, to give the full title of the treaty, not to refer to it anywhere else.) If you think emendare is the verb of choice, I'll use it; I avoided it, because it also means "to improve" making things less neutral, but admittedly the names are given by the people who make the changes, and those will never say they make things worse... Sigur (disputatio) 20:08, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your continued hospitality, Iacobe! I'm busy too, but briefly: Latin is concise, so if the translated title is shorter than in other languages, fine. I think I would have done almost exactly the same as Iacobus except that I would have put the relative clause in the passive: "... quo foedera de unione et communitate Europaea emendantur". You would certainly find other examples of Latin officialese in that style. I am putting the adjective "Europaea" in the singular, but one can argue that the plural is logical. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:07, 12 Martii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've seen your changes on Calendarium republicanum Francicum, and I wonder if you have a source for decadus, -ūs, as you have used it. I think it would be great to mention a source there (even if not online), because it's difficult to find (at least for me...). Decadus is so close to the French décade that it would be really perfect with a source. Otherwise, I admit that my version was only a half-educated guess in the first place (coined on triduum, quadriduum and the occasional octoduum), but a three-quarter-educated guess might also be decemduum for which I've even found a source here (right column on page 85) . I also wonder whether there might be a decent Latin word somewhere for the ten-day period of the ancient Egyptian calendar. Sigur (disputatio) 20:35, 19 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For 'decade', Cassell's has decem anni (but of course that excludes nonannual decades, like sections of the rosary), Traupman has decas, -adis, f., and (again for the temporal sense) Vicipaedia has been known to use decennium.IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:51, 19 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. It seems you had the unlikely decadua (n. pl.), which, since A and S are adjacent keys on the QWERTY keyboard, I interpreted as a typo for decadus (m. pl.) and assumed you had a source! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:54, 19 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We were both nibbling at the edges of Akihitus at the same time. I hope I didn't lose anything of yours with my last saves. All yours now if you want, but I'll look at it again in about 6 hours and might add a bit more at that point. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 30 Aprilis 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a scream, and the typography makes it worse: "tawā)L-fabula." Over & over we see our East Asian friends rejecting the idea that a space wants to go before & after parentheses. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:14, 5 Maii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your {{dubsig}} here. As similar formulations occur elsewhere in the article as well, wouldn't it be worth elaborating (perhaps in the talk page there, I'm just trying to draw your attention here)? Sigur (disputatio) 18:26, 17 Maii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You wrote: "Eodem anno, pseudonymum Willy Brandt legitime accepit." But wouldn't that mean that he legitimately acquired the pseudonym Willy Brandt? Which is not what happened: He had had the pseudonym Willy Brandt since 1934, and in 1949 he made it his legal name. ("1948" was a typo of mine). Sigur (disputatio) 15:38, 9 Iunii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was just interpreting what the original seemed to mean. ¶ In any case, both Cassell's and Traupman tell us to translate 'legal' as legitimus (not, for example, legalis). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:54, 9 Iunii 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these will have to be sorted out someday. For 'literature', both Cassell's and Traupman give litterae, and Cassell's adds litterarum monumenta (pl.). I think of scripta (rightly or wrongly!) as being 'writings', written objects, and so that term would be fine under which to collect books, librettos, newspapers, poems, and so forth, whereas literature, as a metaphor (with a meaning that goes well beyond the mere letters of the alphabet), seems larger, including nontangible things, like concepts & techniques & prizes. (So scripta would be a subcategory of litterae.) Also, we have the example of Litterarum humanarum doctor (L.H.D., Doctor of Humane Letters), where litterae humanae, the humane letters, are the humanities in general. I haven't seen anything similar with scripta.IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:07, 13 Augusti 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been putting the new "litterae" as subcategories of "scripta", but I see it makes sense the other way round. Thank you. I'll implement that right away.
I quite agree that "Scripta" works bbest as a category for single written/printed texts. At the time those "Scripta" categories were introduced, in about 2008 (?), Vicipaedia had practically nothing else in the literary field. Recently, thank goodness, we have more, and it is largely your achievement.
Cool. Now I must get back to the myrias list. I had Litterae Arabicae about ready to go last night, but lost the text to a frozen screen resulting from a presumed virus that tried (and failed) to come in when I clicked on the article's link to the Jerusalem Post. To save everybody else the trouble, that link will be disappearing from the posted article! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:50, 13 Augusti 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness! You've gone into overdrive, but the result is looking much better organized. Several more of those general articles among the 10,000 important pages are beckoning, and I'm doing them in the order listed. Macte! (He said, getting ready for lunch.) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:11, 13 Augusti 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now here's a different question. You'll notice from my first response to the page Litterae Britanniae that the introductory argumentation about which places and which languages are involved in these articles strikes an outside observer (I mean, this outside observer) as strange and slanted. A part of the introduction to Litterae Franciae, now that I read it, strikes me the same way. I know, of course, that you're translating -- incidentally, that has surely been a good way to start -- so my characterization of slanted strangeness or strange slantedness applies not to your writing but to the way things get hammered out on en:wiki!
So I make an offer. When you've done your initial work on the national literature pages, I could add a short paragraph, somewhere soon after the lead, saying which languages are involved and when. It would be relevant to la:wiki, of course, because it would incidentally show when and to what extent Latin is relevant; and it's an area I've done some work in. Any use? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:54, 14 Augusti 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, and no need to wait, as the rules of the ten-thousand-word game prefer quantity over quality (or should we say over length), so I'm adding new articles briefly, rather than developing them fully. If time allows, I'm translating the whole introduction, usually several paragraphs (down to where the English wiki puts the table of contents and the first big subhead), but these are topics that can go on and on.
Incidentally, looking for Dewey decimal numbers for these articles shows that Dewey and his people have had trouble with a similar issue: how to handle languages and countries (or regions). For example, Poetae Confoederationis (poets of the Canadian confederacy) is 811.409971 = 8 Literature / 81 American & Canadian / 811 Poetry / 811.4 Later 19th century [and so on], whereas Litterae Canadae is 819.1 = 8 Literature / 81 American & Canadian / 819 American literature in English outside the USA / 819.1 English literature from Canada. So Canadian poetry in English is not a subset of Canadian literature in English! (And where is Canadian literature in French?) Something similar happens with Litterae Arabicae and national or regional literatures in Arabic. I haven't looked at the literature of India & Pakistan, but I'd expect the numbers to be equally problematic.
Up today: China. The Dewey number is 895.1 = 8 Literature / 89 Other languages [than American & Canadian, English, German, French, Italian, Spanish & Portuguese, Latin, Greek] / 891 East Asian / 891.1 Chinese—but "American & Canadian" isn't a language, and "Chinese" isn't a single language, and so on. The world is a slippery mess. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:21, 14 Augusti 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the slippery mess that we tried to sort out just a tiny bit by having separate categories by language and by country. At that time we were the only Wikipedia doing it, but now the Germans and some others have imitated us. There are even some literature-by-language categories on en:wiki! Unluckily those people didn't know they were imitating us, so their categories have not usually been linked to ours. I find I have quite a bit of sorting out to do on Wikidata.
Therefore, go ahead of course with creating categories like "Categoria:Litterae Iaponiae". There will always be categories like "Categoria:Iaponiae scripta" and "Categoria:Scriptores Iaponiae" which you can make into subcategories of your new one. And don't worry if there is a momentary interwiki conflict: I will get to it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:13, 18 Augusti 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to which, one happens to notice that the English wiki has the categories "Persian literature" and "Persian-language literature," of which the latter seems analogous to those with ". . . scripta." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:18, 18 Augusti 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. To me, those two English categories look like duplicates: both are categorized under "Category:Literature by language". But I think I'll leave someone else to deal with that :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:50, 18 Augusti 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm testing a new version of the plant/animal taxobox, making it look more like our newer infoboxes. You create a lot of plant and animal pages, so please, if you have a moment, look at some pages and see what you think. It's work in progress.
The main taxonomic detail seems to be working correctly. If the layout, order, font size should be improved, it'll be easy to experiment.
With the supplementary information (fossil range, conservation status, synonyms, subdivisions) a heading will certainly appear, at the foot of the box, if there is any information to display. Click on "expand". OK: the question is, having clicked on "expand", do you see anything useful? It would be good to have a note of a few pages on which the answer is No! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:35, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh. Busy at the moment, but will check later. Note that it's sometimes useful to list intermediate groupings (superorders, subfamilies, tribes, and whatnot), so that capability needs to be retained. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:49, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are all in there -- amazing how many there are -- but do please verify. Any subdivision that is listed on our page should appear, just like the previous version. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:20, 4 Octobris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not even to think about them, but thank you for the opportunity :)
I have visited all the taxoboxes that have a "Fossil range" section (about 200 of them). It took me quite some time to see how the formula {{Fossil range}} works. It is amazing how many different ways editors have discovered to avoid using it quite as intended (these will be editors on en:wiki: you and I, I think, have just tended to copy-and-paste what they did). But it's not really amazing, because the usage is not self-evident and very easy to get wrong.
I think that all of these formulae {{Fossil range}} are now consistently used: they all show a date range on the timeline diagram, though in some cases it's too brief to be visible; they all show both the date range and the first-and-last geological periods in text form, and the periods are linked to relevant articles. See for example Hominidae (it's the "palaeontologia" section of the taxobox). I decided that "Recent" is Recens (redirected to "Holocaenum"), not the many other Latin versions that we have all used. I decided that the correct case for the geological periods is the accusative of length-of-time, because the taxon concerned lived during the period concerned -- and since the period names are adjectives functioning as neuter nouns, the accusative always has the same form as our pagename, making the links so very nice and simple. I felt really happy after deciding this, so I hope you can find a way to avoid telling me it doesn't work grammatically! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:41, 7 Octobris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A problem I see with the new taxoboxes is how they appear in the layout of the whole page: their leftmost boundary touches the rightmost letters of the main text. All other fasciculi, whether printing on the left side or the right side, are separated from the text by a space maybe two ems wide. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:24, 7 Octobris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three catch more eyes than one does! At the time, IIRC, that formula was printing blankly, something like this:
Situs scientifici:
Maybe the fontes don't appear until the system has registered an article elsewhere, giving it a Q-number, or whatever it is. Anyway, it's good to know that the formula works on new articles with no effort on the part of authors. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:54, 8 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have it. It requires the link to be made at Wikidata. I know you don't do that, but once a bot has done it, the formula will work automatically. So no need for the queries -- just crossed fingers or a leap of faith :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 8 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
En:wiki is anything but consistent, but its best way of timing the flourishing of extinct taxa is to give two categories, one for when they started, the other for when they stopped. So I've given us categories like that, and I have added them to your latest fish. You could do this regularly if you like. In these three cases the method gives "Categoria:Silurio nata" and "Categoria:Silurio exstincta". There is duplication (of "Silurio") here, but it's a method that anyone can easily apply, so I suggest we can live with this.
I have removed the category "Fossilia" because all extinct Linnean taxa are based on fossils, so "Fossilia" is a supercategory of all the "... exstincta" categories. [PS: Well, it is now. I thought I had fixed that already, but I had forgotten, so thanks for bringing it to mind.] Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:17, 8 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coding is getting so complicated that an author can hardly remember all its quirks, but we plod on. You might be interested to know that in Dewey Decimal Classification, fossils are so distinctive that they get their own trinumeral, and even their own binumeral group. All fish are 597, one of the ten divisions of group 59, Animalia—except that all fish known only as fossils are 567, a division of 56, "Fossils and prehistoric life." (One wonders whether the coelacanth was allowed to change its number when it turned up alive.) You can always tell what I'm thinking a text is about by checking its Dewey number. Since that system, like any such system, is a bit leaky, the number will sometimes be a little off, or even a mistake, but it'll be apt most of the time. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:10, 8 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it's a love–hate relationship? Someone you know tears his hair from time to time, trying to find the aptest number for a given topic. It doesn't help that some of the numbers have changed over time, and because the system is copyrighted, the most recent version generally available dates from seventysomething years ago. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 05:30, 18 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The text reads: "Insula Margherita est insula inBudapestinum. 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) 05:23, 18 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hint, for example: insula in Budapestinum means 'an island into Budapest'. If you want to say 'an island in Budapest', you need the locative case (or its equivalent), something that students "quite new to Latin" aren't likely to have learned. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 05:23, 18 Novembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hadn't seen this till now. No Latin source was ever cited. It's normal in Latin to borrow technical terms from Greek, so I checked the Greek term and found it was neuter. That's fairly normal in Greek, and therefore in borrowed Latin, for a compound term based on a masculine word. If there's a strong reason why this word should be masculine in Latin, or if there's a Latin source, feel free to move again. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 27 Decembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Typus is masculine in Stearn's Botanical Latin and elsewhere in biological writing, but we have: this too. Also, in addition to logotypum, the form logotypa can be found on the internet, sometypes neuter, sometimes feminine, and sometimes a typo for the English singular! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:57, 27 Decembris 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Is there a a reason why you manually link your new pages to the English Wikipedia, instead of linking them to Wikidata? I don't see the point, but maybe I'm missing something here... Sigur (disputatio) 21:37, 13 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doing this shortens the labour of creating any new page on a plant or animal. I save my first version of the page, I link it immediately at Wikidata, and then I use the sources that come up in {{Fontes biologici}} to verify the name and sometimes suggest a correction or an additional citation. Worth a try! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip! Indeed, his name could be coming up in about ten days. You may not have noticed that I'm contributing articles on a ten-day cycle, adapted to what's conventionally called the Dewey Decimal System. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:38, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no codebreaker either. In fact, until today, I knew very exactly nothing at all about the Dewey Decimal System. I just had had a look here and realised what his last activities on that list had been. Sigur (disputatio) 13:43, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You may have noticed that an anonymous editor, either the above in person or his best friend, has been spamming references to him with increasing enthusiasm, mostly in articles about music. Anonymity in such cases usually suggests a conflict of interest. I have just removed most of those references. I would trust your judgment on this: if you feel that any of my edits over the last hour should be reverted, because the references I deleted are really useful, please revert me! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:05, 23 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. We hardly need someone's recent memoirs as a source for the fact that Dinu Lipatti was a pianist! Whose birthname, btw, according to Wikipedia, was Constantin[us], and Dinu is a nickname. How should Vicipaedia handle that? There may still be no consensus about how to specify brithnames, nicknames, pen names, stage names, and the like. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:11, 23 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently the creator of this page wasn't aware of the etymology (nor was I). Our normal practice is to resolve abbreviated forenames into the Latin version of the real or official name that they represent. If the abbreviated forename doesn't correspond to the subject's real or official name, then I don't think we have a rule: we sort of do what comes naturally :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:45, 3 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I saw it but had other things to do. The contributor said the big paragraph that he deleted was obsolete, but that doesn't make it any less a fact if the cited scholar did write what the text said he wrote. It'd be helpful for someone to import the newer taxonomy, but that's not on my to-do list at the moment. Must hasten to add today's article from the myrias list: Machina quaesitoria. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:39, 26 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Iacobe. It would have been helpful to add a link to the article, even the page, where this Latin name was found! In this case I've now followed your tracks (ah, I see that we were both following Sigur's tracks) and I've added the links myself. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:16, 29 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A link (the one found by Sigur) was captured in the first draft, but while phrases were being moved around and footnotes inserted, it took the opportunity to escape! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:29, 29 Martii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Salve Iacobe! Laborem, quem in Vicipaedia Latina ex decenniis demonstravisti, maxime admiro. Propono autem, ut bellum nostrum "calidum" de punctis in fine subscriptionum addendis an non addendos finiremus.
Video duas solutiones: Aut disputationem a me olim in Taberna incohatam (vide Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 25#Num oportet omnes subscriptiones puncto concludere?) ad consensum ferremus aut uterque nostri altero propriam consuetudinem in punctis addendis respective sinendis concedet. Quid est opinio tua? Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 01:09, 8 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Constantinopolis does not have a truly and solely mediterranean climate. That is incorrect. It has a transitional climate of three climate types: the oceanic climate, the humid subtropical climate and the 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.
The English wikipedia, by far the product of the most human calculating brainpower (and therefore worthy of respect), says: "In the Köppen–Geiger classification system, Istanbul has a borderline Mediterranean climate (Csa), humid subtropical climate (Cfa) and oceanic climate (Cfb), due to its location in a transitional climatic zone." If you want to translate that entire explanation (and the omitted matter that follows), by all means go ahead! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:14, 19 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
I requested the correction from you, because you know Latin, and I don't. I only partially understand it. As it stands, it is wrong. Trying to correct it myself was wrong and it backfired. Sorry. Can you send me a reply. Certainly, I do have a right to alert and ask users like yourself for a correction, when something is incorrect or partially incorrect. There are not many Latin speakers around. Can you correct this? Can you improve this rudimentary and grammatically wrong text I typed "Clima Constantinopolitanum est inter subtropicum humidum, temperatumoceanicum et mediterraneum per enumerationem Köppen–Geiger" and perhaps slightly expand it, and add it in the article?31.200.14.21921:54, 19 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Users are all individuals and have their own priorities and their own work to do. Anyway, you have now asked me too, and I'll look at this later today
One of those changes is what the unnamed person is objecting to, but don't worry: in the absence of time to translate the whole passage, I can add an adverb that'll make the false word 100% true! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:29, 20 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did that before I'd even glanced at the history. And even then I didn't study who first said what when. The latest episodes seem to prove that unlike the world in general, unlike the political condition of most of the countries we know, Vicipaedia is fated to improve slightly from day to day, whoever happens to be editing. Let's hold to that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:08, 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.) 31.200.14.21918:28, 22 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Salve! Ego nova in Vicipædia sum et linguam Latinam non bene scio, sed nonnihil scripsi ut alii textos corrigere possunt. Visi, post divulgationem texti, quod in Vicipædia litteras Æ et Œ non scribere debeturia sum. Quidni? Gratias ago si mihi respondere potes, nam scire volo!--Вѣра Павловна Розалскаяа (disputatio) 20:37, 12 Iunii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could see you were working on this, but I didn't see that you were adding a Myrias page every day. I think it's almost incredible too! But, in spite of that, I believe it! A great achievement Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:48, 4 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait! a small miscalculation has occurred! The first century did begin on 3 July 2019 (so "a whole year in which I added at least one new article every day" remains true), but the unbroken Myrias series began on 3 August—so it appears we'll having more birds, and then possibly more mammals, before we reach the Myrias milestone. Also, a slight error may have occurred on one day in 2019, so a recheck is necessary. The articles in question are documented in four sortable tables: (1), (2), (3), (4). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:00, 4 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I've miscounted, the tables show that the number of articles—Myrias + "ordinary" texts (but not categories, redirects, & such)—added in the year starting on 3 July 2019 was 564, averaging 1.54 a day. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:17, 4 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The general system I've been following, which we discussed elsewhere recently, means that I have now merged "Categoria:Genera avium" into Categoria:Genera animalium and "Categoria:Familiae avium" into Categoria:Familiae animalium. I know you like the Aves, so I want to assure you that nothing is lost. From the categories as they now stand you (and anyone) will easily be able to get a list of "genera of birds" or any other combination of taxon level + classification node. When I've finished I'll ask UVbot to help me provide a link for this on relevant category pages -- but if you want to know right away, just ask and I'll show you how to do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:32, 4 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in a month or two (after the birds, I'll be checking the mammals), a kind programmer will finish the job by automatically making a list of articles that contain a taxobox but not the category "[X] animalium" or "[X] plantarum" or "[X] fungorum" (where X is a taxonomic level). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:28, 15 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see this reply till now. I believe I have done all the plants already. At the same time I have been doing the bare minimum with each page to ensure that it has a taxobox (some don't) and that it is sourced -- simply by adding {{Fontes biologici}}. This gets even the shortest of them two-thirds of the way to being a stipula. There are only a few fungi and bacteria and they may already be done, I don't recall offhand. I was saving the animals for a bit ... But anything in that area that you want to do, don't let me stop you!! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:04, 26 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Iacobe. You added some categories to this page and hid them. I must say I've never known why you add hidden categories to the pages you create, and I delete them when I see them (mentioning it to you if it seems possible you're still working on the page): but why on earth add them to a page someone else created? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 6 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amice Iacobe, I feel I've been discouraging hidden text in discussion with you for something close to a decade, and removing your hidden text on sight (with warning summaries) for several years. Feel free to check if this is exact. It doesn't seem to have discouraged you. Other Wikipedians, in general and on Vicipaedia, don't do it, so far as I can see.
They do it a great deal in the English wiki, but in consideration of your disapproval of it, I've often suppressed it when translating articles from there. ¶ Why, in the past week or so, I suppressed "<!--Linked page allows download of the 48MB pdf-->" in "Columbidae" and "Picidae" and "Procellariidae" and probably elsewhere (for a certain oft-cited source). ¶ I've suppressed "<!--Whole paragraph cited-->" and "<!--cotylae mediales & laterales-->" and "<!-- AmMusNovit2400. Condor54:174. --> and several similar bibliographic references in "Picidae." ¶ I've suppressed "<!-- cites previous two sentences -->" (five times!) and "<!-- cites previous 3 sentences -->" (twice!) and "<!-- cites previous 3.5 sentences -->" and "<!-- cites previous 4 sentences -->" and "<!-- {{cite journal | last1=Kennedy | first1=Martyn | last2=Spencer | first2=Hamish G. | year=2004 | title=Phylogenies of the frigatebirds (Fregatidae) and tropicbirds (Phaethonidae), two divergent groups of the traditional order Pelecaniformes, inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences | journal=Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution | volume=31 | issue=1 | pages=31–38 | doi=10.1016/j.ympev.2003.07.007 | pmid=15019606}} -->"—all in "Fregatidae"! ¶ An example of hidden text that I've never, in years & years, imported from the English wiki—and which occurs with surprising frequency in taxonomic articles—is the announcement that a category, and sometimes a whole article, has been generated by a bot. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:03, 15 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I'll tell you the way other Wikipedians solve the main problems that you try to solve with hidden text.
You think the Latin word you're marking is a wrong choice, and you're pretty sure of a better choice. In this case, others correct the Latin word.
You aren't sure of the best Latin word, but you think there may be a better one lurking. Others make two choices. Better than adding a {{Dubsig}} (that is a legitimate ploy, but can serve as an irritation) is to say on the talk page, visible to all, what you believe to be wrong, mentioning any solution you have in mind.
There's more to be said, currently visible on en:wiki, but you haven't time to add it. Happens all the time. If it's your translation, you are already acknowledging en:wiki on the talk page. It's on the talk page that you should add this fact and date it.
There are notes, references and formulas that don't work. If you consider them essential, and can't make them work yourself, say it on the talk page. If you consider them non-essential, leave them out.
You have too many lovely images. Choose. Add the best, visibly. Leave the rest out. Later editors will have a bigger selection to choose from.
There are categories that don't work. Here you have three choices. If you consider them essential, create them and have a go at populating them. If you aren't so sure, find a supercategory that would work for the time being. It's very easy and fast to test category ideas if you have HotCat turned on (Preferences -- Gadgets.) For example, if Categoria:Mammalia Angoliae doesn't exist, and you don't have 5 minutes to create and populate it, try Categoria:Biota Angoliae. It does. With HotCat you can look at its subcategories as well: there might be a suitable one. Less than 1 minute to do all that, I reckon. Leave the remaining categories out.
Hiding categories and notes-about-categories in Latin is bad, because anyone who adds or removes categories afterwards, using HotCat, doesn't see your little deposits, and they might remain there till the end of Wikimedia. Hiding other text in Latin is bad too, and hiding text in English is of course worse. Potential editors won't see hidden text; many active editors won't see it in the way that you do; especially if the formatting is at all complicated, the next save may result in the hiding of a large stretch of good text.
If there are other problems that you try to solve with hidden text and I haven't yet thought of, please tell me! And if any other Vicipaedian thinks I'm being unreasonable, or has better solutions, do join in. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:28, 10 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's do away with all hidden text altogether. People will ignore it anyway, as when my helpful "[[fictilia elegantia]]<!--porcelain (Traupman)-->" was changed to the redlink "porcellana" (as if the attestation must be disregarded). And likewise "{{dubsig}}" doesn't always elicit desired improvements, as my "ebore, silice, slate{{dubsig}}, lignoque" has recently become "ebore, silice, quadra lapidea, lignoque," even though in the series of raw materials, "quadra lapidea" looks wrong as a translation of a substance (not a geometrical shape) defined by Wikipedia as "a fine-grained, foliated, homogeneous metamorphic rock derived from an original shale-type sedimentary rock composed of clay or volcanic ash through low-grade regional metamorphism." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:03, 15 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that you look at English wiki pages through the edit window far more than I do, these days, and for the best reasons. Of course I accept what you say. But even such messages date rapidly (48 MB? a couple of minutes or less).
It may be that uses of hidden text such as <!-- Bot-generated text --> are the oldest type. Since you aren't a bot, I didn't have them in mind above. But in general, yes, it would be good to test if we can manage without. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:26, 15 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Iacobe, for having given an inadequate rendition of slate. Having no inkling of its technical side, I had to conjure up something that might more or less fit into the context. For a non-native, slate looks like a wildly polysemous everyday word. Now that I had reason to look it up in the English wiki, I picked up Spanish in the language links, and pizarro in del Col: ardesia and lapis sectilis. Then, I kinda finished your job by replacing my feeble rendition by ardesia. Maybe lapis sectilis is better, I do not know. I agree with Andrew (point 2 above) that it's better to discuss these matters in the talk page. Neander (disputatio) 10:20, 16 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here I waffle about hidden policy, and meanwhile they've suddenly given me a list of other language articles, in the left column of each article, arranged in an order that makes no earthly sense. Is it the same for you? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:13, 10 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed when disorder in the left column ended. ¶ The categorization of the mammals, as I found it a few days ago, left a lot to be desired—but then so does their categorization in the English wiki, which (for reasons that aren't immediately apparent) at the higher-order levels uses a system somewhat different from its practice with other animals. I think we should make our mammalian categories conform with the rest of our zoological ones, even if (and though) they don't have links to the English wiki. Part of our problem was that we didn't have articles on some of the most important topics, but that's changing, as they've been sitting unloved for years among the certified myriads but are now at the top of my list of things to do. Up today: the baboons! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:45, 14 Augusti 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, we didn't foresee that, and other additions by the same party remain to be checked. Likewise, as we discovered just this morning, additions by a certain Tarih. Why people (let's assume they're people, and not bots) think it helpful to add words in the wrong language is a mystery. That their efforts deserve welcoming isn't necessarily an established fact. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:51, 15 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree. One of many such "facts". Only wanted to save your time really. Maybe, after weighing up the overall contributions of VV, Tarih and any other such, they are better discouraged. If similar unhelpful edits continue after your messages, I can warn and block. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 15 Iulii 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to monopolize your talk page -- I'll go quiet after this. I understand a bit more now. These people are going in for one of those wiki competitions, apparently decribed at #WPWPTR #WPWP (which means nothing to me). This one is about "improving" Wiki articles, in all the languages of Eve, by adding pictures to them. My advice for what it's worth (I will do this myself)
If they added a portrait to a bio page that didn't have one, try the effect of replacing their addition with {{Capsa hominis Vicidata}}. If that doesn't help --
No answer yet from the curator at the Quai Branly. As you know, Europe goes on holiday in August. All the better, though, to watch the Tour de France, which has been postponed to the end of the month. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:32, 14 Augusti 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working from the Myrias list, where "Equus asinus" wasn't a registered article (indeed, it has links only to a a few minor wikis), but my initial thought (when discovering its existence, well into the process) was to leave it in case there might be some value in recording the history of the name, for which purpose a brief article to that effect is conceivable: "Equus asinus was the name of mammals blablabla, erected as a species by [zoologist] in [year], which [official body, international consensus, whatever] in [year] made a subspecies of Equus africanus on the basis of blablabla, though investigators X and Y are still unpersuaded blablabla, as shown in their article blablabla." That sort of thing. Rather than work that problem out, I'd rather spend my time adding new articles from the Myrias list. We have about THREE THOUSAND to go! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:32, 14 Augusti 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guessed after writing the above that because of the interwikis you might not have even discovered Equus asinus till too late. That's very bad luck, owed to someone's odd decision at Wikidata. It's true, one could have an obsolete taxa category, but in most cases, I would say, it would be more helpful to put all the information we have at the current taxon (and move it whenever those taxonomists change their minds). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:01, 14 Augusti 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the old taxobox formerly printed small the name & year specified on the "....._authority" line, but now we have to type it in. Is memory playing tricks here? Was it decided that small wasn't desirable? or was the elimination of that feature an accidental byproduct (which nobody has complained about)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:32, 14 Augusti 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better not key in <small></small>, because, when we decide, we will want the decision to apply to every case. I didn't make this line small-font only because the font is now a bit smaller throughout the infobox and I didn't know whether even smaller was desirable here. If we agree that it is, I can very easily make it so. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:01, 14 Augusti 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday in "Cercopithecidae" (as previously in other articles), I'd keyed it in, albeit without the correct "....._authority" introduction, which I've just now fixed. I like the smallness of it. Couldn't a program include (in if-then codespeak, of course) the provision that "if a small command isn't already in the text, print it small"? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:41, 14 Augusti 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between what the code might be able to do and what I can make it do! I'm not so very clever. But in any case there's a better way. We decide the formatting (remembering also the need for italics for genus and species ... and anything else we think of), change the template to suit us perfectly, and then ask a bot to strip out unnecessary formatting from all existing cases. That way, anyone in the future will be able to use the template, confident that the formatting will be correctly applied. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:26, 17 Augusti 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finally I've done it. I wasn't looking forward to it because the design necessitated a large number of manual edits in this case and it's easy to get any one of them a tiny bit wrong! I think it's OK but please tell me if you notice any apparent errors. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 9 Novembris 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I moved to this because the name is directly confirmed in several sources. It also happens to agree with the current name Bengala of the article about the region. I didn't (yet) find any confirmation of "Sinus Bengaliensis", but in any case the footnote giving evidence of that spelling for the adjective is useful and remains in place. I hope that's OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:37, 20 Octobris 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Today's question is what to do with the Beaufort Sea. The word beaufort might reflect something like bel(li)forte, but words having that shape are hardly abounding on the internet, and certainly not for so-named sea. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 20 Octobris 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if there is a direct Latin source for this one. Sabellaria vulgaris beaufortensis and Cosmiodiscus beaufortianus and Amphora beaufortiana and Mastogloia beaufortiana were all named after the marine research station at Beaufort (North Carolina): no good. The Beaufortenses seem to come from there too ... You've probably checked all this yourself. We might have to start out with "Mare Beaufort". Sorry.
Thanks for your edits there. Looking at it again, I had made a big mistake: I quibble only with the cure you prescribed.
I had put her in the Vice-Presidents category. She isn't in that category yet, and if (e.g.) the world comes to an end before January or certain proposed lawsuits succeed (I'm putting this in order of probability) she never will be. So I've deleted that category now.
On the other hand, inserting the navbox, i.e. the list of vice-presidents, on her page is (I think) useful already -- e.g. it would help a reader to verify that she is the first woman on the list -- and the list correctly adds the term "futura" against her name (one could make it "electa" or some other caveat, I don't know: it's freely editable); so I restored the navbox. I hope you would agree?
She is also the first of non-U.S. parentage on both sides: is that true? I think it is. I say on both sides because John Adams (for example) had a British father. If that claim about her is correct, one might try to think of a neat Latin phrase to assert it ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:58, 9 Novembris 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she's the first VP whose parents were immigrants. (A TV announcer said it, so you know it must be true.) Her mother was an immigrant from India, and her father was an immigrant from Jamaica. Like most African-Americans, she has European ancestors, one of whom was allegedly Hamilton Brown, a Scots-Irish slave-trader from County Antrim, Ireland. A brief search via Google isn't revealing the town of his birth, but he had business connections with Ballymoney, so that may be it. (Which would be amusing, since two great-great-great-great-great-grandparents of someone you know emigrated from there to New England in 1730, as did President William McKinley's great-grandparents in 1743.) Also, Kamala Harris may be the first VP whose parents—both of them!—were doctors of philosophy and university professors. If it's true that she attended a French-speaking primary school in Quebec, she probably has at least a passing acquaintance with French. She brings a lot to the table, as people might say. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:20, 9 Novembris 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As to the formulas, the point was merely to highlight a technicality. Biden isn't even a president elect, and Harris isn't even a vice-president elect, except in popular parlance. The purpose of the election last Tuesday was to elect the electors; they, in turn, will be voting on "the Monday after the second Wednesday in December" (says the law), and the votes will be counted by the Congress on 6 January 2021, when we'll at last have a constitutionally certified president elect and vice president elect. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:44, 9 Novembris 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. No one-word expression will get this exactly right. In the navboxes I tend to use "nominatus" if no election is involved, "futurus" if some kind of election or selection procedure has taken place ... allowing myself to gloss over the fact that the future is more uncertain than is the word "futurus"! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:08, 9 Novembris 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the head's-up. Carota certainly looks feminine, but we never know what Latin-writing scientists who don't know what they're doing might be thinking. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:10, 26 Ianuarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I don't have a garden of my own, though I've been known to putter in the condominium's plantation. I once managed to sneak some radishes in, but people who've never not lived in a city thought they were weeds. What can we do? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:26, 18 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, when a text is so obscure that its meaning can't quickly be puzzled out, but it's not wholly in a foreign language, the aptest Latinitas-marker is probably –6. In this case, the lack of any such article in the other wikis is something of a red flag. The English wiki defines Neo-Bourbonism as "nostalgia for the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies" but has no article on it per se. The lemma itself is suspect, and the author has removed my {{dubsig}} formula, insisting, in effect, that Neo-Borbonis is good Latin. Time is lacking for the necessary editorial work. (For example, was the movement really born at Naples, as the text says? and so what? and is it really a movement, not mere nostalgia?) The world is sending us more pressing things to address at the moment. Not everything can be done. Life is short. And so forth. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:22, 18 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Et Iacobi et Andreae consentio; quomodo, o AEOS1130, existimes; mihi equidem videtur, ut non solum latinitas sed etiam argumentatio paginae emendandae aequabilitate meliore sint. Non dubito, quin lectoribus nostris et historia et diversae aspectae Utriusque Siciliae aestimationem afferant. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 11:41, 19 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example, here, in English, is what the second sentence might be telling us:
Ab articulorum scriptorem et cantuum , televisionis et cinematographicae textuum auctorem Ricardi Pazzaglia serie, cum Ianuario De Crescenzo magistro, scriptore, diurnario et tabulario, contra celebrare adventum Iosephi Garibaldi in Neapolim (die 7 Septembris 1860) ideam nata est.
The sight was born from of the little joints of writers and songs , of television and of a cinematographic female of texts to Richard Pazzaglia's author with regard to a succession, along with Ianuary De Crescenzo, master, writer, journalist and recorder, to celebrate opposite the arrival of Joseph Garibaldi into Naples (on 7 September 1860).
After some study of these words, we can guess more or less what you're trying to say, but you're not actually saying it, and encyclopedias exist to do more than provide puzzles for readers. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:17, 19 Februarii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Iacobe. One more page from our list of 10,000 added! Your energy amazes me. But it seems to me the strange unlinked numbers and letters at the end of each item in the bibliography at Arcus insularum require linking (if really useful) or taking away. Were you intending to do that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:09, 8 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm not finding "Island arc" in the list of 10,000. I added the article to turn a relink blue. That link, in turn, was in a new article, on the Insulae Kermadecenses, added because a swarm of strong earthquakes in that area may be indicating important action in the "Ring of Fire." ¶ In bibliographies, I just preserve what the English wiki tells us. The doi is itself a link: "You can turn any DOI into a URL by adding http://doi.org/ before the DOI." The ISSN unambiguously identifies the (serial) publication. Bibcode "has the form YYYYJJJJJVVVVMPPPPA[,] where YYYY is the four-digit year of the reference and JJJJJ is a code indicating where the reference was published. In the case of a journal reference, VVVV is the volume number, M indicates the section of the journal where the reference was published (e.g., L for a letters section), PPPP gives the starting page number, and A is the first letter of the last name of the first author" (says Wikipedia). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:37, 8 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I must have just assumed it was in the 10,000. Still, maybe it will be next month. I wouldn't be surprised if you're ahead of the wave.
I haven't seen you do this in bibliographies before. Perhaps I haven't looked at the right pages. But, for what it's worth, you're not doing what the English wiki does: their codes are linked. Yours aren't. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:42, 8 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, their codes are linked. Programs running in the background make the necessary connections, but we're not a programmer. Maybe one will come along and visit us from the English wiki, where the signal of "doi:" plus a number are all the information that needs to be typed into the text; the programming does the rest. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:26, 18 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction: since most of the bibliographic & footnoted matter seen over there is expanded from coding inside curly brackets, the programming probably involves the governing formulas, and not just hard-coded "doi:" signals. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:05, 18 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no reply, so I've removed these unlinked bibliographic codes. Our aim is to help readers, not to puzzle them (I'm agreeing, in fact, with what you quite rightly said in the discussion just above). Our citations should give standard bibliographical information, as one would do in a professionally published academic work. And also -- this is the wonder of an online encyclopedia -- if we can link to an available online version of the text we're citing, we should certainly do it.
Putting raw codes on the page, with no links, is no help to anyone. Let's not do it. After all, it seems to me, the place to preserve material on en:wiki is in the history of en:wiki. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:18, 18 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for "professionally published academic work," the American Psychological Association's styleguide says:
Follow these guidelines for including DOIs and URLs in references:
Include a DOI for all works that have a DOI, regardless of whether you used the online version or the print version.
If a print work does not have a DOI, do not include any DOI or URL in the reference.
If an online work has both a DOI and a URL, include only the DOI.
If we want to include and link the DOI, that becomes useful, and we can probably do it.
The DOI would normally take you to the publisher's website (hence no additional need for a url). The text may be available there free, but more often requiring subscription: still useful if your library has a subscription. Similarly a JSTOR number: many libraries subscribe to JSTOR. Hold on, then, and I'll have a go. "Programming", with luck, will be an overstatement :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:59, 18 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need for me to do that: the DOI formula already exists here, and is in use on many older pages written by you. It was created by Robert Baruch, possibly for you, back in 2010! It seems we just have to remember to use it. I would have used it myself if I'd known. Instead of writing "doi:number", we have to write {{doi|number}}. That's it, folks. I think we can do that. For an example see Accipitridae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:20, 18 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a brief documentation to {{doi}}. But we can even do without the template and instead of writing "doi:number" we can write "[[doi:number]]", which will automatically turn the doi into a link. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:45, 18 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not do without the curly brackets and the square brackets and enable any string that begins "doi:" to be a link? Vicipaedia has a nontrivial number (less than a thousand but probably more than a hundred) of such strings already in place, as, for example, in "Asteroides orbitam Martis transiens." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:33, 19 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing this has come up for discussion, and a good thing too that there turn out to be easy answers. But I want to raise an issue that (in my limited understanding) makes the use of a formula {{}} preferable to the [[]] that UV offers and the "magic number" method that Iacobus has in mind.
In my view, en:wiki is still at the adolescent stage here: you link the numbers and you show the numbers (although human eyes will avoid reading the numbers and don't ever need to). The adult stage is when you link the numbers and quietly tell the human eye what the link will do. So, with the apparent steady increase in bibliographic codes, a fully featured en:wiki bibliography ends up with a long list of blue numbers, unreadable and not actually requiring to be read, at the end of each item.
To see the difference, compare what you get on en:wiki in the box labelled "taxon identifiers" at the foot of en:Tomato, with what you get on la:wiki in the line headed "situs scientifici" at the foot of Solanum lycopersicum. On en:wiki you're given all the numbers (but how many readers need them?); on la:wiki you get the name of the site, which is what most readers might want. Of course, by mousing or clicking, you can see the number if you want it.
This isn't a new idea, of course -- it's what hyperlinks normally do! You present to the eye the name of the site or page, and you hide the URL behind it.
That's what I think we should be able to do, and that's why (in my limited understanding) the use of {{}} would be a better way to go. Sorry, Iacobus, about this long text on your page -- but somehow you're often at the eye of the storm :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:56, 19 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Enabling any string that begins with doi: to be a link (i. e. a fourth "magic link" besides ISBN, PMID and RFC) cannot be configured locally on la.wikipedia, and there are arguments against (further) such magic links, see mw:Help:Magic links and mw:Requests for comment/Future of magic links. Therefore we should use the curly or square brackets when we provide a DOI.
Whether the template method (curly brackets) or the interwiki method (square brackets) can or will programmatically provide richer information to readers in the future is difficult to foresee. It may well be that changing our {{doi}} template here on la.wikipedia may enable us to improve the presentation of dois, but it might also happen that MediaWiki programmers will enhance the interwiki doi presentation in a way that would be difficult to achieve with templates here on Vicipaedia. But perhaps the template method (curly brackets) will turn out a bit more flexible. In any way, we should use either of these two methods whenever we provide a doi (and it would be a good idea to link any doi in either of the two ways). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:09, 19 Martii 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the linking method, I think that this is something that we can present more cleanly than in the format prescribed by style manuals. The Chicago Manual of Style, for example, says something similar to the APA. Here's an example of how they would cite an online journal article:
Wesoky, Sharon R. “Bringing the Jia Back into Guojia: Engendering Chinese Intellectual Politics.” Signs 40, no. 3 (Spring 2015): 647–66. https://doi.org/10.1086/679524.
The DOI is useful as a theoretically permanent link. Writing it out in full is necessary in a print publication, but here I would argue that we can just attach the link to the title. Here's with a full URL:
Sorry I didn't reply before, Lesgles. I'm glad you agree that in an online bibliography there's no need to show the number (e.g. the DOI number): the need is to link it.
I like your solution -- placing the DOI behind the article title -- especially because it strikes me that DOIs are becoming more and more the standard reference, almost month by month. But I hesitate for two reasons. One is that, for the great majority of the older stuff we cite in bibliographies, there is no DOI: so it's not standard enough yet! The other is that it is more complicated to adopt that method in transferring a bibliography from another source, such as en:wiki: on en:wiki's and other people's bibliographies, the doi appears (if at all) at the end of each entry. The simplest thing on each case would just be to put the curly brackets around the DOI where it is: I can imagine persuading others to do that, I can't so easily imagine persuading others to take the DOI, transfer it just ahead of the article title, and format a link around the whole thing. There's more risk of typos when doing that, and it would take longer each time. [So for clarity, this is my preferred method:
Wesoky, Sharon R. "Bringing the Jia Back into Guojia: Engendering Chinese Intellectual Politics". Signs 40, no. 3 (Spring 2015): 647–66. doi
And it would be simpler, I think, if we were doing that, to make the {{doi}} template do it for us, hence no need to add the "[https://doi ]" each time, just the curly brackets. But if others prefer the Lesgles format as in the examples he gives, above, I will happily go along with that.] Iacobe, do you have a view on this? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:12, 1 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear friend! I think that the important page "Princeps senatus" has some fault and mistakes. for example the word "inientes" in this page what does mean?! please improve this article. Thanks! Mehdi khazaee (disputatio) 09:07, 20 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the plural noun Lupercalia (meaning 'the festival of Lupercus'), Cassell's (1968) gives the genitive as both -ium (third declension) and -iorum (second declension), but Traupman (2007) gives it only as -ium. If either interpretation is acceptable but the third declension is preferable, feel free to change it! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:52, 27 Aprilis 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can say what you like to me, Iacobe, see my talk page for evidence, but your summaries at Tokelau and Niue are unreasonable to all magistrates. Like other people, we sleep. Like other people, we have things to do in the real world. (I've been pickling chillies this morning.)
Compared with other wikis of comparable size, Vicipaedia is quite good at clearing up vandalism. And you are a major part of this. Thank you with all my heart for watching so closely and for reverting as you do. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 18 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least eleven hours and four minutes elapsed between the first instance of vandalism and the first deletion. That's a rather long time for a large handful of magistrates all to be asleep! ¶ Why not divide the day into segments, for each of which at least one magistrate would be responsible? If each of (say) eight magistrates checked the "Nuper mutata" once a day at a set time (the times being distributed at equal intervals), the result of an attack would be visible for less than three hours. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:37, 18 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Omnia aliena, tempus tantum nostrum. Vicipaediae, tempus hominum ceteroum gubernare non decet. Officio nostro verecunde mi licet, Vicipaedia non, quia est libera. Ut ceteri/ceterae spectare continuabo. Pariter, ut iam supra scriptum, vigilantiae omnium gratias quoque ago. Andreas Raether (disputatio) 17:25, 21 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you a lot for the corrections you're making on my articles. I always read what you correct back and your summaries hoping to improve my knowledge on Latin. If you ever think that my article edits bring more harm than good, don't be afraid at all to tell me and I'll stop. I've just started learning Latin so I am aware that my language skill level is very low at the moment.
Having said all that, I wanted to correct you on something though: 1 hectometer is equal to 100 meters so 138.8 meters are equal to 1.388 hectometers or ~1.4 hm. This is in reference to this edit. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 10:41, 28 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good. I hadn't had my morning coffee yet and didn't see the period (.) and was thinking you didn't know that four-digit numbers (e.g. 1388) don't have a space, whereas numbers with more digits do (e.g., 13 888 and 138 888). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:41, 28 Septembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for the heads-up, but I'm working on other projects at the moment; Vicipaedia fits the schedule best in the mornings (local time), with coffee. Maybe tomorrow. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:28, 3 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your plea for a means to indicate which were the main sources for an article. I had wanted that myself. See what I've done at Eduardus Nignon, under external links. It's an idea I got from French wiki. If you like it, this {{Penna}} can be added at the end of any line in a bibliography or external links. Optional, of course, and no real need to do it if the book is already cited in [multiple] footnotes.
It would be possible to permit different messages, but I think maybe it saves time just to use the single fixed message. I felt it was simpler to do this than to have a separate list of sources -- in which case one would end up transferring titles from one list to another, or forgetting to do it, or duplicating titles etc. etc. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:23, 5 Octobris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made a quick comment. This postscript is for your attention: I'm amazed that you see eleven lines of text! In the case of the two examples you give, I see 3 and 4 lines respectively. The system appears to have a cutoff so that it doesn't go beyond the length of those two, but I quite agree that the current cutoff takes it far beyond what's necessary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:28, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the size of my font is larger, but the degree of difference is a surprise. Especially at the end of the day, I tend to spare my eyes by enlarging the letters. (Right now, on my screen, the first sentence starts flushleft with the word Maybe, and the phrase end of the is at the right margin.) On a PC keyboard, enlarging the font is instantly effected by simultaneously depressing Ctrl and the plus-sign on the number pad—an action repeatable until satisfaction is achieved. Easy as pie! (Ctrl-minus works in reverse.) Surely on a handheld communication device, with a narrower width than my screen, the situation would be even worse? (But maybe the personality of people using such a device leads them not to bother with "Nuper mutata"?) Also in regard to the "Nuper mutata" page, the design of the screen wastes several lines with unnecessary blankspace, but I'll have to take to email to show you a screenshot. Hold on! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:26, 3 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My preference happens to be roughly the opposite of yours. I like plenty of text in fairly small size: my standard zoom level for Wikipedia is 80%, and I have a big screen. So the degree of difference is not so surprising after all. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:56, 22 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notice my response on one point that you made at Klein Muci's talk page -- you can already eliminate formulas from your Nuper mutata! It takes 4 5 clicks (it could be simpler, I admit). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:39, 19 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haec verba in Taberna die 13 Septembris 2021 scribebamus: "Are linguists aware that individual contributors' attempts to write in Latin can serve as evidence for the process of their acquisition of the language? Contributiors' understandings & misunderstandings are all available, in indisputable black & white, for future study, sometimes augmented by their declarations of doubt & certainty in editboxes & disputation pages. All manner of abilities & personalities are documented here. Some contributors will be seen to be recording their uncertainties, and some will be seen to be declaring that their grammar is 'perfectly fine' when it isn't. The history of this wiki is potentially a gold mine (so to speak) for linguistic and even psychological investigation." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:05, 10 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing those unwanted edits, which happened after my morning coffee and before yours.
If a similar thing happens another time, do exactly the same thing -- with just one exception, if you happen to think of this. If the edit is defintely unhelpful, revert it (abrogare) and save. Don't be tempted to make other edits before saving. After saving, by all means go on and improve the page with a second edit, and save again. But if you revert and improve in the same edit, and especially if it's a very long page, the editor who comes after may be left in doubt whether you corrected all the bad things or only some of them. Verbum sapienti Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:51, 22 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. When reverting, my eye often catches infelicities other than the ones inviting the reverting, and then my fingers begin to itch. ¶ Multiple unhelpful changes (like today's) often seem to occur when neither of us is awake. Maybe that's a clue as to where they're coming from. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:55, 22 Novembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was true, Iacobe, the method I gave you for excluding unwanted namespaces from your Nuper mutata will not, by itself, hold firm each time you go back to Nuper mutata. But it was also true, as Klein Muci then said, that you can make it hold firm for ever by finding the bookmark symbol at the right moment. Perhaps you've discovered this for yourself meanwhile. Tell me if you haven't and I'll explain exactly how. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:15, 30 Decembris 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your addition to Ostreae Rockefeller, which served to remind me that I had more work to do on that page.
On Flumen Grande, via the German wiki (which lists old Spanish names) I guessed at a possible Latin name and found support for it. I haven't suggested moving the page, as yet, because there could surely be other, better or more recent Latin names which we haven't yet guessed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:09, 10 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the internet for "flumen grande" (in various cases) and found attestations of one—apparently in Brazil! Not pertinent, except that it does tell us that flumen grande is good Latin for the concept. Likewise, searches for fluvius grandis proved unavailing. Further, magnum flumen and magnus fluvius must abound, but maybe not helpfully so in regard to this particular example. We have an irony here, in that the river is never impressively wide, and the flow of its water has been so reduced by damming and climate change that it sometimes dries up completely now before reaching the Gulf of Mexico. As a site of undocumented immigration, however, it has enormous importance in U.S. politics, so I was surprised to see that Vicipaedia didn't have at least a stub on it; also, of course, it's one of the 10,000 essential articles. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:27, 10 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of those, I thought you wouldn't disagree if I gave your new page primary position at Sal. It's exactly what classical Latin writers would have meant when they said "Sal" -- but probably you would not have been able to put it at that title because deletion of existing redirects was necessary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:19, 21 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine. Redirects (both here and in the English wiki) are mostly useful, but they've sometimes proven problematic, and they've definitely cost us points at Meta. Speaking of which, we have the newly discovered problem of "Stagnum," which correctly links to English "Pond" but still isn't being counted among our 10,000 articles at Meta. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:02, 21 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently working on the article of Lissus (Lezha), an Albanian city and while listing some of its most well-known historical figures, I was surprised to see that the article for Georgius Fishta already existed and it was written by you some years ago. I got curious and I wanted to ask how come you've gotten interested in that writer. The creation summary you had provided some years ago included a number but I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 18:56, 21 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why I wrote it. The number is in the Dewey Decimal Classification, a widely recognized system for cataloging publications. It's a guess, and it could be wrong! Here's a simple version of it; click to expand. As you'll see, Albanian literature is 891.991. A problem with biographies, of course, is that people can have several specialties, each with its own number, so a cataloger has to choose the most important or exemplary. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:11, 21 Februarii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I had an overall question about the Latin syntax and I was wondering if you could help. I know that there is no fixed word order in Latin and I also know that in basic Latin guides students may be told that usually the verb goes in the end of the sentence.
Does that "rule" still apply if the sentence is very long though? I was reading about my country to practice my Latin (reading about something you already know helps) and I noticed this sentence: A septemptrione Monte Nigro, oriente Kosoviae et Macedoniae, meridie Graeciae, occidente mari Hadriatico finitur. Its syntax does seem a bit awkward for my eyes. Having the verb in the end of the sentence usually makes for a more amused reader because it entertains their curiosity for meaning and context (you have to wait until the very ende of the sentence to know what the other is talking about). However in that case, the very long sentence feels like it surpasses the human cognitive load and when you eventually do get the verb, you may have to reread the beginning again to remember what it was about. Does it feel the same for you, an experienced Latin reader? Do you think that could be rewritten in a better way in regard to verb positioning? - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 16:07, 15 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finitur sounds fine to my ear. (But are the previous words in that sentence idiomatic?) The passage before finitur isn't all that long, and because it breaks down into four short phrases that are (or should be) grammatically parallel, it doesn't feel overlong at all. If you really want to tickle your syntactical senses, observe, in English, the first lines of book II of Paradise Lost (by John Milton), with the main verbs (of independent clauses) here in bold:
The provided example crushes all my dilemmas if the sentence I provided was "too much". I guess it's just too much for me than, my mind still unable to auto-break it down in meaning in 4 equal parts (even though the commas are there) while still remembering context. That sentence was from Albania, second sentence of the article. Thank you for your insight! :) - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 11:42, 17 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, did you hear the music of "Ind . . . hand . . . gold" and "Satan . . . sat" and "despair . . . aspires . . . pursue" and "high . . . hope . . . high . . . Heaven"? Also, "by success untaught" may be a wry echo of indocilis pauperiem pati 'untaught to brook privation' in Horace's first ode of book one. Milton spoke & wrote Latin fluently, read Horace thoroughly, and worked echoes of Horace into various parts of Paradise Lost. ¶ Meanwhile, I doubt that the diction you cite is the most idiomatic possible. The not-quite parallelism could be problematic: 'It's bounded on the north in regard to Black Mountain, on Kosovo and Macedonia's east, on Greece's south, on the west to the Adriatic sea'. Can that be geographically right? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:55, 17 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did when I was reading it quickly and it was aesthetically pleasing even though I had difficulties in finding out where it was coming from. I've been interested in taking a look at the so-called Milton's mysterious magnum opus but so far I have yet to read Paradise Lost. I've been careful not to read too much on it online not wanting to spoil myself.
I believe not. This is "the same" sentence from the EnWiki version: It is located on the Adriatic and Ionian Seas within the Mediterranean Sea and shares land borders with Montenegro to the northwest, Kosovo to the northeast, North Macedonia to the east and Greece to the south. This paints a better picture I believe. - Klein Muçi (disputatio) 17:29, 17 Aprilis 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoyed reading this discussion, and, as often, I find that I agree fully with Iacobus. Milton is a lovely example (and well worth reading). If you want something simpler (and Latin instead of English) @Klein Muçi: Try reading Caesar's commentaries De Bello Gallico and maybe use a translation to help you follow it. It's an executive summary for senators of what Caesar claimed to have done each year. There, too, clauses and sentences fall into parallel groups, and as you learn to recognise them you find that the prose becomes easier to read. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:00, 5 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember the answer to this: I'm sure you can. Capsicum (fructus), one of the Myriad, is already full length and I am still expanding it: will this further increase our score, or not? If yes, I'll continue. If no, I will take out the list of cultivarietates to make a separate list article, as is done in English. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 12 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's already got 76,490 octeti, so removing fewer than 60,490 shouldn't make a difference, as 16,000 qualifies a text for maximal points. The removal will reduce the mean by a small & probably negligible amount, but it certainly won't affect the median. Have at it, if you like! :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:40, 12 Maii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Salve, Iacobe. Petrus sum (tibi antea forte sub nomine "Frenchnerd" notus), is qui nuperrime ultimam partem Musicae Romanae antiquae curavi. Quid censes de latinitate huius rei, estne melior nunc? Bene scio multa, quae ad artem Latine scribendi attinent, mihi etiamnunc addiscenda esse meumque scribendi genus fortasse quadam elegantia vel venustate carere, sed, ut ingenue fatear, istam elegantiam interdum sophisticam libenter neglegendam existimo perspicuitatis gratia... Si igitur tempus tibi fuerit, rem supra commemoratam, quaeso, iterum inspicias. Bibliographiam non attigi, quamvis multae quisquiliae ibi maneant, ut emendentur... Fortasse etiam de inscriptione rei nobis cogitandum erit, cum res inscribatur "Musica Romana antiqua", textus autem sic inchoet: Musica Romae antiquae... Quae cum ita sint: cura, amice, ut quam optime valeas! Tibi obstricissimus Petrus Tectander (disputatio) 12:14, 11 Iunii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the (annual except for 2020 & 2021) folklife festival on the Mall has been proving irresistible to my (hobbyist) cameras, a double issue of an academic journal I copyedit has been in progress, and so forth. Busy, busy! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 15:13, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Salvus sis, Iacobe. Video Andream te iam certiorem fecisse de iis, quae in eius pagina disputationis scripseram. Si tibi occupatissimo placebit, tempore dato rogatum meum ibi legas. Petrus Tectander (disputatio) 18:41, 4 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history of Tyrone Power I see a couple of summaries by you, attached to edits tagged "minor", a couple of months ago, which begin "Andrew ..." I guess that must be me. Well, just to clarify, I don't hold the views you seem to attribute to me. I don't know why you thought I did. Never mind -- have a nice day, as they say -- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:38, 21 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what it was now. That page had been edited by a miscreant: you were unlucky enough to edit it straight afterwards without noticing the vandal's touch. Seeing the page afterwards, I regarded your edits as neutral rather than improvements, so I reverted to the previous good state of the page. In general, "Lifetime" is fine by me: I see it as neither better nor worse that the alternative. I agree that "CFA" is not the most helpful term to choose, but, as a link, it works. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 21 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. Too long ago for worry, but you seem to have figured it out! ¶ Meanwhile, while we've got your attention: neither the new form of the disputatio-starting page, nor the current version of the so-called legacy form, may be looking as good as the truly old one. ¶ Also, in case you've noticed the absence of an article on this year's Circuitus Franciae: the cable network that used to show the race for free (as part of its ordinary programming) isn't doing so this year and is charging money for live-streaming, so the unfortunate cyclists have sunk into oblivion. Of course anyone remains free to add an article to continue the series. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:49, 21 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to help you here without fully understanding your problem: therefore ignore if useless.
On la:wiki I have no difficulty such as you describe. But maybe the following will help:
On en:wiki, yes, I do see an unfriendly screen saying in large red letters "Why the hell do you want to do this, you idiot?" On that screen, I click on the button bizarrely labelled "Start a discussion". The system now reluctantly gets ready to open an edit window, while soupily urging "A new way to start topics is here" (a Dutchman must have written that). Alternatively it invites me to return to the "legacy experience", which would be sex, wouldn't it? All right, I think I used to like sex, I'll have a go at it. I click on "legacy experience". I have to insist once more on "legacy experience as default": then I get to my preference page and I have to push a button near the bottom labelled "open the wikitext editor". If I do all that, I get back to normality just in time for breakfast.
It looks as if, from where you are, you would achieve the same outcome on Vicipaedia by going to "Modi/Praeferentiae", choosing the tab "Edit screen/Recensere", finding the button near the bottom labelled "open the wikitext editor", clicking it, and saving.
It's a Wikimedia-wide change: you can find some explanations here, as I discovered in responding to your question.
When you asked about it on the Taberna, I didn't immediately recall the event -- sorry -- but I must in fact have determined immediately in my own case to enjoy the "legacy experience" and followed the steps above almost without conscious thought. Again in my own case, and to try out the solution to your problem, I followed the same steps yesterday on en:wiki, as I narrated above. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:39, 25 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One is reminded of businesses that, when they make a change that inconveniences you, will post a sign or send an email to tell you it's "for your convenience." ¶ I tried the "legacy experience" a week or two ago, but the result differed somewhat from what was expected. Let's try it again when I add another orchid or bee. ¶ Speaking of bees, Vicipaedia may have made a mistake in making "Anthophila" equivalent to "Bee" (though, strictly speaking, it seems to be), the problem being that anthophila is a clade, not one of the basic levels of taxa (class, order, family, genus, species). Would it have been better to say that anthophila = apis (cladus) and thus to distinguish between Apis (genus) and apis (cladus)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:34, 25 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there is a clade "Apis" (as distinct from the genus "Apis"), or indeed a clade "Bee" ... is there? If there isn't, we can't pretend there is. It would be an error to use "apis" in Latin, or "abeille" in French, to cover all the insects covered by English "bee", because vernacular names don't correspond in that way from language to language. It would be pointless, anyway, to create a Latin or French page specifically to enumerate all the insects that the English call "bee". That's a job for Victionarium or Victionnaire: our articles have to describe things, not words. Yes, I know, I'm saying things you have often said yourself.
Now there actually is a clade "Potato" these days (roughly on a level with Solanum subg. Leptostemonum but not defined as a subgenus). My question is, should I translate the name or not? You may have had similar issues among the cabbages. I think it will only cause confusion if I translate it (NB it includes the tomatoes as well as the potatoes), and I think I have to call it Solanum clad. Potato, explaining the name in the first sentence. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:38, 25 Iulii 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment when adding {{Augenda}} to one of these communes. You're right. There are 541 of them (setting aside other similar pages elsewhere). Helveticus created them all but he added no external sources (in most cases), he never wrote enough text to be useful, and he never even looked for Latin names. In a few cases others (Lesgles, me, etc.) have found the Latin names; in a few cases more text has been added. Otherwise, they remain as they were, "Non stipula" for three reasons, begging for deletion.
If you're prepared to go through them, using Index communium praefecturae Pyrenaei Atlantici as a working list, and mark them {{Augenda|2022|9}}, I will take it from there. You could skip the few whose name is a redirect: these will normally have Latin pagenames, which makes them worth saving. I will work on the few pages about large towns, worth expanding and saving. After three months, I will delete the rest. How about it? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:49, 3 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being somewhat preoccupied the past few months, I've been looking for mindless activities to be doing while waking up at breakfast, and that project could be one of them, but its scope seems too daunting to make a promise. And how about the other prefectures? Is the true number of such unsourced articles in the thousands, or even the tens of thousands?! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:57, 3 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They'll still have three months, and I always judge each page individually, saving whatever I reasonably can. The reason for identifying these (sparked by your summarium, as I mentioned above) is that they were clearly unfinished and forgotten. The same may apply to communes in one or two other French départements, but the majority (many thousands of pages) are a tiny bit better ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 3 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Salve Iacobe, I hope that you accept the usage of the English language for discussions. First of all, I am very thankfull for improving the Latinitas level of the new article Ordo saecularis, but I have seen that you have categorised it as a pagina brevior, which I honestly cannot comprehend. There are a definition, links to and from this site, a source (I thought it might be appropiate to choose a bilangual latin-italian one), images and a Vicidata link. Can you please tell me, what to do to improve the page? Gratiam tibi ago Socius sociologicus (disputatio) 12:40, 24 Septembris 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Salvus sis! Tu homo multo magis patiens quam ego esse videris. Nam in commentatione de domino Contar singula verba non apta formula "Dubsig" ornasti. Revera res omnis non Latine scripta est, mea opinione! Latinis verbis utique sed sententiis non intelligibilibus. Ne perdamus tempus in erroribus singillatim et discretim detegendis. Sed cunctim et coacervatim erratica tamquam opusculum ab initio rescribendum patefaciamus. Dic, an sim in hoc nimis malignus contra tirones. - Giorno2 (disputatio) 19:59, 19 Octobris 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel I was wrong to delete Apollo Poetry please say so.
Your comment in our disputatio was partly about the status of the image. If you want to pursue that, you had better do so at Deletion requests/File:Apollo Poetry.jpg -- quickly, I suggest. I have just noticed, this moment, that the editors at Commons were waiting on us before deleting the image. My personal view was that this was all self-promotion that survived too long, but evidently you have doubts. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:08, 7 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It always arouses skepticism when a named but otherwise unknown party urges action for reasons untraceable elsewhere, but Mr. Poetry is hardly so notable as to be necessary to the enterprise, though he's doubtlessly much more notable than subjects we do tolerate, for example, the eleven denizens of Caychax, a hamlet that, unlike Mr. Poetry, doesn't have a YouTube channel (most of the hamlet can apparently be glimpsed in the first six seconds of the video here). Furthermore, mainstream poets and their audiences tend to look down on performers billing themselves as "spoken word poets," and it's useful to guard against unwittingly adopting that kind of cultural imperialism. Additionally, since this one has been something of a political activist, maybe he's said or done something that has ruffled someone's feathers and that party wants to silence him. Or maybe he himself has private reasons to want to scrub from the internet any knowledge of his prior public activities. We just don't know, but it doesn't seem to be a clear case either way, so I guess the best response is a shrug. It'd be nice, though, to have a copy of the text for my archives; it was gone before I could retrieve it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:46, 7 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, those are fair reasons! I've brought it back. If you decide to work on it a couple of reliable sources, not linked to him, would be the minimum. IMDB doesn't count as reliable because, like Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. What he says on YouTube might be interesting to cite but can't count among reliable sources about him. Hope that helps. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:19, 7 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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, 31.200.22.6720:14, 28 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A very brief page, but a 10,000 problem: the text talks about the word, and correctly says that this word is the name of a genus. The taxobox, however, applies to the order 'Octopoda (not quite the same word, because it's neuter). It is the order that belongs to the 10,000. So we could
move this page to Octopoda, and correct the text, and hold on tight to the Wikidata link and thus to the 10,000
start a page that will be truly about the genus, which will then be correctly titled "Octopus".
OK, quickly. Maybe the original text was trying to say 'kind' (in a general sense) instead of 'genus' (in a taxonomic sense), as the English wiki doesn't seem to recognize a genus having this name. As you imply, the article needs to define the order, to which a link to the other wikis is correctly in place. So both your options are good, except that the second one should be about the history of the word, not the (nonexistent) genus; or that page could just become a redirect, with the etymological information merely a section of the article on octopoda. ¶ Bear in mind that when articles among the 10,000 are moved to be under a new title, the system apparently doesn't recognize the change (and Vicipaedia loses points), as the link has to be manually updated (in ways unknown to me) in Meta (or wherever the links go). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:16, 1 Martii 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iacobus. Just a technical note. I think it would be preferrable not to split other users' comments to intervene concerning something stated in the middle, because it makes the page unreadable to whoever approaches the discussion later. I created the {{Re}} and {{Cc}} templates exactly for these cases. For instance, if you have
This is not the really important thing…[← You want to leave a comment about this] Not exactly classical, but there is ...
you could do
This is not the really important thing… Not exactly classical, but there is
«This is not the really important thing…»: Your answer goes here
Insuper sublineas "nos non esse Germanos!!". Fateor me ipsum quoque non Germanum esse!! Si Germanus essem, tamen criticam de usu formulae pure Latinae in Latina Vicipaediana (secundum Iacobum evitanda) non intelligerem. - Giorno2 (disputatio) 05:38, 27 Maii 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Iacobe. I think I mentioned before, if correcting and improving a page that has been vandalized, it's safest to deal with the vandalism in one edit, then save, then make any improvements you wish and save again. If you don't do it this way, you run the risk of wasting your time, because your edits could get reverted along with the vandalism. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:11, 8 Iunii 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a case where I've done that. If there is, please tell me which article it is.
Meanwhile, please respond directly to the point I'm making. If you correct vandalism and make other edits in the same move, you make it difficult for any following editor to verify that the vandalism has been corrected. And so, when I'm doing what you did, reverting to a previous version, I say so in the summary (e.g. "versionem stabilem restituo"). Then, if I need to make further changes, I do it in a second edit. That means any future editor knows what moves I made. If you revert and edit further in the same move, with an unclear summary, it takes others longer to verify how your version differs from the previous one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:39, 10 Iunii 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To minimize clutter, my habit has been to do the leapfrogging & editing described above, but the history of this article seems to have been misremembered: I started with an ineptly coded but not necessarily vandalizing edit by an unknown entity. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:20, 10 Iunii 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Iacobe. Notice the edit to this page, and consider in particular whether it represents Vasari's thinking as well as your version. Don't hesitate to edit further or to restore some of your text if needed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:54, 23 Iunii 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The revision looks OK. It did cut a sentence, whose keywords I've added to the NexInt, where they can stay until such time as they go back into the main text. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:40, 23 Iunii 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted you re-arranged my text in the Exaltatio Crucis, thank you. I have the following question: when describing liturgical matters, it is quite natural for me to follow the conventions used in Roman liturgical editions, in which all canonical hours are capitalised, Vesperae, hymnus ad Vesperas dicendus, ad Matutinum etc. You changed into "vesperas", "matutinum". On the contrary, "sanctus" with personal names is spelt always with a lowercase, festum sanctae Caeciliae, sanctus Andreas and so on ("Sanctus" is mostly just for God). You changed into "Sancta Helena". Would you mind indicating whether the convention for using capitals / lowercase for such things has already been discussed somewhere? Ailamnos (disputatio) 17:00, 24 Iunii 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re "please don't model such bios on outdated formats"
Hello, I'm the user "Qondd2", do not remove tags, you removed a tag from the article Franciscus de Quevedo Villegas. If any user found the insertion of the marking necessary, it is their right and it is in accordance with the rules, I have already reverted your edit. Thank you! Qondd2 (disputatio) 22:33, 3 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't revert the previous edit: you accepted it in toto (including a typo, "Ialiane" for "Italiane"!), except for reinserting the {{scriptor-stipula}} formula, which had been removed because the text had a magnitude of 3859, well more than the usual upper limit of stubs, and except for suppressing a blankline customarily placed above the categories. The question of what the precise upper limit of stubs should be (or indeed whether there should be a precise limit) is a question best raised in the Taberna. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:34, 4 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Revert" does not mean undo or undo, in wikipedian contexts, means "remove". Wikipedia doesn't have fixed rules, I can abolish sketch tags, I can remove valid text. Qondd2 (disputatio) 01:16, 4 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One way or another quite a lot of English had got into the first paragraph at Petrus Lellouche ... it might have appeared almost imperialistic :) So I reduced it, taking out the hidden text in English, removing a couple of less-pertinent "Creanda" templates, and making the other such templates generally point at the more-relevant French wiki articles. I thought you wouldn't mind. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:32, 29 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I noticed you made some corrections to my edit on Statistica#Historia statisticae, and, well... I'm afraid I do have some doubts about it. I hope we can clear all of them.
You edited the first sentence to "Vocabulumstatistica primum a Hermanno Conringio res quaedam appellata est". Shouldn't the word vocabulum be in the ablative? I mean, maybe there is some attested example contradicting me, but that construction sounds suspiciously English-influenced.
Not if it's the subject or an appositive of the subject. 'The word statistica was first called a certain thing by H,C.' ~ 'A certain thing was first called statistica by H.C.' (in which case, vocabulum should be cut). I may have misread this, intending to say Vocabulum statistica primum a H.C. rei cuidam adhibita est ('The word statistica was first applied to a certain thing by H.C.') but then got distracted. Maybe rethink the syntax?
I mean, I precisely didn't think that it is correct to treat the "word" as the appositive of the subject, but I gotta say, I like the formulation with adhibeo much better. I think we should settle on this one.
You marked the word "magistratio" as unclear; my dictionary, a Castiglioni-Mariotti, translates it as teaching, which I found appropriate. What was your reasoning?
It's not in Cassell's, which, for 'a teaching', gives doctrina, disciplina, eruditio, institutio, praecepta.
I see. The attestation seems to be this line of the Codex Theodosianus: Universos, qui usurpantes sibi nomina magistrorum in publicis magistrationibus cellulisque collectos undecumque discipulos circumferre consuerunt, and it seems to exactly mean teaching; however, it for sure is hardly classical, being written in the 5th century. If we'd rather go for a Classical word maybe institutio or eruditio fit - they're both attested in Cicero.
Next: "quo verbo magistrationem universitariam 'scientiam politicam' significavit". I didn't mean to say that political science was the name or focus of his course; in fact, my source says that nowhere. I wanted to say the subject of the course was political science with a particular focus on the most important things about a state. So, something like "which is what he called a political science course focused on all things that were most noteworthy about a state", (hence "statistics).
Maybe. No time to check. Feel free to redo it!
Agreed!
"Septemdecimi" was indeed a mistake on my part. However, did you write "saeculi septemo decimo" on purpose? Shouldn't it be all an ablative? I myself chose a genitive at first to mean that Petty and Graunt belonged to the 17th century, though you're probably right an ablative fits better.
Should be saeculo septimo decimo 'in the seventeenth century'.
Gonna correct this.
"et pertinebant ad indagandam rationem empiricam hominum consociationum ac demographiae. Cum vero ratione novae non essent inventae". I'm sorry but this should be reverted because the meaning is completely changed. I didn't want to say they investigated the empirical laws of sociology and demography", but that they investigated sociology and demography with the empirical method, which was the real innovation. (Also, I suppose you mistyped "rationes", correct?)
This 'with/by the empirical method' could be the bare ablative or perhaps per rationem empiricam or as actually used by Celsius: in usu tantum et experimentis positus (says Cassell's).
I prefer the bare ablative, I gotta say. I think I see a divergence in that you're much keener on preferring Classical words. Is there any agreed upon guideline on this?
You seem to have substituted all instance of "methodos" with "ratio". Though I'd say the word fits indeed, was there a particular reason you found "methodos" to be unapt?
It's not in Cassell's, which, for 'method', gives ratio, via, modus, ars.
I see, however it is indeed a word, attested even as early as Vitruvius. See De Architectura, 1-1-4: difficilesque symmetriarum quaestiones geometricis rationibus et methodis inveniuntur.
Is there a reason you pluralised "studi" to "studiorum"? The "quorum omnium" in the penultimate sentence was meant torefer to the mathematicians, it isn't an adjective of "studi".
Studi isn't a word, so I was puzzled, and puzzlement is a dangerous state before the morning's coffee has kicked in.
(Bruh, you should have some coffee in your sleep just so you're ready once you open Vicipaedia) How is it not though? Genitive singular of studium, with contraction of the -ii ending.
Finally, is there a reason you edited "vigesimo" to "vicensimo"? Again, my dictionary marks both as attested.
Vice(n)simus is the preferred form in Cassell's and Allen & Greenough and Traupman, the only form in Gildersleeve, and the prevailing form in Vicipaedia. Many of the extant examples of vigesimus here come from the keyboard of a single editor, long absent.
It's a useful additon, and please add more! Another 1500 octeti or so will gain us a point for this article on the list of the 10,000 most important topics at Meta! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:56, 30 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wish I could but unfortunately the book I used as the source (an introductory stats textbook I bought four years ago) doesn't say a lot more :( I mean, I could try being more verbose, but there's no need - I have plenty of books in my pipeline ready to be poured into Vicipaedia and that'll get us a ton of octeti. --Toadino2日本Velisne theamfungi sapore?16:33, 30 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting discussion. Would you allow me to add a comment, Iacobe? Cassell's, though evidently a very good and very handy guide, is not all-sufficient. Lewis & Short, among the sources available at Logeion, is useful for giving contexts (or at least precise citations): we sometimes need those if only to check whether the 19th century English of both dictionaries really corresponds to the meaning and nuance we need.
I'm skimming Procopius's Wars. Yesterday I noticed a footnote in the Loeb edition: describing a stony defensive mound, Procopius cites a Latin term, agesta, which the Loeb editor Dewing explains with the real Latin "agger". I don't believe it, that's not close enough, I said to myself. So, remembering "suggestus", I looked at Logeion and found that there really was a Latin "aggestus", with variant "aggestum" cited from the easterner Ammianus Marcellinus. If Procopius heard the plural of the latter, in 6th century pronunciation in which double consonants would have been lost, "agesta" would be what he heard. Entirely irrelevant to my real purpose, I'm afraid, and also to yours, @Toadino2: and Iacobe, except to ask: are "aggestus" and "aggestum" both in Cassell's? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:49, 30 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A compelling conjecture, but none of your suggested spellings is in Cassell's—which is what we'd expect, since Cassell's was compiled to help English-speaking students "in the writing of Latin prose in the manner of Cicero, Caesar[,] or Livy" (preface, p. vii), and Ammianus Marcellinus & Procopius represent eras & writing styles popular centuries later. I didn't need to check whether magistratio is in Cassell's, since the word just doesn't "look right" for prose of the Golden Age (in fact, it's not there). Your comments are always welcome! Well, almost always. :) No time for more at the moment. Later! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:00, 30 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true, Iacobe, Cassell's has a job to do. This responds to a question just raised above by @Toadino2:: yes, we have a guideline, and yes, we prefer classical vocabulary and style wherever possible. (For things and ideas that had not been conceived in the classical period, we may well look beyond: to scientific Latin for example.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 30 Ianuarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 and also vote here. Thank you so much for your help. --Jon Gua (disputatio) 11:10, 19 Februarii 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Iacobe. I'm thinking of saving your time here ... A quicker way with this page might have been to mark it {{Latinitas|-6}} or {{Latinitas|-7}}, either of which, with all those errors, it surely deserves. It then gets deleted after a week or so. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:55, 26 Martii 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't want the Genshin to waste your time. If they (or anyone) should add an alternative lemma without a source, I will delete it, as I have done at Corea and at the Chinese two-state article, and I suggest you do the same :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:31, 5 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Delete away! Sometimes when I'm editing early in the day, it doesn't matter what the subject is, as I may be only half-awake, waiting for the morning's caffeine to kick in! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:44, 5 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The strange thing is, everything you do, whether in the matutinal mental state that you describe or post-caffeine or post-prandial or after a very good dinner, suits Vicipaedia perfectly. Don't stop! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:04, 5 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. One doesn't plan to stop, but life can intervene. The past year or so, after more than a year of creating a new page every day from the list of 10,000 most important articles, I've mostly refrained from creating new pages, but I have a list of lives that I'd like to write. Maybe someday! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 19:47, 5 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In [5], quid significat "itteras"? Num vocabulum Latinum est? Fortasse nonne vis "litteras" scribere? Ego usor igontus emendare non possum, ergo quaeso emenda. 184.146.170.12722:44, 15 Iunii 2024 (UTC)[reply]
