Usor:Hendricus/disposito

Salve, Hendrice!

Gratus in Vicipaediam Latinam acciperis! Ob contributa tua gratias agimus speramusque te delectari posse et manere velle.

Cum Vicipaedia nostra parva humilisque sit, paucae et exiguae sunt paginae auxilii, a quibus hortamur te ut incipias:

Ops nexusque usoribus novis ( ca, de, en, es, ia, it, ru, ro, no, tl, eo)
De orthographia ( ca, en, es, tl)
Enchiridion interpretis (Anglice scriptum)
Taberna
Lexica Neolatina
Lexica Latina interretialia
Fontes nominum Latinorum ( ca)
Fontes nominum geographicorum
Index formularum

Si plura de moribus et institutis Vicipaedianis scire vis, tibi suademus, roges in nostra Taberna, vel roges unum ex magistratibus directe.

In paginis encyclopaedicis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in paginis disputationis memento editis tuis nomen subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~, quibus insertis nomen tuum et dies apparebit. Quamquam vero in paginis ipsis nisi lingua Latina uti non licet, in paginis disputationum qualibet lingua scribi solet. Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" fieri velle!

--Ioscius ^(disp) 14:12, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me, i'm not good at reading Latin, so i hope when there are questions you can asked them in English or my own language Dutch. I'm looking forwarth to contribute within the section of Biology, and i will start working with mollusca and gastropoda. At the moment i'm trying to find out what's already there and where to start, and how the category structure has been made. I think i start with building up the taxonomy tree, and lists of species, Hendricus 14:19, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, English is fine. I don't speak a bit of Dutch, though, and I'm not sure if anyone else does, either...--Ioscius ^(disp) 14:46, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

interwiki's

Hendrice: at the bottom of the commentarium Orthogastropoda, I've added links to the other wikis; if you can do the same when you create new pages here, that will be helpful. In fact, one way to ease your work, especially with tables, lists, and the like, is to go to the English wiki, and simply paste its material into Vicipaedia, changing English words to Latin words as necessary (for example, family to familia, and order to ordo, and so on). An excellent beginning! IacobusAmor 16:44, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Hi thanks, i was that just doing so from the wikispecies, only there are some differences between species and the english pedia, i was just puzzling that out, in some wikipedia's there is a litle template for pointing to wikispecies, do we have something like that? Hendricus 17:57, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
- I think i just stop puzzling and follow wikispecies, that's why they here for - right? Hendricus 18:04, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

{{Vicispecies}}. Greetings, --UV 23:35, 21 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Hendricus 15:05, 22 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

I saw your question to Massimo. The abbreviation for Latin is la: So, once you have added our page to one of the much-used Wikis (such as English), and pasted the interwikis from that page to ours, that's it: the bots will do the rest, all across the wikispectrum! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:00, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Ok, in that case i will add some at the english, french, german and dutch, some groups i've been working befor, after that they checkout new pages themselves? Hendricus 12:02, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

abbreviation

Dear Hendricus,

our abbreviation is la, for example for this new page Antonius Caldara. Ciao --Massimo Macconi 13:13, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i've found it, Hendricus 13:17, 23 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

word of encouragement

I haven't kept too close a track on the actual content of your articles, but your effort is absolutely prodigious!!! Macte virtute, and keep up the good work!--Ioscius ^(disp) 13:27, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, let's hope someone step in to add some tekst with it, Hendricus 13:29, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

classes

Verbum classes est plurale; singulare est classis. IacobusAmor 11:18, 27 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Your right, that's because i read a list of names with ones mentioned classes at the beginning, because i wright the names as a list and starting each line with the groupname, it should be singled: classis, Hendricus 11:22, 27 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Grade

Grade is English; Latin is gradus (and subgradus). Cheers. IacobusAmor 11:59, 27 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

...Ok, sorry, Hendricus 12:01, 27 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Erinaceus

Salve Hendrice. Mi congratulations for your incredible work here on biology. May I ask you if the next one you do can be on the genus erinaceus? I have been followed by hedgehogs these last nights around my college's grounds and I feel inspired to write the page on Erinaceus europaeus. Cheers!--Xaverius 18:58, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

I'll try my best, Hendricus 19:19, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Headings

Hendrice, headings should be grammatical, but at the moment, yours aren't. For example, Systema taxinomia Taenia was 'the system the taxinomy the Taenia'. For 'taxonomic system', you want (as Fabullus points out elsewhere) systema taxinomicum. Then you'll want to put the animal name in the genitive plural case. Taenia appears to be feminine, so its genitive plural is Taeniarum, making the whole heading Systema taxinomicum Taeniarum 'the taxonomic system of the taenias'. The correct form of the genitive plural of many of these names isn't obvious, as the Latin will often borrow the form that it would have in Greek, if only it were in Greek. IacobusAmor 19:43, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll think about that, and use it in future articles, if you like to help me with correcting this in the exsisting articles and correct classes into classis, thanks, Hendricus 19:51, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better if you don't try to put a genitive after the header. It is easier for everybody if you just have the header Systema taxnomicum (not -on), I think. Then the list can come below. Harrissimo.

Maybe your right, Hendricus 21:38, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)
- That is - if you mean: Systema taxonomicum, Hendricus 21:41, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the noun is taxinomia (not taxonomia) and its derivatives will accordingly use the stem taxinomi-. There's a discussion of this in Taberna or somewhere. IacobusAmor 21:53, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

I think - i'm going to need a vacation, Hendricus 21:56, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Hendrice, just to clarify, please use as your header above the classification only Systema taxonomicum. Harrissimo.

I'm getting enough of this, Hendricus 20:37, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I don't want to scare you away or anything it's just that the header name Systema Taxonomium XYZae doesn't actually mean anything. If you use Systema taxonomicum it's quicker for you and makes sense to me. Harrissimo.

Let's call it: Systema taxinomicum Animalium then,
by the way what's Latin for scientific author and year of approval?? Hendricus 20:48, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

I'd say for the first one Author scientificus and annus approbationis for year of approval. When you say animalium do you mean genitive singular? that would be animalis (sorry if I'm overdoing you again - that is just why systema taxonomicum would be easier. 8 letters shorter too). Harrissimo.

Or rather, Auctor scientificus. You can link this term on each page if you like, and I will do an article to make the redlink blue. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:06, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Hendricus 16:20, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Not my idea: Species Animalium, Hendricus 21:58, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Animalium is gen. plu. (meaning "of animals"). Due to VP:CAT, we have plural category names. No offcence, but maybe you should have a look at [1] (ignoring the complicated greek noun tables). Harrissimo.

I will have a look at it, Hendricus 16:20, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend to drop the 'scientificus' (which is not a classical word; I guess the classical equivalent would be 'doctus') and just use 'auctor' for 'scientific author'.--Ceylon 20:24, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

animalium soni

Why categoria biologia instead of animalia? Biologia is a parent category of animalia...--Ioscius ^(disp) 22:32, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get only the names of animal groupes into category animalia, other subjects can go to biologia or zoologia, i was just thinking to remove all sub categies between animalia (higher groupnames) as well and creating subcats by phylum, there are about 30 phylums, it's not to much, Hendricus 22:38, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Wel, here I think an exception is warranted... fungi, plantae, bacteria, etc don't make sounds... The page is animalium soni, not biologiae soni. What do you think?--Ioscius ^(disp) 05:26, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, it's an object of research about animals, it should be in categoria zoologica: Hendricus 16:13, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

If anything, it's an object of research about human speech, and should therefore be in "categoria linguistica" (or whatever). Cows go moo only in the human imagination. IacobusAmor 16:58, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Meeuoooo, Hendricus 17:02, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

It's in both animalia and linguistica, for the record.--Ioscius ^(disp) 17:02, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

OK. IacobusAmor 17:03, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Categoria:Animalia is a collection of article titles about animals, "groupnames", Zoologi(c)a is about studying en science "human doings and observations about animals", , that's my opinion ofcourse, Hendricus 17:09, 1 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is I'd like someone to be able to browse through Categoria:Animalia and see Animalium soni. Perhaps we should do both? Maybe we should put a ! in the category so it's not listed with all the actual animals?

By the way, what is the deal with the members of Categoria:Animalia which are italicized?--Ioscius ^(disp) 01:50, 2 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the italicized members in the category is a redirect, if someone is brewsing the category he's able to see a complete index of groupenames, the redirects are synonyms or "old" names, Hendricus 16:13, 2 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Prosobothiiae

Hendrice, I corrected the above family name because it looked wrong; checking Google, the correct form seemed to be Prosobothriidae so I have moved the page to there. However, I now see that this page and the related page for Prosobothrium have a different structure around the family level. You might want to look at this and make them consistent? Best wishes Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:14, 4 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks i'll take a look at it, Hendricus 15:16, 4 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

De categoriis

Hi again, Hendrice! I would just please like to ask you to do your research before you create a category name. I see that your latin is "worse tot worse", so maybe you should use a dictionary (like this) when naming these categories. Mineralii is not a latin word, it is mineralia in the nom. and acc. plural. It is only one letter, but this huge backlog of categories you have made (and which I commend you for) needs a lot of work; I have already had to change the category names and place delendas onto the pages. So, please, I appreciate you have a lot of brilliant work you are doing here, but make sure you use the right latin and save everybody a lot of work. And as I have said before, you can always ask if in doubt about anything! TTFN! Harrissimo.

So sorry, i was convinced mineralii was the right word for it, it's even in my book called that way, maybe to Italianic??Hendricus 19:46, 5 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

You're OK... I didn't mean to be agressive or anything. From google, it looks like mineralii could be Italian. It can't be latin though, there being no such thing as a mineralius. Harrissimo.

Thank god there are only 19 mineral articles, (have you seen the english category??) there's so much work to do - animals, plants, fossils, minerals - i can't offer much tekst but i can do a lot of structural work, (and learning my Latin in the meantime), Hendricus 19:56, 5 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

I continue to be amazed by your energy, Hendrice. Vicipaedia is growing ever faster.

I added interwiki links to Dasylurinja -- Spanish and Maltese! I'll explain how I found them. I, like you, sometimes create articles about things that only occur in strange and unpredictable wikipedias. So I created a Google search for myself that searches only the European Wikipedias (well, nearly all of them). If there is an article with this precise name in any European language, it shows up high in the results. You can use it too if you like! Try [2]. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:20, 7 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for th etip, i'll try that search engin, Hendricus 16:13, 7 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the Latin in Thylacinus. Usefully, I hope. Notice the Latin forms Legio (not Legion) and Cohors (not Cohort). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:49, 7 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Right, i just discovered, thanks, great, Hendricus 20:52, 7 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Biologistae

Hoi Hendrik, ik zag dat je in jouw artikel over de bioloog Ioannes Gould verwijst naar de nog niet bestaande Categoria:Biologistae. Ik heb de verwijzing veranderd in Categoria:Biologi, die wel reeds bestaat. Op dezelfde manier moet Categoria:Ornithologistae zijn Categoria:Ornithologi (nog niet bestaand). Als je elders ook naar deze categorieën (of andere categorieeën met -logistae) verwezen hebt, wil je die misschien zelf wijzigen volgens mijn voorbeeld. Overigens mijn complimenten voor je onvermoeibare arbeid! Groeten, --Fabullus 13:00, 10 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Hoi, Fabullus, dank voor je compliment, ik had de categoriën juist rood gelaten omdat ik de juiste spelling niet wist, bedankt voor je voorbeeld, deze zal ik zeker volgen, Hendricus 18:29, 10 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

untraslated biographies

Dear Hendricus, first I wish to thank you for your incredible work.

I understand and share your target to enrich la.wiki, but the opening of a lot of untranslating pages doesn't make sense. The users of la.wiki are actually very few and we can't translate a lot of new pages. Therefore I beg you please to insert already in Latin at least the name, birth and death dates and activity of the person. If you desire to suggest new pages, you can rather use the taberna page. Thank you and ciao--Massimo Macconi 07:26, 11 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Goodmorning Massimo, i've added some authors in english because i'm not shure how to translate them in a correct way, the few (most known) i've added yesterday i like to use as an example so i will be able to add new ones in a correct way, Hendricus 09:27, 11 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I suggest you to copy the scheme followed for other biographies. Now we have a lot of them, therefore I believe it's possible to find the correct Latin words and sentence structures. If you need some help, ask me. Ciao --Massimo Macconi 09:39, 11 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, i will, Hendricus 09:42, 11 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Another possible trick -- after inserting the most basic details in Latin, as Massimo suggests -- is to include some additional info in English, but between comment marks, thus:

This text will be visible in the editing screen, but not to readers. Signal it on the Taberna, and then you and Massimo and I and others will know that it needs translating into Latin. But yes, as Massimo says, we are few and our time is limited!

However, it is really good to see some of these scientists etc. arriving in Vicipaedia. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:11, 11 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that, altough much information can be found on the English project and even the external links, Hendricus 10:18, 11 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Ernestus Haeckel - what do you think of it

Ernestus Haeckel - For the date genitive therefore 11 Augusti. For a lot of towns you'll find that there's already a Latin page. Try inserting the name, for istance Potsdam and then click on quaerere you'll see that we've already the page Potestampium. I would not insert non translated links and notes. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 21:10, 11 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Dates

To confirm any date name, do this: go to Mensis, click on the month name, then click on the date you want on the calendar. We have pages for all dates in the year. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:00, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

what a good job

I have seen your last new pages. Tey're very good. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 17:29, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)--85.0.92.89 17:25, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, i'm starting to get the hang of it, Hendricus 19:00, 12 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Bio(biblio)graphia

Keep in mind the distinction, Hendrice, even if librarians like me sometimes forget it: Biographia is life, Bibliographia is books! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:02, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

You're right ofcourse, just a writers mistake, Hendricus 18:06, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I replied to your query on my own talk page.

But I forgot one very important example ... I guess "Biologi Nederlandici", or if your personal preference is for "Biologi Hollandici" I doubt if anyone would object! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:01, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

categoria:Biologi Hollandici i think, Hendricus 19:12, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

== Cape York peninsula ==

Goodevening Massimo, How do i translate Cape York Peninsula (North Australia) ??Hendricus 20:01, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I would translate: Promontorium Paeninsulae Eboraci (Australia septemptrionalis)Massimo Macconi 20:06, 13 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Reversed name redirects

For example, Sowerby, G. B. III. Hendrice, we've never had these before and I don't see the point of them. Unless you want to make a special case, our usual way would be to have a redirect from the straight form (e.g. G. B. Sowerby III) -- if you think people will look for it -- and to have a discretiva page at Sowerby.

If a reversed name appears in a bibliography (for example) you can make a link straight to the real name using the pipe trick (e.g. [[Georgius Brettingham Sowerby III|Sowerby, G. B. III]]). Does that help? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:46, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew, i wanted to use these abbrevations to add to speciesname, like: Helcion (Ansates) (Sowerby, G. B. II 1837) without having to type the whole name every time, Hendricus 22:57, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

But it's the same to me if you prefer the initials befor the surname, Hendricus 23:01, 15 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Well, in this case I think you should wherever possible use the exact form that is prescribed by the zoological nomenclature people. It is important to be exact, because only the exact names are official. Well, they don't usually use initials (only occasionally). I have just looked at Index nominum zoologorum for these people (and I have checked again Vicipaedia:WikiProjekt Lebewesen/Liste von Zoologen nach Autorenkürzeln from which I took that list). For your three Sowerbys they give simply Sowerby I, Sowerby II and Sowerby III. So in the taxobox you should type [[Helcion (Ansates)|]] ([[Sowerby II]], [[1837]]), which gives the appearance Helcion (Sowerby II, 1837). Then you make a link, as you suggest, from Sowerby II to Georgius Brettingham Sowerby II. That's what I think, anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 00:05, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

We must use the official abbrevation, i look into that, thanks, (btw there are six Sowerby's)Hendricus 16:11, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Medieval Latin names

are different, Hendrice! before moving Conradus de Montepuellarum you should have checked (e.g. Google). It is well attested. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 00:15, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Single name redirects

I argued for Gould as a redirect, but you are demonstrating how wrong I was, Hendrice. You can't assume you know other people's interests. How can you possibly say no one will want to look for Darwin, Australia? It is very unwise to rely on single name redirects like that, because someone is sure to turn them into discretiva pages soon: and when they do that, all the links you have made to them on biological pages will have to be changed. So it's much better to get the links right in the first place. They need to be in this form: ([[Carolus Darwin|Darwin]], producing a link direct to Carolus Darwin). Don't expect those single name redirects to stay as they are. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:04, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

You're right, i will write the names with initials like i've done with Gray and Sowerby as far as possible, keeping the official list, Hendricus 21:10, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I do suspect you are trying to do too many different things too fast. I see you have put those redirects into a category. We don't normally put redirects in categories, because the usual purpose of categories is to lead users directly to articles. And the category name is bad Latin. I have to delete the category (because categories can't be moved). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:18, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Then how do you like to call it, it's meant to give a overvieuw of those subscribed, Hendricus 21:23, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Surely they are in Categoria:Biologi. What's the difference? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:07, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

No not in categoria biologici but in scientia (scientists), Hendricus 10:46, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Well, fine. First of all, don't categorize redirects. Just categorize the real articles.

Second, all categories are meant to give an overview of those included.

Third, the articles are not about names. They are about people. So why do want a category for "nomina" (names) of certain people? It still makes no sense at all to me. But if there is a reason, the word for names is "nomina", plural of "nomen". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:14, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

It's suppose to give an overvieuw according to names (see the list (Index) about Zoologici and Botanici, thus names, the articles are already mentioned in the category structure about the science itself and the structure according to country, Hendricus 11:18, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Another possibillity is to translate the lists, so we can use it for a general overvieuw, in that case i realy prefer to create "one" list with botanici, zoologici, geologici and mineralogi - with their official abbrevation, instead of four - not even half translated lists, it's a bit of a mess just now, sorry to say it, Hendricus 11:23, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

OK, but don't change what you don't understand. The reason for keeping botanist abbreviations separate from zoologist names is that the rules are different: for example, it's L. for plants but Linnaeus for animals. This is why other wikipedias have separate lists as well. As for geologists and mineralogists, I don't know about the rules for those. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:56, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I'l be happy enough with four lists as long they got translated properly, Hendricus 12:36, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

And I'd be very happy if we worked on that. I have never yet had time. The language aspect is a mess, you're quite right. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:00, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

My translation stops with a few names, i'm not up to a list of that proporsion, i will try but there be a lot of faults in it, Hendricus 13:09, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are very long lists. Maybe I can do some of it by exporting into Word and making global changes. I suggest, leave those two lists with me for a day or two and I'll have a try!

Meanwhile, if you want, what about lists of mineralogists and geologists? We have none yet, I think. Separate or together, whatever seems best.

Eventually, you know, all the lists could be combined if we wanted -- e.g., by exporting them to a WP program and sorting them alphabetically. But let's get them right first. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:30, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

You'r right, i wish you luck with it, i was wandering about the category of medici i like to split it up according to the biologiststructure, maybe its wise to see the medicine as part of biology, most of it subjects are about anatomy and studying medicalherbs, most of historian medici are known as botanists as well, so i think medicine is a part of biology, what do you think? Hendricus 13:38, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I think medicine is significantly different because it is not just about the biology but about the means of healing. So it is a technology as well as a science. I think I would treat it as separate from biology. But others may disagree ...

Notice that after "Scientiae periti ..." you need a national adjective, one of the same ones I listed for you, like "Francici, Germanici, etc." ("French, German, etc.") You can't just use the country name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:53, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

You'r right ofcourse, i shall place them as well in biologi secundum civitatem ( > biologi > biologia) as well in medici secundum civitatem ( > medici > medicina), and both in Scientiae periti <country> wich will be split in scientiae periti ( > Scientia ) and > country., Hendricus 15:01, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
BTW, what about Russia ? will this be Rusii or Russici??Hendricus 15:01, 17 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

New pages

Dear Hendricus,

all users check the new pages but there's not a regular control. I suggest you to ask Ioshus, Alex1011, Iacobus Amor aut UV (I believe they have the better knowledge of the language) to check some of your pages and thne use the corrected ones as model.--Massimo Macconi 19:30, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, altough the corrections are (i think) not that complicated, Hendricus 19:41, 19 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

translation of new categories

It seems a correct translation but my Latin is very poor. I would suggest you to ask also the opinion of somebody else. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 18:36, 22 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, i've used the Linnean society as example, but i was doubting about; Zoologiae and Entomologiae, Hendricus 18:41, 22 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

==Categoria:Correction needed

I give

a Latin name categoria:Emendationes necessariae to your new category--Massimo Macconi 19:43, 23 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks, altough i hope it stays empty, Hendricus 19:45, 23 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was best to incorporate your system into our established method for marking pages to be improved. So I have made you a new formula {{L-1}}. This will add pages to your so-called "bucket" and also to our Latinitas grading.

So, please don't add the category Categoria:Emendationes necessariae to a page; instead, add at the beginning of the text the formula {{L-1}}. You will find that these pages will appear in your category automatically. When anyone has corrected your page, they will change the formula to {{L1}} and the page will be listed as a correct one instead! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Ok that's great, thanks, Hendricus 13:58, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

PS: I have corrected (I think) Parantechinus apicalis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Ok great, so Eastern Australia becomes Australiana occidentalis - i can use that, thanks, Hendricus 14:01, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I thought the article said western: that equates to "occidentalis". Eastern is "orientalis". (These are 3rd declension adjectives.) Correct the article, please, if I misread it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:01, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

You're right - it was west, Hendricus 15:10, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Remember to make it {{L-1}}. The - (minus) is important. {{L1}} is for pages that another editor (a Latinist, hopefully) has corrected or approved. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:30, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Ok, didn't see the differance befor, i will from now, Hendricus 21:49, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Phascogale tapoatafa >> so what become of north and south ?? Hendricus 14:02, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

parasitologia

Meliusne?--Ioscius ^(disp) 13:31, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's quit clear this way, altough i'm doubting if this discipline of biology is only ment for studiing parasitic living species or if it's including the study about the infection deseases caused by them? Hendricus 13:52, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Good point.--Ioscius ^(disp) 14:03, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I'l get back on that one, Hendricus 14:04, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Well take a look, now.--Ioscius ^(disp) 14:06, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

According to the English it's including the study about the infection deseases "and" fighting the intruders, so it's not only a disciplin of biologiae it's a discipline of medicinae as well, Hendricus 14:10, 24 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links

I just edited Gulielmus Peters and Gerardus Krefft. I happened to notice that there was no interwiki link to la: on the other-language pages. For each new page of ours we have to go to one of the other-language pages (say the English or French or German page -- one of the busy ones) and add a link to our page. If we do this, the bots will do the rest. Forgive me if you knew this already ... just a reminder. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:44, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I know, i've done so several times (with species from the marsupial group), for now i wait with placing links back to us till i've got a few (anycase articles wich are quit complete anyway, and place them myself Hendricus 19:48, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, then. No problem! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:06, 25 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Als je te lang moet wachten, dan kun je ook even vragen of ik het door mijn bot heen wil halen. Carsrac 14:14, 10 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

minor comment about format

Generally we prefer to list in this order:

Fontes/Notae
Vide etiam
Nexus externi

The idea is that, in an encyclopedia, sources are of primary importance. Then we want people to look within our own encyclopedia. Only lastly do we want people to resort to looking elsewhere. Does that make sense? Also check the wa y I reformatted the Healey page. Take care!!! --Ioscius ^(disp) 21:16, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but you could have mensioned it 600 or so articles befor, Hendricus 21:28, 26 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Biology

Thanks for your messages, Hendrice. Three points: first, I think that as a head category for all living things you might want just Categoria:Biota. "Vita biota" doesn't make sense (to me). Second, as a category for extinct human-like creatures, my suggestion is simply Categoria:Hominidae. Maybe too obvious?! But, (a) "Homo antiqui" doesn't make sense, and (b) "Homines antiqui" (ancient men) is not accurate, because, taxonomically, Australopithecus is not Homo; but he does belong to Hominidae. If you feel you have to distinguish the extinct ones from the living one, then the answer is Categoria:Hominidae exstincti. This may look wrong, but it's OK, because Hominidae is a masculine noun and takes a masculine adjective.

Third, I suggest Categoria:Libri biologici can just remain in Categoria:Biologia. It isn't a speciality. It's "books about biology", a subset of Categoria:Libri but also relevant to Categoria:Biologia. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:17, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

I now see we have had an article Vita Biota since 2004! It still makes no sense. As you see when following the link, the head category at "Systema Naturae" is simply Biota, and that's correct. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:24, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Then get the "vita" out of it, i agree with cat: Hominidae , Hendricus 20:51, 27 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Hendrice! It's good to see you've been adding some text to your pages, have you been learning some latin? And merry christmas! Harrissimo 22:42, 24 Decembris 2007 (UTC).

I've learned some of it down the road, last few months, i've still got a lot to learn, by example to add the geological timeperiods wich should go with the exstint ones, like eocene and oligocene, but thats request a lot of new articles ofcourse, Hendricus 22:50, 24 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Nederlandia

I've already done it with Nederlandia. Ciao and merry Christmas--Massimo Macconi 16:23, 24 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and a merry Christmas to you too -- Hendricus 16:25, 24 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Commons

I suggest you to write the formula

Vicimedia Communia plura habent quae ad Macropum antilopinum spectant.

, so you could respect the accusative form communia multa habet quo ad + acc spectat. Nexus externi non externia. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 11:44, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that i'm not used to change names to fitt in the tekst, in Dutch it's general to change the tekst according to the name, Hendricus 12:01, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

of course Nexus externi non externia

I did a misstake, of course nexus externI et non externus if plural. Nexus is masculine therefore non externia--Massimo Macconi 12:20, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Type locality: Australia, Northern Territory, Port Essington

Sorry, I missed it. I'm not sure if I understand what do you mean, perhaps: situs: Portus Essingtoniensis in Territorio Septemtrionalis Australiae --Massimo Macconi 13:00, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Well the type locality is the place where the species first has been collected and subscribed (type specimum) i think we can make an own lemma about it but i don't know how to translate type locality maybe something like: typo situs, ofcourse type specimum should have an article too? maybe typo specimus, besides that i think it would be fine to get the different Australian territories translated: Queensland, New South Wales, Viktoria, Northern Australia, Western Australia and Southern Australia, Hendricus 13:13, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Situs ubi animal primum inventum est--Massimo Macconi 13:46, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

In those English phrases, type is an objective noun (a noun pretending to be an adjective), so you may want something like specimen typicum 'type specimen' and locus typicus 'type locality'; but standard Latin idioms for these concepts probably occur in the Latin works of expert botanists & zoologists—and those idioms, whatever they are (if they differ from the idioms proposed here), are the ones that Vicipaedia should be using. IacobusAmor 14:17, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

locus typicus and specimen typicum then i will use, thanks, Hendricus 14:25, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Anselme Gaëtan Desmarest

Anselmus Caietanus Desmarest, vide Anselmus Cantuariensis et Caietanus Donizetti--Massimo Macconi 13:47, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Hendricus 14:01, 28 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Genitive plural=

Hi Hendrice! I notice you've been using some similar text for the first line of a lot of your articles. For the future pages (and the past ones, if you would like to correct), the following text is correct in the genitive plural Lemma (X anno 1837), (Anglice: Lemma) est (genus/ordo/species etc.) Marsupialium herbivororum Australianorum. Just to explain (if you don't get it), Marsupial has the genitive plural Marsupalium (you already knew that), Herbivorus is an adjective meaning "which is a herbivore", which has a genitive plural in Herbivororum and Australianus is the adjective for Australia, so it has another -orum ending in the genitive plural. "Lemma is a genus of the Australian herbivorous Marsupials". Hope this will help for the future, Harrissimo 23:49, 30 Decembris 2007 (UTC).

You could have mensioned it before, thanks, Hendricus 07:48, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

And I have another that I should have probably mentioned before as well. Are you using studiosus as the noun "student", or as the adjective "devoted to, studious"? If the noun, a lot of genitive singulars will need to be added. Harrissimo 12:18, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC).

I'm using studiosus because someone corrected this in an article long ago this way, Hendricus 12:21, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Ahh... Well which would you prefer the meaning was in your articles? P.S. Mortuis is Mortuus ;) . Harrissimo 12:24, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC).

In the most logical way please, Hendricus 12:30, 31 Decembris 2007 (UTC)

Word order

Salve, Hendrice! When you are saying who invented the binomen, please say (Binomen a W inventum anno X) - this is a better word order. Thanks, Harrissimo 19:37, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

Ok, i will, don't forget to tell Andrew as well, it was his correction, Hendricus 19:41, 1 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

(non-)stipulae

Sorry, I must have missed your last comment on my page (I wasn't just ignoring you!) I'll look forward to working on those pages with you. Do you have anything to say on when the stipula formula should come out? (I just set up a discussion at Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina#Quid est pagina?). Harrissimo 02:55, 3 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC).

Biographies

I made some minor changes to Henricus Marius Ducrotay de Blainville -- mainly the first sentence. I think the grammar and punctuation is better this way. Let me know if you have any queries.

When giving categories to biographical articles, the best way (I think) is to add a DEFAULTSORT line and specify exactly how the heading should be sorted. It is possible to do as you did, and add the name to every category, but it's less efficient (and easy to forget, as you forgot it with the last two categories!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:15, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so the defaultsort will work for every category given? Hendricus 13:19, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)
- I realy like to know how to translate some more tekst from English or French articles, i think it's very important information to know for wich institutes (museum or university) someone worked for and about the travels he have made, Hendricus 13:22, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I like that information too. Choose a biography that you would like me to look at, containing plenty of this kind of information, and I will "improve" it for you (if I can!) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

simple: Blainville, hidden in latin lemma,

I've done him. Have a look. I have followed Iacobus's rule (below) because it makes good sense I think: just the years in the first sentence, then full details later. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:34, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

I think it's great, only i've put the french name back in the general line and called the detailed tekst Biographia, what do you think? Hendricus 21:56, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Fine. No problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:58, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Then let's see what others think of it? Hendricus 21:59, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

If the Latin is aproved, it's the first "non-stipula" in the category: Biologi, Hendricus 22:02, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

extraordinary large: Darwin see en:Charles Darwin

It's a very interesting one and I'd love to do it, but I don't have time now. Sorry! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:36, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Hendricus 13:29, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll look at those later today.

Place of birth or death: if it's a non-Latin name, like Arques, you need to put "apud" (meaning at) before it. If it's a Latin name, like Lutetia, you don't need "apud" but instead you use the so-called locative case form, usually the same at the genitive: thus [[Lutetia]]e or [[Mediolanum|Mediolani]]. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:43, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i'll try to remember, Hendricus 15:49, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

pagina structure biographies

[Copied across from my page Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:20, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)] Hi Andrew, it seems we have two kinds of structures for the biographical lemmas:

I think we should try to keep one kind of structure, Hendricus 15:53, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the birth and death? Not a problem, I think. If you have only the years, you can do it the simple way (1900-1999). If you have more (days and months, places, etc.) you need the extra words to make everything clear. (natus die 7 Maii 1900 Londinii; mortuus ...). OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:16, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who changed the structure of Andreas Marius Constantinus Dumeril to show that, if a stipula is expected to grow (as 99.99% of them are), it should be structured ab initio to ease that growth. Putting full dates & places of birth & death in the first line will inconvenience later editors, who'll be obliged to spend extra effort removing full dates & places from the first line, often rewording them, and always putting them elsewhere. All the temporal information that's needed in the first line is the plain years in parentheses, e.g. "(1876–1954)." The first sentence is a succinct summary, needing only the person's (1) name, (2) years (or century), and (3) claim to fame. The details will naturally follow. (For some people, a short "Vita" section will suffice; for others, the "Vita" section will break down into many subsections or new sections.) I've made this point before, but it should have been made at the beginning, before Vicipaedia had accumulated maybe a thousand or more biographical stubs. Expansion of every one of them will require effort that wouldn't be wasted had such stubs been structured for growth at the start. Since we're surely much, much, much closer to the start of Vicipaedia than the finish, we can still feel confident about rethinking the way biographical stubs are structured. To organize their information as if they were complete articles (which is what many writers have been doing) may give them the illusion of elegance, but it places a barrier in the way of writers who want to expand them. IacobusAmor 17:11, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I didn't realise you had edited Dumeril. I agree with your points ... but I'm not a serial writer of biographical stubs. I'll leave further discussion on this to you and Hendricus (and maybe Massimo??) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:20, 5 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Academies

I have deleted Categoria:Academia Francia because (a) the phrase makes no sense and (b) if (as I guess) you meant "French academies", there really aren't enough of them to make a category (I think). I checked fr:wiki and can't find many potential members of such a category there. A category that won't grow above 3 or 4 members is not a good idea.

But I see now you put a list of about 6 of them at Institum Franciae sic!]. OK, that's about enough I guess. The phrase you want is "Academiae Francicae".

I hid the list on that page because it is written in English. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:13, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

No i think it's better to place them in cacategory Institut de France, there are several museums as well en we can place the scientists (subcat) as well, Hendricus 10:23, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Hortus Plantarum (Lutetia)

Both the French names you gave were wrong. If you don't know the language, maybe better copy-and-paste! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:03, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Sorrie about that, Hendricus 13:10, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Afternoon, Hendrice! I'll move it to Museum Nationale Historiae Naturalis (Lutetia). OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:17, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorrie for all my mistakes, i've started these stipula's to get some blue links within the biographia lemma's, there are a lot of new words for me in it, i like to add some of the major English instituts as well, thanks for helping, Hendricus 14:21, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

btw. is the name of this cat spelled correct: Categoria:Musea Historiae Naturalis to get the worlds major natural history museums together? Hendricus 14:26, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

It's fine. In general, if you start pages for institutes etc., I'm happy to move them when the name needs correcting. No problem. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:33, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC) [I meant pages, not categories! See below.]

Ok, thanks, Hendricus 14:36, 6 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

New categories

Hendrice, every time you mis-spell a category name, someone has to come and mop up after you. It's such a waste of time! I told you above, if you wanted a category "French academies", it would be "Academiae Francicae". So why create Categoria:Academiae Francica? And where did you get the idea for Categoria:Academiae Nationale Medicinae? It doesn't mean anything!

It isn't the same as pages. Pages can be moved easily. Categories cannot be moved. So it is not a good idea to invent them -- until you have learned about the declension of nouns and adjectives. It is better, if you want a new category, to leave it briefly as a redlink on a page. Then someone can come along, correct it if necessary, and create the category.Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:01, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i will, Hendricus 20:08, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be impatient! So, what did you mean by Categoria:Academiae Nationale Medicinae? I wasn't sure, so I couldn't suggest a correct version. Did you intend the plural, "National Academies of Medicine" worldwide? If so, it'll be "Academiae Nationales Medicinae". Only one letter, but it makes all the difference! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:15, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Well i first created the cat for the several academies and academic hospitals of wich are part of the National academy within France, at second hand i think it will be the only one for the time beeing because this is the oldest one and a lot of the professors working at it were famous botanists as well (medicins from herbs), i will be working mainly with biology (zoologia, botania, etc and continue with this as soon i'm able to place the IUCN status info into the taxobox [Harrisimo was trying to work this out]) and will add more scientists (binomial authors) as well - like i've said befor, i think it's very informative to know wich institutes the authors worked at and because they are mensioned in various biographical lemma's is the next thing to do is ading stipula's about these institutes (Universities, musea, etc) and place the scientists in a equal named category so you get a list of scientists pro institute, ofcourse the institutes should be categorized properly by country, after France i like to create similar lemma's with the English and Germans, Hendricus 20:35, 7 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are

interested in this new page Ioannes Petrus Armandus David --Massimo Macconi 12:38, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Great, it would even be greater to see some more tekst about his work i China and the new species he discovered and are named after him, Hendricus 16:43, 8 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

French scientists

Salve Hendrice. Addens corrigensque quam saepissime te adjuvabo. Ergo te moneo ut errorem in categoriae a te creatae denominatione corrigas: sicut heri in amici Dalby disputatione dixi (sed forsan francogallicum non intelligis...), Museum Historiae Naturalis Lutetiae non est tam "museum" quam universitas studiorum. Ut igitur opinio mea fert, illi qui ibi docuerunt ut "socii" (anglice "fellows") designandi sunt nec "conservatores". Vale ThbdGrrd 20:13, 13 Ianuarii 2008 (UTC)

Salve

It's nice to see you back, Hendrice! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:18, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew, itt's been a long and bizzy year, hope to do some good work again here, Hendricus 09:22, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

I had to delete Categoria:Societatis Biologorum Anglicorum because it's a silly name (it means "of a society of English biologists"). We can't move categories, so bad names just have to be deleted. It saves time for other people if you don't create bad category names: I suggest you ask on the Taberna what the correct Latin name would be. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:50, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

- Sorry but i didn't create that one, was already there.Hendricus 11:51, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)
  - someone must have give it to me in november 2007 (see linnean society)Hendricus 11:57, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, you did create it, but on 21 November 2007! It's still a silly name, though, and I don't believe you when you say "someone must have give it to me".

I guess we could use a category like "British biological societies" (maybe British makes more sense than English in this context): so how about Categoria:Societates biologicae Britannicae? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:59, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great, Hendricus 12:03, 5 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Wilson

No -- Wilson is basically a surname, so it stays as Wilson. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:42, 7 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Right: but the answer is still the same. We only convert forenames that originated as forenames and have a traditional Latin version. Wilson didn't start out as a forename and has no traditional Latin version. It stays as Wilson. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:48, 7 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Ok. thanks, Hendricus 17:50, 7 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Members of societies etc.

I will keep watching your new biographies. If you want any new categories for members of societies, professors of universities, etc., leave them in red at the foot of the page for a day or so. I'll check the Latin and then create the category under a good Latin name. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:38, 8 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will, Hendricus 18:08, 9 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

With "Employees of the British Museum" there were two things wrong. One was the word "Socii", which means "Fellows" or "Associates". It is a special word, only suitable for special cases. The other was the spelling "Britannica".

The best word (I think) for people who work for museums, in general, is "Curatores". Let's wait and see if anyone objects, but that's what I think. Usually "Curatores" will be correct.

Curatores looks OK in reference to English 'curators': but be aware that not all people who work in museums, not even all of them who catalog & conserve the holdings, are curators; also, not all curatores work in museums, as you see in the Harvard hymn: "Deus omnium creator, rerum mundi moderator, / Crescat cuius es fundator, nostra Universitas. / Integri sint curatores, eruditi professores, / Largiantur donatores bene partas copias." IacobusAmor 18:26, 13 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

You are right, of course, but I had some difficulty finding a word to correspond with "employees" (which is used in the corresponding category in en:wiki, "Employees of the British Museum"). Failing that, I felt that "curatores" in its literal sense would do pretty well for those who fulfil the most obvious functions in maintaining a museum, so I decided to look no further. But if you want to suggest a better word, this is the moment! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:53, 13 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

"Museum Britannicum" is a noun+adjective phrase. If you change the case of the noun (Museum > Musei, genitive case) you have to change the case of the adjective that goes with it. Often the ending will be the same (as in this case, Britannicum > Britannici). But not always. You can't do it by guesswork. It's because you have not learned to do this that I have asked you not to create new categories. Leave your imagined new categories as redlinks at the foot of the page: let someone else create them!

So the new category you want can be Categoria:Curatores Musei Historiae Naturalis Londiniensis. I will create this right now, and link it in. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:19, 13 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Nexus externi

Dear Hendricus,

thank you for the new interesting pages you are adding. I suggest you nevertheless not to add a lot of external links without a Latin description. I believe it's better to have few links with a short description in Latin. Ciao--Massimo Macconi 08:10, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

I'm working at it, right now i'm trying to translate the categories about: American museum of natural history and Natural history museums in america, they are quite alike, Hendricus 08:13, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Ok I 'm not sure but perhaps it's better Categoria:Musea Historiae Naturalis Novi Eboraci, where Novi Eboraci is a locative that's museums of natural history IN New York, what do you think?--Massimo Macconi 08:26, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, Hendricus 08:30, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Until now we have been categorying the museums for natural history in it's category: Categoria:Musea historiae naturalis, i think it's wise to create a simmilair tree for the mayor archeological museums as well, musea like the british museum, the museum in paris and the american museum of natural history work a lot in that area too, Hendricus 08:34, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Block

Hendrice, I have blocked you because, in spite of my polite requests above, you continue to create categories in a language that is not quite Latin. Each time you create a category in your strange language, it takes more time for someone else (such as me) to delete what you have done and start again. I have real work to do: I don't have time to play this game. Please do not create categories until you have learned how to form Latin nouns and adjectives. As soon as you promise not to do this again, I will unblock you!

Also, I strongly suggest that before moving a page (like Universitas Academica Edinburgensis) you check a source -- Google often helps -- to see if your new name is good or bad. I checked Google: the old name is good: your new name seems bad. If you have a source for it, please cite it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:05, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

If you look at [3] you will see eight categories created by you today that other people have had to delete. Each time we delete a category we have to go to the pages listed, change them to the new category name, create the new category and link it to the tree structure. What a waste of time! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:20, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Vide etiam disputationes apud commentarios Conchologia et Robertus Ludovicus Stevenson. IacobusAmor 12:28, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

You're unblocked again, of course. Your pages are useful -- just don't invent category names! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:30, 18 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

I will not create categories again, Hendricus 15:36, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

That's great, Hendrice. Welcome back! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:18, 19 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

for translation

en:Royal Society of Queensland
en:Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union

OK then. For the names of the societies, I suggest:

Regalis Societas Terraereginensis (it's a scrappy little article on en:wiki, isn't it? We'll beat them yet)
Regalis Consociatio Ornithologorum Australasiensis

and if you want categories for members:

That should be OK. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:10, 28 Octobris 2008 (UTC)

Fuligo?

Salve, Hendrice. If you have a moment to spare, could you look at Disputatio:Fuligo (genus). The questions are, (a) should the page be moved (I think so), and, (b) where to? I think you will know better than anyone else around ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:24, 26 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Salve Andrew, i will, Hendricus 11:19, 26 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Robertus Edmundus Grant

Salve Hendrice. In your recent page says Fuit medicinae, biologiae et zoologiae Scotiae. There's something missing there with all those genitives - maybe fuit doctor medicinae, biologiae et zoologiae Scotiae? or otherwise he was medicus, biologus et zoologus. Which is more correct?--Xave ri us 11:25, 28 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, i forgot the word professor, thanks, Hendricus 11:26, 28 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 492c4466ad22cadbe12fccba2cb3ba99

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Categories for dates and authors

It's a very good idea, and, since you are making so many pages, very practical. I am going to mention this on the Taberna in case others comment on the best form of words to use. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

There's just one thing. (This question does not apply to the date categories but to the name categories.) If you intend to list the taxa that each author created on the page for that author, as you have done for Carolus Gilmore, maybe it is a duplication of effort to create a category for that author's taxa as well? It's your decision; I was just thinking, the less work to do in each case, the better, perhaps ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

See discussion at Taberna. All seems agreed. I have started the new categories at Porifera and Animalia. You will see it's nice and simple: just "Categoria:Taxa [year]" and "Categoria:Taxa [surname]". I suggest there may be usually no need to add forenames or initials; only do so if necessary. It's up to you, though. The name just stays the same, unless it's a Latin name (like Linnaeus) in which case it goes in the genitive case. Linnaeus > Linnaei. Otherwise no change. All right? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 22:11, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Ok Andrew, thanks, Hendricus 07:56, 1 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

Other categories

Incidentally, I have worked through all your recent bio pages and created categories where necessary. I will wait a day before creating the new categories at Carolus Whitney Gilmore in case anyone comments on the correct form of those names. I'm not an American! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:27, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's why i didn't created them myself - yet, Hendricus 10:35, 30 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

Categoria:Professores Universitatis Bristoliensis

De ablativo casu

Hi Hendrice. Remember to decline names after prepositions; in takes the ablative when it refers to state (like being born in a place). The ablative of 2nd declension nouns (such as Sydneium, Londinium and most place-names)always end in -o. --Xave ri us 20:29, 4 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i'll try to remember, Hendricus 20:30, 4 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

Categories for dates of foundation

The agreed form is now Categoria:Constituta 1793. ("Constituta" is neuter plural: "things constituted in 1793"). I have changed the existing items to the new style: we can go ahead and make new categories in this style.

As you will see, they should all belong to two supercategories, one of which is the year category Categoria:1793. I think we can leave these year categories as redlinks for the present -- we don't need to create them yet -- because Usor:UV says he can do that automatically with UVbot. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:07, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine with me, Hendricus 16:09, 6 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

Othniel: I suggest you leave it unchanged! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

Ok,thanks, i will, Hendricus 13:13, 8 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

Alumni and Professores

Hi, Hendrice. It's students and professors of a university. That means genitive case, in Latin. So, ... Universitatis.

Also, I think to be an eruditus you need to do more than just attend a university! So, although professores can be subcategories of eruditi, I think better if alumni are not. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 2 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Ok. just the idea of placing the persons in a group according the place of birth, Hendricus 23:20, 3 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, if you wanted to do that, you could add the supercategory Categoria:Incolae ... to the Alumni categories. That would make good sense, I agree. Better than Categoria:Eruditi .... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:42, 4 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Berlin

The reason why Berlin was difficult was because, where there are two or more universities in a city, we haven't had a separate alumni and professores category for each university but for all the city's universities as a group. It's the same with Dublin, London, Paris, New York and maybe one or two others. Hence the name Alumni universitatum Berolinensium means "Students of the Berlin universities", plural. I've remade the category for Humboldt University now: I think you'll see how it works. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:42, 4 Martii 2009 (UTC)

While you were amending that, I was writing this. → What's the rationale behind this policy? It would seem strange to put alumni & professors of Harvard College, MIT, and Leslie University in the same category just because those universities are based in the same city. (It wouldn't seem strange if you also had a separate category for each university.) Likewise, you're surely not going to be combining American University, Catholic University of America, Gallaudet University, Georgetown, The George Washington University, Howard University, Southeastern University, Strayer University, Trinity College, and the University of the District of Columbia, all of which are based in Washington, DC, and each of which has a unique "personality" (unless you also have a separate category for each of them). IacobusAmor 13:22, 4 Martii 2009 (UTC)

If I may say so, I think you two gentlemen should work together more! Iacobus can write Latin and Hendricus knows how to create categories ... It was a quick idea more than a policy, and (like everything in this world) is open to change. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:51, 4 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Hendrice, please stop making up category names. You have not started learning Latin yet. Wouldn't it be silly if I invented category names on the Dutch Wikipedia? I would surely get it wrong. If you want categories, you have to ask someone who knows the language. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 18 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Andrew, i will,Hendricus 10:02, 18 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Fine! Just explain to me why Categoria:Familiae Mammalium is necessary in addition to Categoria:Mammalia. Which subcategories will remain in Categoria:Mammalia? When I understand that, I'll suggest names for all the new categories you need!

Incidentally, if the new category name is simply a taxon (like maybe Categoria:Dasypodidae) of course there's no problem. It is when you try to join words together that you need to study grammar! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:07, 18 Martii 2009 (UTC)

the category about families is indeed only for the taxon, Hendricus 10:13, 18 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Fine. It all looks great. Making regular categories for each family is a big improvement: much better than what we had before. Forgive my irritation! Your problem this morning was: for the phrase "Families of mammals [etc.]" you need (a) the nominative plural of familia, which is Familiae, "families"; (b) the genitive plural of the taxon, e.g. Mammalia > Mammalium "of Mammalia". You cannot form the genitive plural unless you know what declension the word belongs to: it isn't obvious. This is one of the things that botanists have to learn when they study botanical Latin! Sometimes our article will tell you the genitive form, but not always. So, anyway, if in doubt, feel free to ask before creating the category. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:18, 18 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Ok,i will, thanks, Hendricus 15:28, 18 Martii 2009 (UTC)

If you keep on doing it, I'll have to block you again. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:09, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)

OK, back to work ... Your phrase Categoria:Mammalia secundum civitatum means (in English) "mammals according-to of-nations". That English is so bad that an English speaker would not understand it, so it was bad Latin as well. But the other problem is, it makes no logical sense (to me). You are surely never going to distinguish Dutch mammals from Belgian mammals from German mammals, are you? They cross borders! So why do you want to class them by human nations? Anyway, New Guinea is not a nation.

I suggest you might want "Mammals arranged according to regions" (which can include islands, larger regions, continents, etc.). If that is what you want, the phrase would be Categoria:Mammalia secundum regiones digesta. If not, tell me what you do want!

To make sepperate categories for some animalgroups was in according to the english wiki, especially for those restricted to certain areas like most marsupials are, regions sounds better, i agree, Hendricus 15:44, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Your other new type today was Categoria:Species Mammalium exstinctum. Are you really sure that you want to distinguish "species" of extinct mammals from extinct mammals that only have genus names? We already have Categoria:Mammalia exstincta. What will be the difference, really? Still, if you are sure this is going to be useful, the phrase is Categoria:Species mammalium exstinctorum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)

I think its usefull because we can reduce the ammount of names in the category mammals, as you can see in the categories of Categoria:Marsupialia and Categoria:Species Marsupialium together there would be more than 200 names, Hendricus 15:44, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Fine, that makes good sense. And, yes, Categoria:Mammalia Africana is OK! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:41, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Latinitas

While we're at it, could you correct "Manis crassicaudata est mammalium placentalium insectivorum quod" so it makes sense? What it seems to mean is 'M. c. is an insectivore of the placental mammals (plural), which (i.e., insectivore)'. If that's what you mean and it's the best way to express the concept, OK; but what I was expecting was something along the lines of 'an insectivorous placental mammal'. ¶ Likewise "Manis gigantea est mammalium placentalium insectivorum quod." ¶ Presumably the genitive plural of insectivorum is insectivororum. It's not a classical word, so my dictionaries don't help. IacobusAmor 13:12, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)

There are more than 3 million "known" species within living nature, described by thousends of scientists working for hundreds of museums, universities and institutes, i'm not writing it all and i do make mistakes, Hendricus 15:58, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)

We all make mistakes, so that's not the point; the point is what you're trying to say. I'd fix it myself if I knew what you were trying to say, but I'm unfamiliar with the field, so I can't. As I implied, it seems a little odd (compared with the style of other reference works), but if it's correct, then it's correct. ¶ However, now I notice that you've deitalicized the name of the genus & the species. Wasn't there a discussion in taberna (or wherever) some time ago in which it was suggested that common names, like "leo," would be set roman (and lowercased), but their scientific binomina, like "Felis leo," in recognition of their special terminological status, would be set italic (with the genus name capitalized)? IacobusAmor 17:02, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)

(I just noticed this so I add my comment:) My memory is different from Iacobus's. I thought we agreed that because we are writing Latin there is no need to italicise Linnaean names. Let's find the discussion before making any changes! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 23:47, 20 Martii 2009 (UTC)

For reference: Linnaeus, in his catalog Species Plantarum, put genus-names in ALL CAPS ROMAN and species-names in italics (in the margin). I don't know how he set such things in running text. ¶ If a single text uses "felis" (the common name) and "Felis" (the genus) and sets them both roman, some readers may be confused. Setting the latter in italics might reinforce the idea that "Felis" is something quite different from "felis." IacobusAmor 05:05, 21 Martii 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Iacobi, the group names should be in roman, the species (i running tekst) in italic: see: Didelphis, Hendricus 05:39, 21 Martii 2009 (UTC)

Hello Hendrice. No, it wasn't because of bad Latin; more because of geography (if I remember rightly).

"Britannia" (Britain) includes "Anglia", "Scotia" and "Cambria" (England, Scotland and Wales). In general, for scientific specialists, I put the English, the Scottish and the Welsh together as "Eruditi Britanniae", "Biologi Britanniae" (etc.). But it's quite OK to separate them if you prefer to do this. I don't object! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:32, 7 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

Ioel Asaph Allen

I took out the two "est"s again. You can't have three main verbs in a sentence. The usual form on Vicipaedia is to put the "natus" and "mortuus" in a parenthesis; they are participles meaning "born" and "died". If you really really want to make them main verbs, you have to have three separate clauses or sentences, "natus est ... et mortuuus est ... et fuit ..." or "Natus est ... . Mortuus est ... . Fuit ..." but it would sound childish. Don't go that way, I suggest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:37, 18 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i will remove thme from all other biographies then, they'r all the same, thanks, Hendricus 07:56, 19 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

Some encyclopedias dispense with words or abbreviations for even "born" & "died," since it's obvious. I've done a couple of biographies that way to see how they look. The stylistic question then is whether to separate the events with an em-dash, an en-dash, a spaced en-dash, or a semicolon. IacobusAmor 19:59, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Hello Hendricus! It was interesting to see a link to Latin being added to en:Category:Members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Unfortunately it looks like you have confused two Swedish academies in your recent contributions. The en:Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences / sv:Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien is and always has been located in Stockholm, was founded in 1739, is the body handing out the Nobel prizes. It is their building on the photo in Regalis Societas Scientiarum Upsaliensis. There is also an academy called the en:Royal Society of Sciences in Uppsala / sv:Kungliga Vetenskaps-Societeten i Uppsala, which unsurprisingly is located in Uppsala, and was founded in 1710. This society has never been nearly as notable as the Stockholm-based academy, which actually was founded because the Uppsala society (closely tied to the university there) was seen as inadequate by the founders of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Therefore, we so far haven't bothered to create a category for their members. I would appreciate if you could correct the article(s), category and interwiki link! Regards, Tomas e 16:08, 22 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, i didn't know there where two, i will correct this ofcourse, Hendricus 17:39, 22 Aprilis 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see this discussion before. I think I have meanwhile made the corrections that Tomas e suggests. I hope so, anyway! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:18, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

De Systemate taxinomico

Vide Vicipaedia:Taberna#Systema taxinomicum Animalis--Rafaelgarcia 16:44, 19 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

Your point makes sense ... and no one yet seems to know what the best heading would be, anyway! As I have suggested at the Taberna, let's wait and see whether an automated change can be made to all the pages. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:15, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)

Sounds great, maybe the old title from Linnaeus is the simpelst: "Systema Naturae", that way it can be used for plants as well.Hendricus 19:20, 21 Iunii 2009 (UTC)