Jump to content

Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 20

Nexus addere
E Vicipaedia

Disputationes antiquae

Hoc est tabularium antiquarum disputationum. Non est recensendum.

Sententiae hic collectae inter dies et scriptae sunt.

90,000

Hodie paginam numero 90,000, titulo "Buxa", creavit Helveticus noster. Gaudeamus igitur! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:19, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Id quod de categoriis locorum facio ...

Debeo explicare. Quaereo an possibile (et utile) sit categorias creare quae locos tantum orbis terrarum, neque alias res ullas, contineant: utile fortasse si postea capsas facere et automatice recensere volumus, et fortasse si coordinata geographica addere volumus. Interdum possumus categorias, quas iam habemus, in novum arborem addere; interdum necesse erit locos (e.g. urbes) in categorias supplementarias ad hanc rem creatas addere. Experimentum facio: vide supercategoriam Categoria:Loci terrestres et subcategorias. Si alii volunt ibi inserere subcategorias, quae locos tantum, nequa alias res ullas contineant, fac! Si alii mihi dicere volunt hanc rem aut inutile aut impossibile esse, dic! Si nomina novarum categoriarum male constituuntur, facile mutari possunt.

I ought to explain. I want to know if it's possible and useful to create categories that contain only geographical places and nothing else. Useful perhaps for adding and then maintaining infoboxes, also perhaps for adding geographical coordinates. Sometimes existing categories can be used as part of this new tree; sometimes places (e.g. towns, countries) would have to be put in additional categories created for the purpose. I'm just testing: see the supercategory Categoria:Loci terrestres and its subcategories. If anyone else wants to add, into this structure, categories that contain only places and nothing else, do it! If others think this will be useless or impossible, tell me! If the names of the new categories are badly chosen, they can easily be altered. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:05, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)

For many of them, would the single word situs ('sites') be apter? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:43, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)
The idea is that all of them are points in space that can be identified with geographical co-ordinates (countries are admittedly a bit bigger than points, but their geographical centre is thus identified). As a general/mathematical term, I thought "loci" suggested all this better. But I'm open to persuasion! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:10, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so the articles might ideally want to include the latitude & longitude, maybe in a special place or capsa? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:33, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Yes, yes, that's it exactly! One purpose I have in mind is that when they are all findable in this way, coordinates (from Wikidata perhaps) can be inserted in all of them automatically. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:02, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Excellent! A good idea for interconnecting the texts! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:08, 6 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Having made a little experiment, I think that a complete, pure category tree of articles about places won't be needed, because all these places will in any case in the very near future be identified as "Loci" at Wikidata. Many are thus identified already. So the adding of coordinates (for example) can be done, when we want, by a bot drawing on Wikidata. If others who know about bots agree or disagree with me on this, please say!
I think none the less that a modest bit of systematization among categories for inhabited places, will do no harm to editors and readers who want to find them easily. The basic step I think I'll take, adopting a form of words invented by Utilo, is to create (as soon as needed) catch-all supercategories for all inhabited places (cities down to hamlets) in each civitas, like the current Categoria:Loci inhabitati Graeciae. This becomes more necessary as we get more pages for smaller places, which are not always the centres of local administration. So Utilo needed a category for places in Greece that were not, or had ceased to be, "demes"; in the same way, we will need to deal with 10,000 or more small places in France that have been categorized as "communes" by Helveticus, but will soon not be communes any more, just small places. Imagine if Italy reorganizes in the same way! If anyone disagrees on this general line of thought, please say. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:32, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Experimento parvo absoluto, arborem categoriarum plenum, qui paginas omnes de locis contineat neque aliam rem ullam, haud nobis necesse censeo, quia collegae nostri apud Wikidata eandem rem iam faciunt. Mox coordinata geographica in omnes tales paginas (si volumus) robotum inserere potebit, indice paginarum apud Wikidata facto. Si quis roboti magister me errare dicere vult, dic!
Credo nihilominus, si categorias de locis inhabitatis leviter recenseo, utile editoribus atque lectoribus erit ad tales paginas reperiendas. Sicut Utilo iam de Graecia fecit (vide Categoria:Loci inhabitati Graeciae), addere volo graduatim, sub omnibus "civitatibus sui iuris" quando necesse erit, supercategoriam locorum inhabitatorum tam magnorum quam minimorum. Hoc oportet facere praesertim quia plures pluresque paginas habemus de vicis parvis, neque municipiis, neque demis, neque communibus. Sicut in Graecia, mox in Francia paginae permultae de communibus (10,000? 15,000?) quas Helveticus creavit, non iam communia descripturae sunt sed vicos. An talis res de "municipiis" et "fractionibus" Italiae incidere debet? (Usque adhuc nescio!) Rursus dico: si quis me errare censet, dic! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:43, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Just a small point about the pattern: Loci inhabitati is intelligible, but one wonders whether Loci inculti would be more idiomatic. For inhabit, Cassell's contrasts "(locum) incolere (usually of a community)" with "(in loco) habitare (usually of an individual)." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:57, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you said that. I don't feel at all certain and it would be easy to change at this stage. What would others think to be the neatest possible expression for "inhabited places/communities"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
If Google is still our friend, loci inculti seems to be good modern Italian as well as Latin. Latin attestations do occur, e.g. ex 1666, 1722, et 1898. However, inhabitare may not work exactly the way habitare (discussed in reference to Cassell's above) works, so let's hear what others say. Of course you could go on using loci inhabitati and trust the bots to make everything consistent later on. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:44, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Google may be our deceiver here: according to my Italian dictionary inculti means "uncultivated", so the opposite of what we want! [PS: I think that may be case with your first two Latin citations also -- I can't access the third.] Likewise, in French, inculte means "uncultured" and inhabité means "uninhabited". Better focus, I suppose, on what gives the required meaning in Latin ...
I've been checking too. I have not found the past participle passive of "incolere" used in this way, though I guess there's no reason why it shouldn't be. I am wondering whether "Loci habitati" (without the in) would be better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:57, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
By golly, that's right! Does Latin really switch from the preposition in in most of the paradigm to the negating prefix in- in the past participle? In which case the confusion is easily explained, as it wouldn't be unlike popular (mis)perceptions of English inflammable, in common use (despite what dictionaries say) meaning both 'able to burn' and 'unable to burn'. So it may be best to stick with loci (in)habitati and wait for clarification. ¶ What of loci constituti? Even if a few people are living in a place, it may not be a named or otherwise formally established place, and the category is presumably looking for places only after they've been constituted as such. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:29, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
It's a neat idea, but I'm hesitant over "Loci constituti" because I feel we need something broad enough to cover inhabited places at all levels of formality, even to a total absence of formality. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:00, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Lateiner gefragt

Salvete!

In Vorbereitung dieses Treffens in Braunschweig (lat.: Brunsvicum) benötige ich die lateinische Übersetzung für:

  • Wikipedia-Stammtisch Braunschweig
  • Stammtisch Braunschweig
  • Wikipedianertreffen in Braunschweig
  • Wikipedia-Treffen in Braunschweig

Danke im Voraus! Brunswyk

Propono:

Tenzin Gyatso/Dalai Lama

Salve. De praesente Dalai Lama, nomen Tenzin Gyatso est eius nomen religiosum et Dalai Lama est titulum appellatur, dum natus est Lhamo Dondrub. Tum sitne in commentatione "DEFAULTSORT:Gyatso, Tenzin"? Donatello (disputatio) 17:51, 9 Maii 2013 (UTC).

Ita, utile est hanc formulam mittere, et recte sub "G" littera invenitur, ut mihi videtur (ut apud alias Vicipaedias faciunt editores). A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:25, 9 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Video. Gratias ago. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 12:15, 10 Maii 2013 (UTC).

Pagina mensis

Why is the Pagina prima printing an obsolete version of the pagina mensis? You can instantly spot the problem by noting that the link to mare mediterraneum in the version on the Pagina prima is red. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:33, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)

As a rule, we probably shouldn't be featuring pages whose first few paragraphs—the part to be printed in the Pagina prima—contain red links. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:33, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)
If you've made a significant edit to the first few sentences of the page which is pagina mensis, you'll need to make the same edit to Formula:PaginaMensis/Maii 2013 (or whatever the month is!) Don't know if this answers the question ...
There's another solution, as you realise, to the specific problem you mention. Click on the redlink and make a redirect :)
As to your point no. 2: don't let's overdo it, I agree, but why no redlinks? Don't redlinks encourage people to add pages? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:00, 11 Maii 2013 (UTC)

De categoriis contrarie divisis

Qui Anglice possunt, fortasse legere volunt hanc commentationem in Signpost "Categorisation of women novelists sparks media debate on Wikipedia's sexism". Vicipaediani Anglophoni multas categorias contrarie divisas (crossover categories) creaverunt, sexu et gente (necnon aliis criteriis) digestas, e.g. "American Women Novelists", "LGBT writers from the United States", "African-American dentists", "American scientists of Ukrainian descent‎‎". Nos Latine paucas categorias tales habemus: id mihi bene videtur. Fortasse eas quas habemus sexu subdivisas ("Actrices, Ostentatrices, Poetriae" etc., vide sub Categoria:Mulieres) oportet dissipare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:44, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)

I have repeatedly argued against creating new crossover categories, and I am happy that we do not have too many of them here on Vicipaedia. Other wikipedias have even fewer of them: The German wikipedia, for example, does not cross people's nationality and people's profession: On de.wikipedia, there is no category "Writers from the U.S.", just a category "Writers" and a category "People from the U.S." If one wants to find out the writers from the U.S., Vicipaedia:CatScan can be used for that purpose.
That said, I would advocate dissipating most of the subcategories of Categoria:Mulieres (perhaps leaving Categoria:Meretrices?) and I would be happy to let UVbot perform the task, if there is consensus. --UV (disputatio) 15:25, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Uh, I can't agree, sorry. It is easy for me to find things using categories and be organized. If a category has more than say 15 members, I would like to subcategorize them. For example, I will soon categorize persons in the Lord of the Rings novels. --Jondel (disputatio) 19:49, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
When this subcategorization adds new information that is not already present via other categories, please go ahead! (I suspect that this is the case with the persons in the Lord of the Rings novels.)
But when this subcategorization only creates a crossover of information that can be expressed all the same without creating new crossover categories, please refrain from creating categories such as a category for „Swedish classical harpsichordists specialized in the works of Georg Philipp Telemann“, and a category for „Swedish female homosexual experts-in-early-19th-century-Southern-Serbian-calligraphy whose last name comprises an odd number of characters“ (I suspect you would not create such a category anyway, but this would be an example of a crossover category).
But perhaps we should distinguish general questions of categorization from the particular question raised here by Andrew following the points that were raised concerning en.wikipedia: whether to keep the few subcategories of Categoria:Mulieres that we currently have or whether to dissolve them. --UV (disputatio) 20:26, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, I see no difficulty at all with Jondel's plan. Go ahead, Jondel! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:44, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Great. I think I get UV's point not to overcategorize. You, Andrew (seemed to ) make a suggestion when I was new here, that it would be good if a category had 3 or more members and it seems to be good guideline. gotta go now.--Jondel (disputatio) 22:02, 12 Maii 2013 (UTC)
It's good to have a minimum 3/4 as a general aim, I'd say, even if we often don't attain our aim ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:54, 14 Maii 2013 (UTC)

OK, no one having raised objections regarding the issue of subcategorizing by gender (e.g. Categoria:Actrices) I propose that we (a) ensure all biographical articles are in the general categories Category:Viri and Categoria:Mulieres (or a transgender category that we may define), and (b) delete the subcategories of Category:Mulieres. Sex raises its ugly head here, but we can handle it in an adult fashion by moving Categoria:Actrices pornographicae to Categoria:Actores pornographici and Categoria:Meretrices to Categoria:Scorta (the latter is, conveniently, neuter). Would others agree? Do any other specific issues arise? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)

I support this. e.g. Removing reginas category and placing all queens under the kings /reges category.--Jondel (disputatio) 10:24, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Jondel. Yes, reginae to merge into reges. We will need a new name for "Dominae Primae (CFA)". But we will need that anyway, whenever the USA gets its first male "first lady". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:24, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
:)--Jondel (disputatio) 12:58, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Which, then, of Vicipaedia's categories will be analogous with de:Kategorie:Königin? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:32, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
"Reges" will be analogous with it. But it won't be linked with it via Wikidata, I suspect (unless Wikidata leans towards feminism, and I don't think it does). That's not the full answer, however. We can ensure, if we care to, that our "Reges" category is linked both from "König" and from "Königin", and similarly in any other such cases. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:50, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Just a thought. Going back to the First Lady issue. Perhaps if there is a strong stereotype for that particular gender then maybe it would be good to prioritize the category in that gender. e.g. Categoria:Dominae Primae even if the First Gentlemen would be placed under it. Btw we refer to the male first ladies in the Philippines as First Gentlemen.--Jondel (disputatio) 09:24, 28 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Yes, maybe it's fine! It is in any case a subcategory of Categoria:Mariti ducum civitatum, which is intended to be gender-neutral. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:19, 28 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I have now disbanded the subcategories of Categoria:Mulieres. --UV (disputatio) 23:54, 28 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Good work. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 13:24, 29 Maii 2013 (UTC).

De nomine adiectivo "lunaris"

Salve. Demiro nomen adiectivum "lunaris, -is, -e" si id est in lingua Latina classica. Lexicon meum Lexicon Norstedianum, Latine-Suetice (editio prima recentissimaque), non dicit si antique, mediaevaliter, nec hodierne est. Si studiosi estis, id dicit:

luna|ris, ris, -re adjective of the moon, moon-; luna|tus adjective halfmoonshaped; luno verb to bend in a moonshape

Donatello (disputatio) 16:13, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC).

A tempore classico in usu est: Cicero, Ovidius, Seneca, Vitruvius.--Utilo (disputatio) 18:59, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Gratias tibi Utilo. -- Donatello (disputatio) 19:13, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC).

De categoria ad cuiusdam praefecturae Francicae urbes pertinente quae improprie nominata est

Pagina de Franciae praefectura cuius Augustonemetum est caput primum Podium Tholi nominata est, quod haud idoneum est quoniam illic Dôme ad deum celticum, neque ad ulla architectonica elementa confert. Itaque cunctas paginas ad hanc praefecturam pertinentes movi. Categoria tamen quae praefecturae urbes enumerat similiter movenda est, sed quomodo fieri potest nusquam repperi. Igitur auxilium consiliumque vobis omnibus peto. ThbdGrrd (disputatio) 21:06, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Categoria:Communia praefecturae Podii Tholi → Categoria:Communia praefecturae Podii Dumiatis, an recte?
Usor:UVbot hanc rectificationem perficere potest. Vide etiam Vicipaedia:Automata/Category move requests. --UV (disputatio) 21:56, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC)

hardware -> ferramenta, software -> ???

So, I believe that the best translation for "hardware" is "ferramenta", would anyone agree?

What would be the best translation for software? The word software was originally created as a direct antonym to hardware, in that hardware is hard to change because it uses hard parts (printed circuits, metal chips, soldered wires etc) whereas software is easy to change because it uses soft parts (electric and magnetic fields).

Etymology:

(1) http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=software software (n.) Look up software at Dictionary.com 

   1851, soft wares, "woolen or cotton fabrics," also, "relatively perishable consumer goods,"
   from soft + ware (n.). The computer sense is a separate coinage from 1960, based on hardware.

(2) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/software 

   From soft +‎ -ware, by contrast with hardware (“the computer itself”). Coined 1953 by
   Paul Niquette;[1] first used in print by John Tukey 1958.

My suggestions for the word "software" in latin, as a direct antonym to ferramenta given the etymology above, sorted by my personal preference:

  1. "promutamenta": something devised for changing or to be easy to change
  2. "telamenta": something made of soft fabrics, cloth, tissue, web (its sound contrasts very nicely with ferramenta)
  3. "pannumenta": something made of fabrics (or maybe lanamenta -- wool, or byssumenta -- cotton)
  4. "effigiamenta": something easy to copy/make (or maybe imitamenta)

Any opinions are highly appreciated! I've never seen anyone devoting any serious thoughts on this topic.

Vide commentarios Programmatura computatralis et Disputatio:Programmatura computatralis. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:54, 16 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Salve Iacobe. Sentio tecum. Bonum est vocabulum. -- Donatello (disputatio) 13:58, 17 Maii 2013 (UTC).

Device

Greetings. The English word for technological stuff: "device"; what is "device" in Latin? Could it be apparatus, or machina, or both? In my language Swedish it's called apparat. Donatello (disputatio) 12:38, 18 Maii 2013 (UTC).

Morgan: ".mech device (gadget) inventum; machina (Lev.)." ¶ The English word, meaning 'anything that has been devised', is extremely general in sense, so res might well suffice in some contexts, but White's dictionary, for the sense 'a contrivance', gives inventum, while Cassell's echoes Levine (or rather Levine echoes Cassell's) with machina, but adds dolus. (A device can be a trick.) For the sense 'emblem (as on a shield)': insigne, signum, inscriptio. For the sense 'intention' (as in "left to their own devices"): consilium, propositum. Merriam-Webster says the word itself comes from Middle French division, intention, from Old French deviser 'divide, regulate, tell'. You see what a variable word you're working with! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:02, 18 Maii 2013 (UTC)
As for apparatus : for the meaning of Latin words, we seldom go wrong by treating their morphological constituents more "literally" than their modern reflexes imply. Here: ad 'to, toward' + paratus 'prepared', so in apparatus we've basically got a 'preparation', anything prepared for a purpose. That's almost as general as res. Since machina seems to have a more particular denotation ('anything prepared for performing work'), it might be a better bet. The senses of machina given in Cassell's are: 'crane (for moving heavy weights), windlass (for drawing ships down to the sea), military engine, catapult, ballista', with transferred senses 'fabric, device, contrivance, trick, stratagem'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:17, 18 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I see. :) Big thanks. -- Donatello (disputatio) 16:40, 19 Maii 2013 (UTC).

Tech newsletter: Subscribe to receive the next editions

Latest Tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.
Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (version 1.22/wmf4) was added to non-Wikipedia wikis on May 13, and to the English Wikipedia (with a Wikidata software update) on May 20. It will be updated on all other Wikipedia sites on May 22. [1] [2]
  • A software update will perhaps result in temporary issues with images. Please report any problems you notice. [3]
  • MediaWiki recognizes links in twelve new schemes. Users can now link to SSH, XMPP and Bitcoin directly from wikicode. [4]
  • VisualEditor was added to all content namespaces on mediawiki.org on May 20. [5]
  • A new extension ("TemplateData") was added to all Wikipedia sites on May 20. It will allow a future version of VisualEditor to edit templates. [6]
  • New sites: Greek Wikivoyage and Venetian Wiktionary joined the Wikimedia family last week; the total number of project wikis is now 794. [7] [8]
  • The logo of 18 Wikipedias was changed to version 2.0 in a third group of updates. [9]
  • The UploadWizard on Commons now shows links to the old upload form in 55 languages (bug 33513). [10]
Future software changes
  • The next version of MediaWiki (version 1.22/wmf5) will be added to Wikimedia sites starting on May 27. [11]
  • An updated version of Notifications, with new features and fewer bugs, will be added to the English Wikipedia on May 23. [12]
  • The final version of the "single user login" (which allows people to use the same username on different Wikimedia wikis) is moved to August 2013. The software will automatically rename some usernames. [13]
  • A new discussion system for MediaWiki, called "Flow", is under development. Wikimedia designers need your help to inform other users, test the prototype and discuss the interface. [14].
  • The Wikimedia Foundation is hiring people to act as links between software developers and users for VisualEditor. [15]
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe • 20:52, 20 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Important note: This is the first edition of the Tech News weekly summaries, which help you monitor recent software changes likely to impact you and your fellow Wikimedians.

If you want to continue to receive the next issues every week, please subscribe to the newsletter. You can subscribe your personal talk page and a community page like this one. The newsletter can be translated into your language.

You can also become a tech ambassador, help us write the next newsletter and tell us what to improve. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. guillom 20:52, 20 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I have subscribed to this, requesting that it be delivered to the Taberna. If anyone feels this is totally useless, it is possible to go to the subscriptions page (see above) and delete my entry! If we feel it takes up too much space here, we can alternatively create a sub-page and have it delivered to that sub-page instead. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:42, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Fridtjof?

Habemus nomen Latinum pro Fridtjof nomine Norvegico? Vide commentarium Fridtjof Nansen‎. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:46, 23 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Salve Iacobe. Quaesivi sed non inveni, sed dicere possum nomen "Fridtjof" alia forma a nomine "Fritjof" est, quid est ex nomine Nordico antiquo Friðþjófr, significatio "fur pacis", derivatus e vocabulis friðr "pax" et þjófr "fur".
Donatello (disputatio) 16:17, 25 Maii 2013 (UTC).

De pagina Comoedia

I was just wondering if the Comoedia page should be expanded to also talk about modern comedies and e.g. comedy films, because at the time the page mostly contains of a list of six famous playwrights (four of which from antiquity). The reason I brought this up is because I have created and edited some pages about modern comedy actors/actresses and series, and it seems a little, well, comical, when the link from a sentence like ”The Simpsons est Americana comica series animata” opens to a page that talks mostly about Aristophanes and Shakespeare. Or maybe a new page like Comoedia hodierna should be crated? At least I think the page should mention that comedies can also be in the form of a film, so that references from pages like that of Jim Carrey would be accurate, because now it only says ”Comoedia (-ae, f.) est fabula quae --- in theatro agitur.” Or maybe some other solution for linking the pages? Any views? Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 20:48, 25 Maii 2013 (UTC)

It would be hard to go wrong by translating from Wikipedia Anglica, where, as we see, the first paragraphs of an article on a topic so broad as this tend to define the subject in such a way that they serve as vehicles for an array of links to related concepts:
Comedy (from the Ancient Greek κωμῳδία, kōmōidía), in the contemporary meaning of the term, is any discourse or work generally intended to be humorous or to amuse by inducing laughter, especially in theatre, television, film and stand-up comedy. This sense of the term must be carefully distinguished from its academic one, namely the comic theatre, whose Western origins are found in Ancient Greece. In the Athenian democracy, the public opinion of voters was influenced by the political satire performed by the comic poets at the theatres.[1] The theatrical genre can be simply described as a dramatic performance which pits two societies against each other in an amusing agon or conflict. Northrop Frye famously depicted these two opposing sides as a "Society of Youth" and a "Society of the Old",[2] but this dichotomy is seldom described as an entirely satisfactory explanation. A later view characterizes the essential agon of comedy as a struggle between a relatively powerless youth and the societal conventions that pose obstacles to his hopes. In this struggle, the youth is understood to be constrained by his lack of social authority, and is left with little choice but to take recourse in ruses which engender very dramatic irony which provokes laughter.[3]
The next paragraph brings in highly important related concepts (see the links):
Satire and political satire use ironic comedy to portray persons or social institutions as ridiculous or corrupt, thus alienating their audience from the object of humor. Satire is a type of comedy. Parody subverts popular genres and forms, using certain ironic changes to critique those forms from within (though not necessarily in a condemning way). Screwball comedy derives its humor largely from bizarre, surprising (and improbable) situations or characters. Black comedy is defined by dark humor that makes light of so-called dark or evil elements in human nature. Similarly scatological humor, sexual humor, and race humor create comedy by violating social conventions or taboos in comic ways. A comedy of manners typically takes as its subject a particular part of society (usually upper class society) and uses humor to parody or satirize the behavior and mannerisms of its members. Romantic comedy is a popular genre that depicts burgeoning romance in humorous terms and focuses on the foibles of those who are falling in love.
Good luck! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:41, 25 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Adnotationes

  1. ↑ Henderson, J. (1993) Comic Hero versus Political Elite pp.307-19 in Sommerstein, A.H.; S. Halliwell, J. Henderson, B. Zimmerman, ed. (1993). Tragedy, Comedy and the Polis. Bari: Levante Editori 
  2. ↑ (Anatomy of Criticism, 1957)
  3. ↑ (Marteinson, 2006)
Well, that would certainly be a thorough approach to the subject for a Vicipaedia article. I don't feel that I am apt to translate it, especially as it has these terms like "stand-up comedy", about which I would anyway have to consult somebody. So if someone else wants to embark on that, they'll have my blessing :) But I was still thinking how that definition should be combined with what the page already has, because now it says Ex auctoribus comicis quidam praeclari sunt and then there's the list of the six playwrights. Should there be a subtitle that says something like Scriptores et actores comoediae variorum aetatum and then subcategories Antiquitas and Tempora hodierna, and in the latter there would be names like Charlie Chaplin, Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy, Jim Carrey?
But anyway, if there didn't appear to be other volunteers, I could make a short introduction on the basis of the definition on English Wikipedia. But further comments are very welcome so that we can reach a broader consensus. Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 22:30, 25 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Translating from en:wiki is a method often adopted by Iacobus and it works well for him! It's not our standard, and I wouldn't recommend it here unless the en:wiki introduction appears to be exactly what you want. The tag "This article has multiple issues", which I see at the head of en:Comedy, would put me right off. Tha article looks surprisingly brief and list-bound, too. Anyway, getting stuck on translating concepts popular in 21st century English but not so crucial to other times and places ... yes, that's just the kind of problem one encounters.
I suggest "look before you leap". If I'm approaching some topic as broad and deep as this, what I might well do is to spend a couple of hours reading the introductions to other encyclopedia articles on the subject and then launch out ... I often look at several Wikipedias and get an impression of which has the most generally useful approach, even if it's not a language I'm going to translate from. On this topic, de:Komödie looks like the best of a bad bunch: any use? Assuming you are ready to work from English texts, as you certainly appear to be (!) one could additionally suggest the Encyclopaedia Britannica, if you can get a full view of it.
I urge you to go ahead, anyway -- we could very easily end up with the best article on this subject! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:28, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
It's usually best to avoid false definitions. The German "Eine Komödie . . . ist ein Drama [N.B.] mit erheiterndem Handlungsablauf, das in der Regel glücklich endet" absolutely excludes stand-up comedy and the Divina Comoedia. Does the German wiki elsewhere have an article on "comedy" (the concept), in addition to "a comedy" (an example of the concept)? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:23, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I'd try to rise above any demand to ensure that our basic definition covers everything that all other languages cover under this term. We are writing Latin, and we have to try to devise what the term may cover in Latin, difficult though that is as concepts and genres change so radically. Divina Comoedia wouldn't be in my short-list of things that must be covered in our definition (not that I'm asking Dante to change his title: he has free choice). Nor would stand-up comedy. Note that the latter is named and defined in some other languages, e.g. French and Russian, without use of the concept "comedy".
I agree with you that, in one article or two, "a comedy" (i.e. a play) and "comedy" (the genre) both have to be dealt with. For what it's worth, these match the two definitions of comoedia offered in the Oxford Latin Dictionary. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:12, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
PS. If only Jorge of Burgos hadn't eaten the last surviving copy of Aristotle On Comedy, Philetymos could have started from that! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:25, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Ok, now I expanded the Comoedia article and included some names of recent comedians too. I also noticed that many other wikipedias don't cover the subject very thoroughly, so I don't think it's that big a sin if the Vicipaedia page isn't absolutely precise. And yea, it would be quite nice to be able to insert some quotes from Aristotle's On Comedy on the page ;) Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 13:47, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Even after today's addition, its size is merely 1908 octeti. According to the ideals of the 1000-pages project, its size should be more than 30,000. Which seems appropriate for a topic of such importance! It should have a huge number of links leading out to other articles, one of which might be the Samoan & Tongan genre known as koniseti (from English concert, but usually referring to a series of comedic skits presented publicly, often for money). And then there's the concept of clowns & clowning. The list goes on & on! :) ¶ The same, of course, in the other direction, with tragoedia—which, curiously, seems not to be one of the 1000 most important topics in the world. Maybe our Amahoney can explain that omission for us! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:01, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Wait! Apparently, neither comedy nor tragedy is in the list of articles every wikipedia should have! Under "Arts and recreation," the only supremely important topics are Culture, Art, Comics, Painting, Photography, Sculpture, Pottery, Dance, Fashion, Theatre, Calligraphy. Is it possible that comedy & tragedy are seen as subsets of Theatre?—which would then have to be taken in an extremely broad sense to include some genres of comedy & tragedy (otherwise, for example, we couldn't rightly describe an epic or a novel as a tragedy). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 14:13, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps people who worry about the 1000 pages don't have time for laughter [satirizing myself, see here ]. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:25, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Me personally, I'd put Tragedy ahead of Comics and Comedy ahead of Calligraphy. But then I regularly teach this stuff, so I may have a narrow-minded view. Vicipaediani are warmly encouraged to join the discussion on the talk page of the List at Meta; there's more flaming and snarking that we tolerate here, but we do get a chance to sway the discourse. Latin VP is a force to be reckoned with! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:19, 26 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Automatic taxoboxes

Are these a wave of the future or a relic from the past? If the former, adding complete taxoboxes here will become increasingly difficult—so much so that, except on rare occasions, nobody will bother to do it. Are our kind programmers working on this problem? What needs to happen is that data presented thus

{{Automatic Taxobox | name = Naked mole rat | status = LC | status_system = iucn3.1 | status_ref =<ref name=iucn>{{IUCN2008|assessors=Maree, S. & Faulkes, C.|year=2008|id=9987|title=Heterocephalus glaber|downloaded=5 January 2009}}</ref> | trend = stable | fossil_range = Early [[Pliocene]] - Recent | image = Nacktmull.jpg | image_width = 200px | taxon = Heterocephalus glaber | display parents = 3 | parent_authority = Rüppell, 1842 | grandparent_authority = Landry, 1957 | range_map=Heterocephalus glaber dis.png | range_map_caption=Distribution of the Naked Mole Rat | binomial = '''''Heterocephalus glaber''''' | binomial_authority = [[Eduard Rüppell|Rüppell]], 1842 }}

need to print like data in an ordinary taxobox. Note that the entire taxonomy—kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus (with any subdivisions of these)—is missing but needs to print here: it must be stored somewhere other than inside the taxobox, and Vicipaedia needs to know how to retrieve it. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:13, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)

I think we're up to speed here. At your earlier request Aylin did a great deal of work on this, and {{Automatic taxobox}} has been working for you. Note the small "t". This system seems to me, as a mere uncomprehending observer, to be very demanding in terms of time -- which may be why scarcely any other wikis had adopted it when I last looked -- but if your current examples require more work to be done, you had better ask Aylin again!
On en:wiki it doesn't seem to have been welcomed with champagne corks popping: see the note on the talk page, "Please note: WikiProject Palaeontology is the only WikiProject to have approved the replacement of already-existing manual taxoboxes with automated ones, and has only provided explicit approval for short or rarely-edited pages." But evidently some people are now using it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:32, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Typographically it's a catastrophe. Vide Heterocephalus glaber. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:33, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I see that this taxobox, on which Aylin had done so much work for you creating hundreds of subsidiary formulae, is currently in use on only thirteen of our pages. That's a lot of your friends' time per page! Well, maybe she'll have a go if you ask ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:02, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Some may be working, but the one in Heterocephalus glaber is not. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:33, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry! Millions of articles on plants & animals remain to be written, and someday all work on automatic taxoboxes will come into play (assuming that having automatic taxoboxes is the way Wikipedia wants to go). Why, the world has millions of species of Coleoptera alone! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:30, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
That's reassuring :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:28, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I am not so sure that Wikipedia will go the way of automatic taxoboxes in their current state. I suspect (but I may be mistaken) that future taxoboxes will accept much fewer parameters, with the omitted information coming directly from wikidata. For an example from a different domain, see this (ugly, but you get the idea of what is technically possible) proof-of-concept: [16] The information is retrieved via the #property magic word from the corresponding wikidata entry (d:Special:ItemByTitle/lawiki/Italia). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:14, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC)
I may be mistaken too, but I likewise suspect the automatic taxobox won't ever float. To be used generally, it seems to require the creation of at least one formula and two maintenance categories per taxonomic node, all the way down to the genus level. Then there's the work the server has to do each time a page containing this formula is displayed. The comment I saw on the English talk page, to the effect that this template is disturbingly greedy in terms of server resources, didn't surprise me.
You have an alternative, Iacobus, which is to copy the data you can see "printed" on the English page into one of our normal taxoboxes. Maybe a minute more of your time -- or actually maybe less, because you wouldn't have to compose messages asking for help :) Worth considering? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:14, 28 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Tech news: 2013-22

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
Future software changes
  • MediaWiki will stop supporting XHTML 1.0 and HTML versions lower than version 5. HTML5 will now be the default language for pages created by the software. [22] [23]
  • The software will check if all uploaded files are secure and match their type. [24]
  • The Wikimedia Commons Android app will come out of the beta phase on its next release. [25]
  • Account creation by manual log-in will now be recorded in the account creation log (bug 42434). [26]
  • Links to file description pages will again be accessible directly from within videos (bug 43747). [27]
  • The software behind recent changes patrolling was re-written; the change fixes issues related to patrolling new pages, among other things. [28]
  • During a meeting, developers agreed on rules about making big changes to the software. [29]
  • There is now a category to list pages with invalid music code. [30]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe.

About magic

Greetings. My question is how you say "to cast a spell" and "to enchant" in Latin. In my mother tongue Swedish, "to cast a spell" is called trolla, and "to enchant" förtrolla. Then how would sentences like "Merlin cast a spell" and "Merlin enchant Mordor into stone" be?

My lexicon Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok (second edition of 2009) says "to cast a spell" is artem magicam exercere. But maybe this is not exactly. Or maybe it is. I don't know. And for "to enchant", it says incantare and fascinare, and for "enchantment" incantamentum and fascinum.

Donatello (disputatio) 21:22, 27 Maii 2013 (UTC).

In English, I would tend to say "Merlin turned Mordor into stone" (though I don't know what Merlin's doing in Mordor!). That makes me think of verto or transformo, which do seem to be used in that way: "Merlinus (arte magica) Mordor (Mordorem?) in lapidem vertit/transformavit." Lesgles (disputatio) 07:35, 6 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
"To cast a spell" might be incantare or incantamentum perficere, and "to enchant" (in the magical sense) could be fascinare, which means "bewitch, jinx, cast an evil eye on (someone), by means of the eyes or tongue". So "Merlin cast a spell" would just be Merlin incantavit. Strictly speaking, I don't think you can enchant an inanimate object, only a person or at least a living being. I'd just say "Merlin transformed Mordor into stone (by means of an incantation)": Merlin in lapidem Mordor (incantamento) transformavit. Incantare means "to chant a magic formula", "to consecrate with charms or spells", "to bewitch". --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 01:37, 12 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Bots

I have been wondering for a time now why every single article I ever edited/created is being processed by at least 3-4 bots. They don't appear to add anything, just reparse my changes, making my Wikipedia watchlist app going crazy. What is the matter with that? --Autokrator (disputatio) 13:34, 30 Maii 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Autokrator, I missed this question till now. It seems unlikely that your pages would be edited more than those of anyone else. Will you mention an example page, so that I can see what kind of edits you mean? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:14, 3 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Tech news: 2013-23

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf5) was added to non-Wikipedia wikis on May 29. It will be enabled on the English Wikipedia on June 3, and on all other Wikipedias on June 5. [31]
  • The Tamil Wikipedia shared a Lua module they created to automate their Main Page. [32]
  • There is now a test wiki to test new features in right-to-left languages. [33]
  • The Thanks feature was added to the English Wikipedia; users can now thank others for individual edits. [34]
  • The new interface for account creation and log-in is now the default on 30 wikis, including the English Wikipedia, Commons, Meta, and Wikidata. The feature will be added to all wikis after June 5. Users can return to the old look by adding ?useNew=0 to the web address. [35]
  • Videos are now played in pop-up windows if their size on the page is smaller than 200 pixels (800 pixels on the English Wikipedia). [36]
  • Opening your talk page now marks notifications as read, for wikis using the Notifications feature. (bug 47912) [37].
  • All autoconfirmed users can now reset transcoding of video files; previously only administrators could do this. [38]
  • The Nearby feature allows people who use mobile devices to see Wikipedia articles about objects and places around them. [39]
Future software changes

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

Shirt

Salvete! I tried starting a general article that would be equivalent to en:Shirt. Camisia appealed to me because of the Romance connection, but maybe one of the other options is better. We already have tunica for the ancient tunic and tunicula for t-shirt, but we could rearrange those too. Here are the possibilities I have found so far, with their L&S definitions: camisia, "a linen shirt or night-gown"; indusium, "a woman's under-garment"; subucula, "a man's under-garment, a shirt"; tunica, "an under-garment of the Romans worn by both sexes, a tunic"; tunicula, "a little tunic". Any thoughts? Lesgles (disputatio) 20:07, 3 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Les. Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok (second edition of 2009), a Swedish-Latin lexicon, have one word for tröja, which is "shirt" in English, thorax (-acis) m láneus. For "t-shirt", it has thoracíolus m carbáseus and tunícula semimanicata in T lítterae formam confecta. The last one is actually called like that. Maybe the author missed the parenthesis, like "(in T ... confecta)".
Donatello (disputatio) 20:58, 3 Iunii 2013 (UTC).
Hmm, well thorax, literally "breast garment", is another possibility. I don't think including laneus or carbaseus makes sense, since most shirts nowadays are made of cotton. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:35, 5 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Traupman gives "indusium, camisia", and indusium does seem to be the one I've come across the most, so I'll go ahead and move it there, and include the other options in the text. Subucula might be good if we want an article on undershirts. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:13, 7 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I'll copy this to the Indusium talk page in case this comes up again. Lesgles (disputatio) 17:22, 7 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I see. :) Good work Lesgles. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 17:26, 7 Iunii 2013 (UTC).
It seems to me that the scheme involves the placement of layers -- both indūsium and subuncula suggest lower layers (but see below). Tunica would be perhaps above that. Adler gives indūsium for shirt, though L&S describe it as a "woman's undergarment" but suggest that it comes from induere so that makes it mean something like 'a putting-on thing' etymologically, which is more or less how the OLD defines indūmentum. The alternate spelling of intusium is suggested by the OLD to be a folk etymology from intus, and that suggests that it was thought of as an interior layer but the OLD defines indusium as "an outer tunic". And of course, subūcula has the 'sub' in it which kind of clinches it being a lower layer. So, the scheme I've had in mind is that the subūcula is the t-shirt, which in modern times is often worn as the only shirt. Above that you would have the indūsium, as the term for what, if untopped, we could call the state of shirtsleeves. My guess is that in Adler's time, it made sense for the dress shirt to be named as an interior shirt because it was less common back then that you'd go around in public without your suit or sports coat. Now, a couple of years ago I was at the Conventīculum Lexingtōniēnse and Terrence Tunberg mentioned that prefers tunica for the sport coat/jacket layer, in preference at least to iacca. And I assumed from there that he also had a layering scheme in mind, and that indeed the long shirt the Romans have under the toga is somewhere between the subūcula and the toga. But the OLD definition suggests that the indūsium is above something, so subūcula surely then is the bottom layer. Adler uses toga for coat, and again I assume that this is because he sees it as a layer above the tunica (he lists tunica lintea also as a translation for shirt), but I'm not sure whether he would have meant in his era a jacket-type coat or an outer coat such as a topcoat/trenchcoat. But it looks to me that the scheme as far as layering, as kludged together from these sources, goes something like this:
-->Subūcula (undershirt/t-shirt)
-->Indūsium (dress shirt, or what we call a polo shirt)
-->Tunica (jacket, or perhaps just another term for the same layer as indūsium)
-->Iacca (as far as I know, definitely means the jacket layer)
-->Toga (possibly also a name for the jacket layer)
-->Amiculum (the topcoat, trench coat or other heavy coat layer)
And with this schema in mind, I have tended to conclude that camisia could stand as the general term for shirt without reference to subtype or particular layer. Indūmentum would be anything you put on, though with the OLD using a robe as an example, it seems to suggest a higher layer, but not insist on it. Any thoughts on this?--IāxCūpārius (disputatio) 02:38, 17 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the investigation! It all sounds good to me; I think many dictionaries have yet to catch up with the increasing informality of modern dress. I like your list, except for toga, which I would tend to restrict to the ancient garment, though if it is used widely to mean "jacket" we could include that. And if you'd like to start any of the articles, please go ahead; the modern clothing articles are still very undeveloped. Lesgles (disputatio) 23:24, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I would tend to think that indusium would be the most general term for 'upper body garment'. Camisia would cover night shirts to dress shirt. I would place polo shirts under indusium and not under camisia or at least call it a 'camisia polo'. Polo shirts are definitely not the same as dress shirts.I would reserve tunica for tunic and toga for toga. Subucula for undershirt is ok. iacca and amiculum are definitely indusia but not camisia.This is based on my understanding of the origins of the term camisia as a toga like linen undergarment that men started wearing dressed up with collars as an outer garment over time.--Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 02:59, 23 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I suspect this hinders rather than helps, but "polo" in Latin is Ludus pilae in equis :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:08, 23 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Trademark discussion

Hi, apologies for posting this in English, but I wanted to alert your community to a discussion on Meta about potential changes to the Wikimedia Trademark Policy. Please translate this statement if you can. We hope that you will all participate in the discussion; we also welcome translations of the legal team’s statement into as many languages as possible and encourage you to voice your thoughts there. Please see the Trademark practices discussion (on Meta-Wiki) for more information. Thank you! --Mdennis (WMF) (talk)

Belgica/Belgia/Belgium

Disputationem de nomine civitatis redintegravi, Si sententias habetis, si placet, contribuite! Lesgles (disputatio) 04:54, 6 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

quia in formula mulieris terminatio...

Why if you use a forula the termination - doesn't work anymore? See Silvia Clavadetscher. Thank you friends

This parameter is no longer needed. If you go to wikidata (d:Special:ItemByTitle/lawiki/Silvia Clavadetscher) and add a property "sex" (d:Property:P21) with value "female" (d:Q6581072), the termination will automatically show up correctly ("nata" instead of "natus"). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:29, 6 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Quia meeting point and no more taberna?

Quia meeting point and no more taberna?--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 08:45, 6 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Rectificavi. --UV (disputatio) 23:26, 6 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

About -que

Greetings. Is it okey in Latin to put -que in the first word, like Romulusque Remus and Horatioque calamus suus opera grandia?

Donatello (disputatio) 21:39, 6 Iunii 2013 (UTC).

Romulusque Remus = et Romulus Remus. So, the answer is No. In principle, you could say Romulusque et Remus (= et Romulus et Remus), but in prose, such a poetic construction would hardly be stylistically appropriate. Neander (disputatio) 07:23, 7 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Tech news: 2013-24

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
Future software changes
  • A report on mobile upload errors was published, and software changes to reduce their number will come soon. [50]
  • A request for comments on updating MediaWiki to use RDFa version 1.1 was started on MediaWiki.org (Gerrit change #67608).

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe.

20:10, 11 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Help needed for two articles

I am a computer science school teacher and I convinced one of my colleagues to have her students write an article on Vicipaedia. I have been doing this for years on the French Wikipedia, but this is the first time in Latin.

Unfortunately, I have forgotten most of my Latin, it is the end of the school year and my Latin colleague is retiring at the end of June. Any help is welcome on these two articles ! GastelEtzwane (disputatio) 22:06, 11 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Gastel. I've read the articles. Good work to the creators. :)
I see that the verbs are in the end of maybe all sentences. I know that the word order in Latin is like that, but these articles contain very low feeling. In the Latin Wikipedia, people prefer to write in Classical Latin, then that dialect is seen as the normal. Maybe the creators used Classical Latin in these two articles (it looks like that). But feeling, beauty, and philosophy is part of this dialect. So it may be applied in these two. Remember that Classical Latin is a flexive language, so words in sentences can be thrown around and sentences reshaped, depending in the contexts, like feminam celeriter currit, celeriter currit feminam, currit celerem feminam. We must be "careful" so Latin won't sound robotlike to the Romans. Think on how one speak its mother tounge in a dry and empty way; it won't sound good.
Sure, I, and others, can help in the articles. :)
Donatello (disputatio) 22:55, 11 Iunii 2013 (UTC).
Thank you for your positive feedback. I studied Latin way back when I was in junior high school (I am close to 50 now). In European schools, as far as I know, Latin is studied as a "dead" language. All books and writing, no conversation. That made this assignment particularly challenging for the students.
You know that there are two latin derived languages in Switzerland (French and Italian) which have the same basic sentence structure as English. German and German dialects, on the other hand, "always the verb at the end of the sentence place". So what sounds "natural" to a German mother tongue Latin teacher may not sound normal to a French or Italian (or English) mother tongue Latin teacher (we have both those types in my school)...
I will look into this with the other Latin teachers, and we may be able to set up a more extensive project at the end of next school year. GastelEtzwane (disputatio) 10:03, 12 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
This is a very good idea!
You're right, it is possible for modern varieties of Latin to grow up rather easily. I was telling Donatello yesterday of a detail in his Latin writing that seems strange to me. I could say the same of some other Vicipaedians ... and they would say the same about my Latin too ...
Keep this in mind for next year: If a new article is being written as a school exercise, be sure to tell other Vicipaedians about it (as you are doing here). We can either leave it alone for the writer to develop it, or begin to help immediately; it's best if we know which of these things you would like us to do. If a page is to be left alone, it can be started in the Scriptorium, where the writer can develop it in peace.
Some other Vicipaedians are teachers of Latin, including User:Amahoney (in the US) and User:Schulz-Hameln (in Germany). They may well have good advice for you (if you need it). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:28, 12 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. If this project can get started next year, I will tell other Vicipaedians about it so that they can help immediately. The students are very impressed by the rapidity with which other users are willing to help them (or bash them as it happens sometimes). Talk to you guys next year! GastelEtzwane (disputatio) 09:34, 19 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

A question

Hello. I'm not sure, but is the article motrum the article about "engine/motor"? In case, I do have another names for it to add. -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:40, 13 Iunii 2013 (UTC).

Yes, it's about motors. Vale, Lesgles (disputatio) 14:51, 13 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I see. Thank you. -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:56, 13 Iunii 2013 (UTC).

monocausalis

In pagina Titus Livius usus sum vocabulo monocausalis pertinente ad explanationem quandam, quae alicuius rei unam unicamque causam prodit: composito ex graece μόνωι et latine causa, sicut usitatum est in lingua theodisca. Quid cogitatis de ea re? Aut iam exstat vocabulum ad hanc rem exprimendam mihi quidem ignotum?

Praeterea: non repperi litteram graecam omega cum iota subscripto sine spiritu vel accentu, neque in caracteribus specialibus neque infra instar normae. Ubi est? - Bavarese (disputatio) 08:25, 15 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Exstat, Bavarese, paulo post initium litterarum Graecarum, in serie secunda quae sic stat: " Ϊ ϊ ΐ Ϋ ϋ ΰ ᾼ ᾳ ῌ ῃ ῼ ῳ ῤ Ῥ ῥ ". Haec, nisi fallor, sunt litterae interdum Neograece usitatae; eae quae sequuntur in lingua Graeca antiqua tantum reperiuntur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 15 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Gratias! Parum attentus legeram. Et quid de vocabulo monocausalis iudicas? - Bavarese (disputatio) 17:14, 15 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Fortasse monocausalis, verbum doctissimum ab aliis linguis "culturalibus" mutuatum, non omnino reiciendum est, sed equidem Cicerone duce "A qua periculum ac temptatio explanationis rerum gestarum in unam tantum causam coniectae haud procul abest" dixerim (cf. Cic. fam. 8.11.3). An nimis tortuosum est? Neander (disputatio) 16:52, 16 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Placet, optime. Statim mutabo. - Bavarese (disputatio) 10:24, 17 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Stockholm

Greetings. The category Categoria:Stockholmia may be joined with Categoria:Holmia, then Stockholmia doesn't sound nor being spelled in a Latin way. Holmia on the other hand are more like Latin. Both names exist in sources, like in Norstets svensk-latinska ordbok (second editio of 2009). What do you think of the joining?

Donatello (disputatio) 14:34, 16 Iunii 2013 (UTC).

Hello! I agree, the categories should be joined. I checked that there seemd to be more pages and subcategories in the Categoria:Stockholmia than in the Categoria:Holmia, which is interesting as the Vicipaedia page of Stockholm is names Holmia. And yes, Stockholmia doesn't seem like a geniune Latin word, but on the other hand there are already pages like Kebnekaise and Bergslagsbanan that couldn't be real Latin words either. But, in any case, I think you have the right to decide of the joining, because you seem to be undoubtedly the most active Swedish usor in Vicipaedia! Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 21:53, 16 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
The category was created (by Hendricus, who doesn't call in here any more) at a time when the alternative "Stockholmia" was not even listed on our page, so why he chose that category name we may never know! However, as we agree, it was not wrong. It's just that "Holmia" is a better choice.
It seems no one disagrees, Donatello, so please go ahead. Two ways to do it.
  1. By hand. Change the category, on all current pages and sub-categories, to "Categoria:Holmia", and then copy-paste the contents of Categoria:Stockholmia into a newly created Categoria:Holmia. Then change the Wikidata link. Then mark the old Categoria:Stockholmia for deletion.
  2. With the help of UVbot. This is handiest if the category has a lot of members. You list the required move at Vicipaedia:Automata/Category move requests and UV, with the help of his bot, may do it for you! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:56, 17 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Here's a comment on the other point made by Φιλέτυμος. We always prefer a Latin name, for pages and categories, if we can find one in a reliable source. So it's a good idea to move a page to a Latin name you have found (always adding a source in a footnote) if it is currently at a "barbarian" name. For more details, look at VP:TNP. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:07, 17 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. :) I think I'll change manually. It may go faster. There's not so much content. -- Donatello (disputatio) 13:18, 17 Iunii 2013 (UTC).
It's done now. -- Donatello (disputatio) 13:28, 17 Iunii 2013 (UTC).
Good work! I have now deleted the old category. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:49, 17 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Free Research Accounts from Leading Medical Publisher. Come and Sign up!

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. I want to alert you to our latest donation.

  • Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
  • Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
  • If you are active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi 21:10, 16 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane Library Sign-up (correct link)

My apologies for the incorrect link: You can sign up for Cochrane Collaboration accounts at the COCHRANE sign-up page. Cheers, Ocaasi 21:44, 16 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-25

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Translations are available.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22wmf7) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 13. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on June 17, and on all Wikipedias on June 20. [51]
  • The Narayam and WebFonts extensions were successfully replaced by Universal Language Selector on June 11. [52]
  • VisualEditor news:
    • VisualEditor was temporarily disabled on Wikipedia sites on June 14 due to an issue that inserted a lot of HTML code. The issue is now fixed and VisualEditor works as before.
    • Users can now use VisualEditor to add images and other media items from their local wikis and Wikimedia Commons. [53].
    • VisualEditor also allows editing references. [54]
  • The new Disambiguator extension, which was previously part of MediaWiki itself, was enabled on test wikis. It adds the magic word __DISAMBIG__ to mark disambiguation pages. [55]
  • The newly enabled Campaigns extension allows Wikimedia Foundation data analysts to track account creations that result from a specific outreach campaign.
Future software changes
  • Universal Language Selector will be added to the Catalan (ca), Cebuano (ceb), Persian (fa), Finnish (fi), Norwegian Bokmål (no), Portuguese (pt), Ukrainian (uk), Vietnamese (vi), Waray-Waray (war) and Chinese (zh) Wikipedias on June 18. [56]
  • Starting on June 18, VisualEditor will be randomly enabled by default for half of newly created accounts on the English Wikipedia to test stability, performance and features. [57]
  • Two new webfonts (UnifrakturMaguntia and Linux Libertine) will be added to wikis that use Universal Language Selector. [58] [59]
  • It will now be possible to hide the sidebar while using the Translate extension to reduce distractions (bug #45836). [60]
  • A patrolling link will now be visible for un-patrolled pages, even if users don't visit it from Specialis:NewPages or Specialis:RecentChanges (bug #49123). [61]
  • A request for comments on enabling a new search engine for MediaWiki was started.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Unsubscribe.

EdwardsBot (disputatio) 22:33, 16 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Reichsarbeitsdienst

Estne iam vocabulum latinum pro theodisco Reichsarbeitsdienst (temporibus nazistis)? - Bavarese (disputatio) 16:14, 17 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Linking a page to other wiki

Hello! I'm making this article, Femoralia, and I would like to know how can I link it to the equivalent articles in other languages. By the way, the artcile I'm writing is about the modern garment. Should I add a disambiguation title? Thanks. Casquilho (disputatio) 18:11, 17 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

First, the inter-wiki links. UV has already done this one, but here's how it works for future reference. First, find a suitable article in another language, as for example en:Femoralia. On that page (in the other Wikipedia) you'll see "Edit links" at the bottom of the list of links on the left-hand side of the page (in an appropriate language). Click on that and you will be taken to Wikidata. At the bottom of the Wikidata page you'll see a blank line with "[add]" next to it. Click on "add" and you'll be able to fill in "lawiki" (saying it's our page) and "Femoralia" (our title). That's it! Note that we don't add inter-wiki links inside pages any more: Wikidata handles all that for us. (It's a bit more complicated if there isn't already a Wikidata item, because it would have to be added, but the principle is the same.)
Next, your second question. Do we need separate articles for ancient and modern shorts? I'd say one good article covering all the varieties of thigh-length trousers would be sufficient. But this is a question of editorial judgement, so let's see what others have to say. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:23, 17 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!Casquilho (disputatio) 17:23, 19 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Gerasimus Lebedev

I've begun translating Gerasimus Lebedev from the Russian. I'd appreciate it if one of our experts would take a glance at my Latinitas, if you have the time, so I can avoid repeating the same mistakes. Also feel free to tell me if a part just doesn't make sense; I've twisted some of the sentences around a few times, so something might have been lost. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:50, 18 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Disputationi de Gerasimo L. aliqua addidi. - Bavarese (disputatio) 11:26, 19 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Latus brevius

Hello. This article is about gables. My question is: do you think we should move this article to the name fastigium of the golden age of Latin? -- Donatello (disputatio) 18:56, 18 Iunii 2013 (UTC).

A fastigium is not a gable (enclosing wall of a gable roof). Rather the fastigium is the top (or ridge) of a roof (any roof having a ridge including a gable roof). The two terms are not synonymous. In general a fastigium is the highest point or summit of something, could even be a natural thing like a mountain.--118.160.19.93 09:11, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Cassell's tells English-speakers cultivating a classical style to translate 'gable' as fastigium. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:38, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Lewis & Short agrees with Cassell, making "the top of a gable, gable-end, pediment" the first historical meaning of fastigium. I agree with Donatello, "latus brevius" is not a good term for us to use here: it's too vague. We could say "Fastigium (architectura)" to help with disambiguation, since, as the anonymous says, it can refer to summits elsewhere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:46, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Anna Fastigiorum Viridum? Lesgles (disputatio) 18:00, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Yes on second thought given your comments, I agree that fastigium is a good translation.--118.160.19.93 18:55, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I'll move now to Fastigium (architectura). -- Donatello (disputatio) 22:44, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC).
I'll also copy this discussion to it's discussion page. -- Donatello (disputatio) 22:48, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC).

92 000

Now there are that many articles here. Good work everybody. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 18:09, 19 Iunii 2013 (UTC).

92 000! --Xaverius 08:39, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Praemia

Legete, o amici, id quod nuper ad "Disputatio Vicipaediae:Praemia Vicipaedianis" inscripsi, et vocem addite si vultis! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:06, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

De 100.000 paginarum mox accipiendo

Salvete amici. If my calculations are correct (and I'm not good at numbers - but I did a neat graph for Vicipaedia:Historia Vicipaediae) for the past 4 years we've been writting an average of 7.000 words every sixth months. This means that probably we will be reaching the magic number (100.000) at some point early next year. When we get closer to the 100.000 we may want to consider celebrate it somehow (a "commemoration logo" for the vici nostra? a new pagina prima layout?). Perhaps it's too early to be overexcited, but I can't wait to see the day when we reach the hudred thousand!--Xaverius 15:18, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the English wikipedia, whose main page doesn't deign to acknowledge even that we've attained the level of 50,000 articles, will notice. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:20, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
That's because of the somewhat arbitrary method they use of taking 50 random articles and counting how many are non-stubs. Unless they change the system (there are other proposals on en:Template talk:Wikipedia languages), we would need to work on destubbing. But I support the idea of a temporary commemoration logo for 100,000. This may be a time to pull out the Roman numeral C. Lesgles (disputatio)
In spite of the facts that (a) it would be nice to be in that list, and (b) a lot of our articles are far too short, I wouldn't urge that we force ourselves to comply with their rule. Many en:wiki articles are far too long. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:01, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Quid est stipula?

Which raises the question of the definition of a stub. Do other wikis define the concept at all precisely? Vicipaedia's speaks only to structure and says nothing about size, yet we know intuitively that, in conveying information, size matters. The wiki-comparing people use a triple system for grouping articles: (1) having any text at all, up to 9999 characters, (2) having more than 10,000 characters, and (3) having more than 30,000 characters. Perhaps the middle ground there would be an apt dividing-line, and any article having less than 10,000 characters should be considered a stub. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:47, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

The measure you're citing is used for the notional 1000 most essential topics. Many specialised topics can (and should, I'd say) be dealt with much more briefly. If I happen to notice a "stipula" tag on an article with more than 4 lines of good text plus references, I would generally remove the tag. We have thousands that are even shorter, as you know ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:01, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Right, we need qualitative criteria for assessing whether a given article is a stub or not. Articles such as Placentia are rightly marked as stubs, although they contain quite a lot of bytes. Neander (disputatio) 18:14, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm all for that. Can we define such criteria? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:19, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
We could start by counting words (or characters) of text in the body of the article, aside from the footnotes, bibliography, external links, illustrations, infoboxes, and other ancillae. We might say a stub is the equivalent of less than half a print page of text -- so, up to 120 words or thereabouts. A "small article" could be 120 words of text, or more, plus at least some bibliography, external links, or illustrations as appropriate, with internal links. This definition turns out to be looser than Neander's idea, though. I looked at his example Placentia and counted a bit over 200 words, omitting the lists of "Fractiones," "Municipia Finitima," and "Vide etiam" pages; it has an infobox with a map, too. So by the definition proposed here, this would be a "short article" but not a mere stub. An article like Pro Roscio Amerino is certainly a stub: it's only about 50 words, not counting the extended quotation, and though there is a bibliography, it is trivial (only one item). I admit I would find it difficult to write an algorithm to identify stubs mechanically, since I want to distinguish between substantial and ancillary material -- but I don't see a problem in applying our own editorial judgement here. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:36, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
If we're going to do a computation, let's keep it simple! The system already provides the number of characters, so let's work with that. If anybody wants to think in terms of words, just divide by about six or seven. Any large wiki will have bios of plenty of historical characters about which nothing more is known than a name and an anecdote or a characteristic, and for them, the bibliography (perhaps an ancient source) is part of the story and should therefore be accommodated in the computation. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:18, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I wrote my suggestions in Vicipaedia:Stipulae, for a start. Neander (disputatio) 19:28, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
[I wrote this before seeing Neander's note: I'll now read those suggestions:] Any city with a couple of thousand years of history demands a much longer article than Placentia; any article which consists mostly of desultory lists needs lots of work. And yet we have thousands of articles not a tenth as long as Placentia, some of which are on topics on which there would be as much to say. Look at Eboracum; look at Lichfildia (episcopal see since 669: this one's technically not even a stub, but I'd rather not delete it). I guess we're just saying we know what lies ahead (of us and our grandchildren) ...
If, of our 92,000 articles, 85,000 deserve to be marked as stubs (I haven't counted) maybe it would be useful to define two steps, just to help us direct our future efforts? If, when I see four/five lines of good text plus references, I can move a page from "stipula" to "stipes", I'd be happier. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:43, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I try, as much as possible, to write articles which are not just a list (although I could name quite a few of those written by yours truly). It always feel that a page with three or four paragraphs (even if short ones) are better than pages with lists of information, although it is true that we have litterally thousands of pages on things (numbers, asteroids, villages) on which there is not that much to say.--Xaverius 22:21, 20 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I have a couple of points to make here, having now read Neander's definition of a stipula.
  1. Neander's definition doesn't depend on length, and therefore accommodates Iacobus's point (with which I strongly agree) that some topics, perhaps especially historical topics from ill-documented periods, can require nothing more than the two/three known facts and the sources. Anything else would be padding, in those cases. On the other hand, a complex topic might well require three/four paragraphs, plus references, as a bare minimum before one gets down to real business. So, Neander's definition is great, and sets a proper aim for us.
  2. We have had a different, more modest, definition of a stipula, hammered out about six years ago, still used by us daily in a negative way. If you read Formula:Non stipula, you will see it defined. We normally and regularly delete articles that don't meet this definition, giving as grounds that they are "Non stipula". We need to be able to go on doing that. We also use this definition in a positive way: the 36,000 articles being developed by Helveticus on the soon-to-be-abolished French communes are designed to meet this definition and not a penny more, and thousands of brief articles by various contributors (I don't mean Iacobus) about biological species, genera, etc., likewise barely meet this definition.
So we now have a couple of different stages defined, and we need them both. 1. The stage that, if not reached, causes the article to be deleted. 2. The next stage for which Neander's definition is a first and useful draft. What I really weant to say is that (by my estimate) 85% or more of our articles haven't reached stage two yet!! Therefore, while embracing Neander's definition (as we will all no doubt refine it) I want two names: one for stage 1 (if you don't match up to this, O article, you're out) and one for stage 2 (aim for this, O article, and when you get beyond, you're on the way to being a full-grown article).
OK, then, what names? Incidentally, is "stipula" a proper name to use at all? (If the result is some renaming, that's not difficult: a few formulae and a few categories.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:49, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
To reply to Andrew's point, we have stipula and seemingly a new category in the process of definition: sub-stipula(?), which would apply to articles labelled as non-stipula. We now need to agree and define the parametres which limit the length/importance/relevance of a stipula both downwards (how different is a stipula from a sub-stipula?) and upwards (what makes a stipula a short article?).--Xaverius 11:06, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
So there are actually four kinds of pages: "stage 0" or "non stipula," a page that doesn't conform to our minimal rules about structure and content; "stage 1" or stipula, a page that says something useful but nowhere near enough; "stage 2" (or as Andrew has just named it "stipes"), a page that may say enough, if the topic is small, or may at least be a good foundation for further work; "stage 3" ("flos"?), a large, substantive article. Is that right? We already clean up pages in group 0; the current discussion is about identifying pages in group 1 and promoting them to group 2. Pages in group 3 are highly desirable too, but these will be less common, candidates to be Paginae Mensis and so on. Should we be running through pages and marking them as stipulae (of the appropriate categories)? Should we instead have a mark for "full-grown articles," on the theory that it's easier to mark the smaller set? I'm picturing a formula that says "this is beyond being a stipula" in some discreet way, perhaps with another little top-of-the-page icon, maybe also a category (hidden presumably). Given such a thing, a bot could put it on all our Paginae Menses, and on all the asteroid articles and other large nothing-more-to-say classes; we could then manually mark any other page that we think is "done" or "sufficient" as we come across it. As for definitions, I think group 0 is well defined by Formula:Non stipula, and I think we usually recognize group 3 when we see them. I think Neander's definition at Vicipaedia:Stipulae covers stage 1, and his second paragraph about "res quae breviter explanari possunt vel debent" accounts for the possibility of short articles in stage 2 (articles that may never end up in group 3). As I think about it, one model that comes to mind is the difference between short-answer questions and essay questions on an exam. If the page would be an adequate answer to a short-answer item, but not much beyond that, it's a group-1 stipula. If it says basically everything that needs to be said, telling not just what the subject is but how it got that way, what it's related to, why it's important, then it's a group-2 article. It should also have some bibliography, perhaps in the form of web references, and whatever diagrams, maps, or illustrations are appropriate. For example: "M. Tullius Cicero (106-43, cos. 63) fuit orator" is a stipula; the existing Marcus Tullius Cicero is a "stipes" or proper article. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 20:32, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
It occurs to me that Wikisource uses a box symbol, with four quarters, to indicate what proportion of the work has been done. Might we adopt/adapt that? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:15, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the four-quarter-box idea:

  • non-stipula gets (and the usual formula, and gets deleted or fixed)
  • stipula gets (and an appropriate "stipula" formula)
  • short but usable article gets
  • long, excellent article gets (and is a candidate for Pagina Mensis)

displayed up near the other little icons. To implement this: add the display of these icons to the "Non stipula," "stipula," and (maybe) Pagina Mensis formulae; add a "short-but-usable-article" formula ("Stipes," using Andrew's botanical metaphor); add this formula to every page that isn't already marked "stipula" or "featured" (automatically, or we could assess pages as we see them as we do with Latinity). But we're already marking stipulae and non-stipulae, so maybe this is overkill. What if we instead invented a "good article" category, like some of the larger WPs have? These would be the group 3, top-of-the-line, long-and-substantive ones, candidates for Paginae Mensium, but as we only get 12 of those a year, not all our good articles can be featured articles. We could mark the good articles and (as we already do) the stubby ones, and let everything else be by default a class-2, short-but-pretty-adequate article. A side benefit is that we could also have our Good Articles marked with a silver star on the interwiki links of other versions (as Featured Articles get gold stars) -- making us a bit more visible. If we decide to do any of this, I'm happy to implement formulae as necessary. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 19:26, 24 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

That would be amazing, but how much effort would that imply? I mean, will we have a "commission for Good-Article rating"? Obviously, this will make all our attempts to choose a pagina mensis much easier, because as of today we've got various lists of good articles, but were we to have a proper category, it'd be great. We would then have the following:
  1. {{non stipula}}, which is clearly defined
  2. {{stipula}} for short articles that can be improved, according to Neander noster's definition.
  3. Short articles/stipes, whcih are (a) articles on specific things which contain enough information as they stand and (b) articles on general topics which could be further expanded. These take no labelling
  4. Good (=long, well written, proper Latin) articles which can be labelled with {{Pagina bona}} (stella argentea), out of which we choose our {{FA stella}} (which, btw, we could rename).
Of course I'm wondering if it would be possible to insert the {{Pagina bona}} template automatically in all pages that we consider to be good (parametres such as {{Latinitas-bona}} and a set number of characters)...--Xaverius 10:14, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
¶ Are {{Latinitas|1}} and {{L1}} the same as {{fn|Latinitas-bona}}? ¶ I've sometimes wished for a formula that meant something like "The Latin is OK, but the text is appropriate only for native speakers under the age of ten," or perhaps, "The grammar is flawless, but the article (so far as it goes) is practically useless." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:02, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Yes: {{L1}} is the one to use, the other two are just redirects.
I see what you mean. Indeed, our long-lost friend Rolandus wanted 5 subdivisions of good Latin to balance our 5 subdivisions of not-good Latin. (But who would be our model for the highest division? Cicero? Tacitus? We could have a long discussion about that.)
We certainly need to judge on both scales, and certainly we want people to improve our articles both for Latinity and for encyclopedic adequacy, but personally I think it'll be simpler in practice if we keep the judgment of Latinity separate from the judgment of how useful/complete/encyclopedic an article is. So, while agreeing (I think) with everything else that Anne and Xaverius have written above, I would remove the words "proper Latin" from Xaverius's no. 4. I would of course wish the Latin to be good, but I would leave the issue neutral as regards the scale we're discussing here. If we do that, then I think we can -- as Iacobus urges -- judge freely on both scales. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:02, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Well, we're way ahead from other wikis... as far as I know it's only us that rate pages according to the quality of the language used. We then have two standards to rate pages: on the language (ranging from {{non latine}} to {{L}} and {{L1}}), which is displayed on the top corner of the article, and then on the encyclopedic value (from {{non stipula}} to the forseeable {{Pagina bona}}), which is indicated either by a template at the end of the article or by a star on the top corner. The former is all compiled in Vicipaedia:Latinitas, which serves as our norms - do we need then another set of rules or standards, something on the lines of Vicipaedia:Qualitas paginarum hich combines what we are discussing now with what is mentioned in Vicipaedia:Stipulae and Vicipaedia:Structura paginae?--Xaverius 13:47, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Yes, judging the Latinitas is our special thing, isn't it? But it's not just ourselves: external observers of Vicipaedia comment on this too, whereas no one says "There's a lot of terrible English on the English wikipedia" (which would also be true).
Do others agree with the four stages of page quality outlined by Anne and Xaverius above? If so, then I agree, we ought to have a page Vicipaedia:Qualitas paginarum outlining these standards. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Xaverius that a {{Pagina bona}} should have good Latin, or at least not bad Latin -- it should be it should be at least {{L-1}} (= "probably doesn't need much correction"). Other Wikipediae are mostly read and written by native speakers of their languages (with few exceptions like Old English and Sanskrit), most of whom believe they write correctly. We on the other hand are proudly writing in a second language, and know we can always get better at it -- so it's entirely appropriate that we mark our Latinity. I like the idea of a Vicipaedia:Qualitas paginarum document, so let's start one and see if we can come to consensus about its contents. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:07, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
For those interested, Vicipaedia:Qualitas paginarum now exists; feel free to emend it, argue in its talk page, or otherwise refine, correct, or refute the proposed guidelines. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 17:25, 29 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Stipulae digerendae

While we're on the subject of stubs, an unusefully large number of them—more than 1500 at present—are sorted only at the broadest level, {{stipula}}, and most of them should be put in more particularly defined categories. For example, Abas (Argos) should be moved from {{stipula}} to {{lit-stipula}} and {{myth-stipula}}; similarly with Achaeus, Amphion, and other articles that involve myth & literature. For a list of plain old stipulae that thus need rethinking, see Categoria:Stipulae nondum in categorias stipularum positae. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

As shown by the texts cited above, plus Abas (Argos) and other topics, articles can be marked for multiple categories of stipulae. Yasodharapura‎‎ would seem to qualify for at least four! A major purpose of such stubbing is to attract specialists to articles that pertain to their specialty. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Some articles already sorted at a particular level should be moved to an even more particular level. We have rivers, now sorted under {{geo-stipula}}, that should be moved to {{flumen-stipula}}; for example: Hypanis. I've been doing some of this particularizing, but others may wish to help out. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
A catastrophe apparently present from the beginning seems to have been a decision to group the world's millions of plants, animals, and other living creatures in a single category, marked {{biologia-stipula}}. Little by little, most of the animals have gotten sorted out, but many of the plants (and a few animals; see Beagle) are still marked merely as having something to do with biology, in a group that contains 1440 entries at present. Someday, every family of plants may want its own category of stubs. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:49, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Certainly, anyone who wishes can work on that. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:55, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
In my view, this is not a catastrophe at all, and one single stub template and one single stub category would in fact suffice. Why bother with special stub templates and special stub categories such as Categoria:Stipulae Archaeologiae (currently 16 members) when CatScan gives you results that are usually more accurate (intersecting Categoria:Stipulae with Categoria:Archaeologia currently yields 388 results, see CatScan or QuickIntersection – press "Do it!" to get results). --UV (disputatio) 22:57, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Because (1) nobody knows about those gadgets; (2) the gadgets are complex, requiring typing instead of clicking; and (3) that's not how Wikipedia does it. :) By nobody, we mean 'no typical, average, casual contributor'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 00:26, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I believe, when you say "we", you mean "I", Iacobe: is that right?
I agree with this single point of your argument: it may be a bit helpful to a certain kind of user to be shown a list of too-short pages in a particular subject area. I don't think it's important to us, because, honestly, if you ignore the stub question and look through any of our categories, 90% of pages are crying out for enlargement, so you'll find them anyway, as quick as boiled asparagus. So, in policy terms, I agree with UV that subdivision of stubs is of very little use.
But as to the mechanics: Iacobus is right that his project is "how [en:]Wikipedia does it". A great deal of work of this kind is done by the crowds on en:Wiki, much of which is undone, or redone in a different way, by their successors. Since we are few, we should (I think) consider more maturely what's best to do, in large scale housekeeping terms, before launching out and half-doing it. The manual setting up of new stubs is too complex for me, I fear, and apparently too complex for those who have been creating them recently: the job has indeed been left half-done. Well. In the same way that UV + bot has recently added the category "Viri", I can imagine that -- if we really decide we want this and if the bot was feeling healthy -- it could create stub sub-categories completely automatically for us. Can you imagine that, UV? (It matters more whether you can imagine it than whether I can.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:08, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
You are right that a very large percentage of our articles are in fact stubs. I sometimes add a stub template to articles in order to warn readers that this article is incomplete and to protect us against bad press of the kind "Latin wikipedia thinks that this and that brief article is okay, but it is in fact incomplete" – when the article has a stub template, it is documented to our readers that the article is incomplete.
I myself have not invested too much time in stub sorting in the past, and given the existence of CatScan, I currently do not plan to do much more in this field. But, to answer your question, if we really decide we want this, it would be possible e. g. to use the CatScan result (388 archaeology stub articles) in order to populate Categoria:Stipulae Archaeologiae by bot. However, this would lead to unexpected results in fields where our current category tree is not too well thought out: A bot would, for example, also consider Mausoleum Lenin as an archaeology stub (Mausoleum Lenin is in Categoria:Mausolea is in Categoria:Monumenta is in Categoria:Res archaeologicae is in Categoria:Archaeologia – probably Categoria:Monumenta should be removed from Categoria:Res archaeologicae because not every monument is an archaeological artifact, especially modern monuments). --UV (disputatio) 11:10, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Ah, yes, hadn't thought of that. It would work for biographies, though!
I guess, if we really decide we don't want this (sorry, Iacobe, but you raised the issue :) a bot could all-too-easily reduce all our manifold stipulae groupings to a single, neat, one. That's the way some Wikipedias do it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:26, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Sure, if we really decide we don't want this, it would be a very easy thing to do by bot. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 18:32, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply! I don't press this, of course -- our existing stub groupings may be of some use to some users, though I doubt that the added effort of continuing to subdivide will be repaid. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:13, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

I think that multiple categories of stipula are useful, even if that implies many different templates. What I dislike are pages with various stipula formulae. Perhaps if we modify the stipula templates so that instead of having {{A-stipula}} {{B-stipula}} and {{c-stipula}} in a single page it could be turned into {{stipula|A|B|C}}, creating a single formula with three different fields, and tentativelly three different (hidden?) categories.--Xaverius 10:27, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

That would make me happier too. The multiple categories may be appropriate but they look untidy. It should be easy to make the change you suggest: the conversion could be done automatically, I guess? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:29, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
That would be our Botmeister to determine.--Xaverius 12:30, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Civilizatio, cultura, humanus cultus

Considering: (a) that we have a nice, long article on cultura, (b) that civilizatio has a pejorative connotation from an anthopological point of view, and (c) that although in Classical Latin cultura is closely linked to tending and ploughing fields and that humanus cultus may be closer to our modern concept of "culture", neolatin and scientific approaches to the topic would suggest to use cultura in the sense of "culture" as we do in cultura;

Then, would anyone oppose if I rearrange pages on American [archaeological] cultures (Humanus cultus Maiensis, Cultus Chavín) and their related categories (categoria:Civilizationes praeincae) to something similar to what I've got for the Antiquus Oriens Medius (cultura al Ubeid, cultura Minoica, categoria:Culturae Archaeologicae)?

The plan is:

I defer to those who know more about this field (of whom you are one, Xaveri!) but I think you are right: we need to use the modern sense of the word "Cultura", as you propose to do here, and as Iacobus did in his great article cultura.
See both discussions at Disputatio:Gens Maia. As you see there, I queried the spelling "Maia" etc. I don't think there is support for it: Jondel promised to look, but didn't report back. Existing Latin sources give us "Mayensis" etc. So I would suggest Cultura Maya. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:26, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
My apologies Andrew. I will investigate Hoffman now. Even then, please keep in mind the entry that all language dictionaries will point to. --Jondel (disputatio) 05:38, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
You might also consider a couple of other category names. Do we need both Categoria:America praecolumbiana and Categoria:Culturae ante Columbum? The former (created long ago by Le K-li) has only one interwiki link (as is also true of categoria:Civilizationes praeincae); the latter has many interwiki links, and perhaps should form the main contents of your proposed categoria:Culturae archaeologicae Americae. But, as I say, I defer to those who know better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Lets use Maya since sources were found. (Lingua Maya, etc)based on that source. Let me point out that historically, the y would convert to j. e.g. It would be good to obviate conversions.Jondel (disputatio) 05:52, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

I could not find Maya nor Maia at Hoffman.--Jondel (disputatio) 05:54, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

I also haven't found "Maya" in Latin yet: it's a bit difficult to search for, since it's a short name used in lots of languages. But it's easy to find "Mayensis/Mayenses". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:15, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
OK, according to Google, you will find the phrase "in terram Mayarum", into the land of the Maya, in this Latin periodical that I have never encountered before! I can't verify, owing to a little local dispute between me and Adobe Acrobat, but I believe Google on this. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 22 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is "in terram Mayarum", on page three: "Narrationibus Aztecorum in lingua eorum "Nahuatl" compositis haec traduntur: Quetzalcoatl Tulam urbem relinquens in terram Mayarum migravit." Here is a non-pdf version of the full text. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:39, 23 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Archimedes

Rogo, an quis vestrum bonae Latinitatis potuerit paginam de Archimede a me scriptam recensere, emendare atque causas nonnullarum emedationum explicare. Volo enim in Latinitate evolvi; praeterea credo commodum Vicipaediae esse, ne eadem menda in paginis futuris iterem. Gratias a me accipiet, qui hoc fecerit! Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 21:20, 21 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

X!'s Edit Counter

(Sorry for writing in English. You can translate the proposal.)

Should X!'s edit counter retain the opt-in requirement? Your input is strongly encouraged. Voice your input here.——cyberpower ChatAutomation 04:43, 23 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Fix here.)

Alpes-de-Haute-Provence Alpes Provinciae?

Francice Alpes-de-Haute-Provence: Rectior non es Alpes Provinciarum Superioris aut Alpes Provinciae Superioris et non Alpes ProvinciaeHelveticus montanus (disputatio) 05:51, 23 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Recte quaeris, mi Helvetice. [Ego sum qui hoc nomen anno 2007 imposui! Sed nunc] praefero "Alpes Provinciae Superioris"; Provence enim est verbum singulare. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:32, 23 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Tech news: 2013-26

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Translations are available.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22wmf8) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 20. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on June 24, and on all Wikipedias on June 27. [62]
  • Universal Language Selector was successfully enabled on the Catalan (ca), Cebuano (ceb), Persian (fa), Finnish (fi), Norwegian Bokmål (no), Portuguese (pt), Ukrainian (uk), Vietnamese (vi), Waray-Waray (war) and Chinese (zh) Wikipedias. [63]
  • The new interface for account creation and log–in is now the default on all Wikimedia wikis. The old look is no longer available (bug #46333). [64]
  • The TimedMediaHandler extension now supports native FLAC files. A discussion to allow this file type is taking place on Commons (bug #49505). [65]
  • After a test period, the Disambiguator extension was enabled on the English Wikipedia on June 18. [66]
  • VisualEditor news:
    • A VisualEditor bug temporarily made all new accounts unusable. The issue is now fixed and account creation works as before (bug #49727).
    • A high importance file insertion bug has been fixed, but the feature does not work perfectly yet. [67]
  • It is now possible to synchronise local CSS and JavaScript files with the beta cluster. This should make it easier to test software features before they are enabled on live wikis. [68]
Future software changes
  • The default link to a help page on editing, visible below the editing window, will change on almost 600 Wikimedia wikis and will now link to MediaWiki.org (bug #45977). [69]
  • Universal Language Selector will be enabled on wikis without language versions (such as Wikisource and Wikispecies) on June 25. [70]
  • The AbuseFilter extension will allow filtering links and HTML code for page creations. [71]
  • The related changes special page will now include upload log entries. [72]
  • It will soon be possible to choose the language of SVG files that contain translations. [73]
  • MediaWiki will now allow converting audio files from one format to another. [74]
  • The Wikidata technical team has started a discussion about how Wikidata can support Wiktionary. [75]
  • The search feature on Wikimedia sites is planned to be modified to use Solr on all wikis by the end of 2013. [76]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:12, 23 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

To hum

Greetings. How do we say the verb "to hum" in Latin? Maybe ad/cum carmen mussitare, murmuratione cantare, or carmine subcantare. -- Donatello (disputatio) 22:27, 23 Iunii 2013 (UTC).

Cassell's gives "fremere, strepere, susurrare (poet.), murmurare, murmur edere; = to sing softly, secum canere or cantare". I think the last two might be best if you're talking about a human, and not a bee or a machine. Lesgles (disputatio) 22:40, 23 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Qui secum canit, cantillat. Neander (disputatio) 06:48, 24 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Central Park, New York City

Hello folks. Which is the best name for Central Park in Latin (if there aren't any names from sources already)? I recently created Horti Publici Centrales, where my lexicon says horti publici for "park". In the article of New York City is a red link to that park, but under the name Hortus Medius. I know that hortus only mean "garden". Which name is the best to have? Donatello (disputatio) 17:40, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC).

Centralis isn't in Cassell's (and is therefore not to be used when translating into classical Latin). The usual classical adjective for 'central' is apparently medius, as in Cicero's medius mundi locus 'the central place of the world', 'the center of the world'. A city center is media urbs. 'In the center of the forum', as Plautus attests, is in foro medio. It's not inconceivable that a nineteenth-century attestation of a Latin term for Central Park will be found. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:28, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
The name of Central Park means (if I'm not mistaken) that it's the park in the centre of Manhattan. Using "medius" we have to construct a fairly awkward phrase to translate that sense of "central": it isn't "medius hortus" (for example), because that's the middle of the park. I believe we have, in some cases, ignored the Iacobus/Cassell's ban on "centralis" precisely because we haven't come up with a better way to get the required meaning across. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:36, 26 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
The second definition in Cassell's takes care of that: medius is defined as 'central, neutral, intermediate', with examples including medium quendam cursum tenebant—which can be glossed 'they were maintaining a middle course'. Then we have Medium Aevum 'the Middle Ages' and Terra Media 'Middle-Earth'. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:59, 26 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Just for the sake of pedantry :) the meaning of "medius" in those two names is not what we're looking for in "Central Park". Medium Aevum is an age between two others: Central Park is not a park between two others. Notice also that the English names differ: not "*Central Ages" and not "*Middle Park". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:32, 26 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
The park is so named because it's in the middle of Manhattan: it abuts the north side of the district conventionally called Midtown (not Central Town). ¶ The French, German, Indonesian, Italian, and Spanish (and maybe other) wikipedias treat the name as an untranslatable proper noun (after all, there's no other central park in any city in the world, right?), respectively:
Central Park (littéralement « Parc central ») est un espace vert . . . situé dans l'arrondissement de Manhattan
Der Central Park ist ein Stadtpark im Zentrum Manhattans
Central Park adalah taman umum yang luas di Manhattan,
Central Park è il più grande parco . . .nel distretto di Manhattan,
El Central Park es un parque urbano público situado en el distrito metropolitano de Manhattan,
So maybe the name should be left untranslated. ¶ Alternatively, on the pattern of Horti Sallustiani, it could perhaps be called Horti Olmstediani. :) IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:59, 26 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming the meaning. As I explained, not parallel to "Medium Aevum".
We might leave it untranslated, yes, though VP:TNP allows us to translate a name of this kind. For the choice of wording, consider Utilo's comment below. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:15, 26 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
If virtually all other languages leave Central Park untranslated, why on earth should Latin be an exception? This is an exceptionally good example of a self-generated problem. Neander (disputatio) 15:06, 26 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Can't argue with that. If we don't convert the name, however, we'd still want to offer a translation for it, as e.g. the French Wikipedia does. Accepting Utilo's point below, I'd say "horti centrales". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:19, 26 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'd say that (a) we're not other languages, and (b) VP:TNP lets us, and so a contrary opinion would be better voiced at TNP's disputatio rather than rehash the same arguments over and over in Taberna. --Robert.Baruch (disputatio) 05:28, 27 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I can't help finding your "we're not other languages" argument a bit disquieting. What precisely seems to be the difference that enjoins or enables us to invent fancy names for places that other languages tend to leave untranslated? Neander (disputatio) 12:34, 27 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I see. Big thanks. What does Cassell's tell about "park"? -- Donatello (disputatio) 22:20, 25 Iunii 2013 (UTC).
"Horti" (plural) was used in classical Latin for similar open spaces, like Horti Sallustiani. "Hortus" (singular) seems generally to connote a privately used space such as a kitchen garden: in modern Latin we have "hortus botanicus". There is also "vivarium", which implies that the intention of the space is to encourage animals to live and grow (until sacrificed to human greed or amusement). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:52, 26 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Cassell's says a 'pleasure-garden' is horti (pl.), and a garden planted with trees is a viridarium (sing.). IacobusAmor (disputatio) 10:59, 26 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Licet verbum "centralis" imprimis in litteris recentis Latinitatis inveniatur, tamen iam a Plinio introductum est (Plin. 2,86). Posterorum, qui hoc verbo usi sunt, non omnes quidem, ut opinor, id inertia quadam adducti vel "medius" ignorantes fecerunt, sed ut melius intellegerentur. Si verbum recentius opus erat, adhibitum est, dum lingua Latina in flore est.--Utilo (disputatio) 09:23, 26 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Strong

Hello. I'm not so sure of the adjective "strong" in Latin in the context of strength of animals, like "Antonius is strong", and "gorillas are very strong beings". What do you know?

My lexicon Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok (second and latest edition of 2009) says like this:

strong - firmus, robustus, validus, valens; fortis also about medecine; durable solidus; mighty potens; intense magnus, gravis; to be strong [viribus] valere, vigere; strong drinks potiones acriores/fervidiores; strong cold acre frigus

I understand all these adjectives, but about strength of animals, I guess we use firmus, and maybe also fortis sometimes. Maybe I already have the answer here, but I would like to hear your words.

Donatello (disputatio) 16:42, 28 Iunii 2013 (UTC).

I'd say that valens (bestia, Cicero; equus, Curtius Rufus; animal, Seneca), validus (taurus, Ovidius; leo, Lucretius) and fortis (equus, Ennius, Lucretius, Vergilius) are all useful in describing strength of animals; but I'd not recommend firmus 'firm' (the opposite of which is constans, solidus, stabilis); nor the near-synonym robustus, because both have the connotation of durability (not raw strength). Neander (disputatio) 21:38, 28 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
I see. :) Big thanks. But what about humans? -- Donatello (disputatio) 13:22, 29 Iunii 2013 (UTC).

Aristoteles Latinus

Salvete! Estne in interrete dictionarium Graece-Latine ea verba continens, quae in corpore scriptorum Aristotelis et ab eius interpretibus Latinis usitata sunt? Vel Ethicorum Nicomacheorum versio Latina ? - Bavarese (disputatio) 16:50, 29 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Certe sunt multae interpretationes, ecce unam ex anno 1558. Fortasse aliquis recentiorem novit. Praeterea editiones Oxonienses et Teubnerianae exordia notasque Latine scriptas habent. Lesgles (disputatio) 19:12, 29 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

non solum animal sociale ...

Salvete! Quaeritanti mihi, quo vocabulo illud Aristotelis τῇ φύσει ζῷον συνδυαστικόν (NB: μᾶλλον ἢ πολιτικόν) (Eth. Nic. 1162a) Latine sit vertendum, in versione quadam Latina - suadente Lesgles, gratias! - occurrit paraphrasis: homo ad coniugium aptior est natura quam ad societatem. Licetne ergo dicere animal coniugiale vel animal connubiale vel aliud eiusmodi? Quid vobis videtur? Aut vestrum aliquis ex alia versione Latina promptam praebet aptiorem vocem? - Bavarese (disputatio) 07:58, 30 Iunii 2013 (UTC)

Coniugium et connubium, quippe cum ad institutum quoddam societale referantur, videntur interpretationem specificam verbi Graeci q.e. συνδυαστικόν praebere. Sin autem συνδυαστικόν tam neutraliter quam possumus Latine reddere velimus, fortasse 'bini viventes' vel 'binatim vivens' dicere possimus. Neander (disputatio) 17:08, 30 Iunii 2013 (UTC)
Sublatis dubiis plurimas agens gratias B. - Bavarese (disputatio) 08:58, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

Nuntii Latini

Salvete,

Estne qui sciat ubi mp3 veterum nuntiorum latinorum invenire possim? yle.fi ultimos viginti quinque tantum proponit. (Fortasse non est locus idoneus ad id rogandum, veniam date.) --Fsojic ~ Errores meos corrigatis (disputatio) 13:20, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

Tech news: 2013-27

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Translations are available.

Recent software changes
(Not all changes will affect you.)
  • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf9) was added to test wikis on June 27. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on July 8, and on all Wikipedias on July 11.
  • On Wikisource, the canonical names of the "Index" and "Page" namespaces in the Proofread Page extension are no longer localized (bug #47596). Please check scripts that depend on $wgCanonicalNamespace. [77]
  • A JavaScript problem caused the "Historiam inspicere" and "Partem novam addere" tabs in the Vector skin to be moved into the drop-down menu on right-to-left wikis. The issue is now fixed and links are visible as before (bug #50196). [78]
  • There was a short site outage on June 28.
  • The automated Category:Paginae cum nexibus ad fasciculos ruptis now includes broken file links inserted inside the <gallery /> tag (bug #50119). [79]
  • The Nearby feature is now enabled on Commons and shows images in a user's area. [80]
  • There is now a special page listing disambiguation pages for wikis that use the Disambiguator extension (bug #44040). [81]
  • The old version of the Article feedback tool (version 4) was removed from wikis that still used it. [82]
  • VisualEditor news:
    • Many bugs that caused text to be removed or damaged have been fixed, including one related to copy-paste (bug #49816).
    • VisualEditor now offers a visual interface to edit references.
    • In preparation for enabling the VisualEditor on a wider scale, new documentation has been created, including a list of frequently-asked questions and a user guide with many images. Please help with translations.
    • Several problems related to overlapping of elements with the VisualEditor toolbar have been fixed (bug #50096, #50159, #50324).
    • TemplateData information is now displayed for templates that are added to a page (bug #49778).
    • Section edit links now show links to both VisualEditor and the old (source) editor (bug #49666).
    • Images are now loaded securely when using HTTPS (bug #43015). [83]
Future software changes
  • VisualEditor will be enabled for all logged-in English Wikipedia users on July 1, and for all users on July 8.
  • From July 8, it will be possible to upload WAV and native FLAC files to Commons, and use them directly on wiki pages ([[<tvar|bug-49505>bugzilla:49505</>|bug #49505]]). [84]
  • The Universal Language Selector will be added to the English Wikipedia on July 2, and to remaining wikis on July 9. [85]
Erratum

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

14:27, 1 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

Universal Language Selector will be enabled on 2013-07-09

On July 9, 2013, Universal Language Selector (ULS) will be enabled on this wiki. The ULS provides a flexible way to configure and deliver language settings like interface language, fonts, and input methods (keyboard mappings). Making it available here is the last phase of making ULS available on all Wikimedia wikis.

Please read the announcement on Meta-Wiki for more information. Siebrand 12:41, 4 Iulii 2013 (UTC) (via Global message delivery).

Paginas movere

Sicut scimus, qui conventum aperuerint paginas movere facile possunt. Rubrica "Movere" sub triangulum nigrum reperitur iuxta capsam "Quaerere". A die 3 Iulii, si paginam movere volumus, necesse nobis erit rationem motús scribere.

Rubrica "Movere" impressa, capsam "Causa" iam videbamus et rationem iam ibi inscribebamus; spero igitur hanc mutationem nullis molestam videri. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:01, 5 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

Tech news: 2013-28

Latest [[<tvar|technews>m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News</>|tech news]] from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. [[<tvar|more-transl>m:Special:MyLanguage/Tech/News/2013/28</>|Translations]] are available.

Recent software changes (Not all changes will affect you.)

  • VisualEditor news:
    • VisualEditor deployment has been delayed by a week. It is now planned to enable the editor for logged–in editors on chosen Wikipedias on July 22, and on all Wikipedias on July 29.
    • A bug that made it impossible to save VisualEditor edits that triggered a CAPTCHA has been fixed. [87]
    • Several bugs that occurred on right–to–left wikis have been fixed last week (bug #49416, bug #49613, bug #50543).
  • Uploading files has been restricted on Meta Wiki to administrators and the newly created uploader group. An exemption doctrine policy is being developed (bug #50287). [88]
  • Emergency priority CentralNotice banners will always be shown unless users have hidden them, ignoring cookies set for lower priority banners. [89]

Future software changes

  • MediaWiki will allow choosing a specific page of a PDF document or a thumbnail of a video file to show up inside the
    tag (bug #8480). [90]
    • It will now be possible to create empty MediaWiki: messages, for instance in order to disable them (bug #50124). [91]
    • The Nearby feature will soon be enabled on Wikivoyage wikis again. [92]
    • The Notifications extension messages will now include a direct link to diffs on wiki as well as in notification e-mails (bug #48183). [93]
    • Table of contents will now use the HTML <div> element instead of <table>, fixing a nine–year–old bug #658. [94]
    • First mock–ups of a mobile Wikidata application have been published by Pragun Bhutani as part of his Google Summer of Code project. [95]
    • A discussion on minimum documentation practices in MediaWiki code has been started and awaits comments from the community.

    Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

    18:39, 8 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Capitalization question

    We have inconsistent capitalization in [[Categoria:Antiquae civitates Africae]] and [[Categoria:Antiquae Civitates Asiae]]. The latter style should be replaced with the former, no? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:30, 11 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Undoubtedly. You could list it (and any similar cases) at Vicipaedia:Automata/Category move requests. If we're lucky, UVbot will take it from there! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:42, 11 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Etiam Systema solare, sed [[Categoria:Corpora Systematis Solaris]] et [[Categoria:Astronomici Systematis Solaris eventus]]. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:13, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Pagina prima

    I've drafted what I think is a more modern and sober pagina prima here. I wrote "Gratus esto apud Vicipædiam,[...]" in the introduction since a duplicate logo, as on the current pagina prima, is somewhat redundant, and undermines the actual logo in the left-hand corner. A centred logo written in en:Trajan (typeface) (by coincidence like britannica.com) could however be used for a new pagina prima as well. Thoughts? I also propose that the "Pagina prima" heading be removed. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 08:47, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    "12 Iulius" is produced by {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} in the right hand corner. I reckon it should read "12 Iulii" instead. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 12:13, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Hanc paginam a te propositam amo. Quid censent alii? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:00, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Is there a way of adding more imagery? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:19, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    What kind of imagery? - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 17:59, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Not in the English wiki

    While the pagina prima is in mind, let it be noted that the English wiki's pagina prima continues to exclude Vicipaedia from its list of wikis that have "More than 50,000 articles." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:19, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    That may be because it's not a spoken language, but it's a language anyway, and it also contain so much of our knowledge, so it should be there. :) Also, if anybody didn't know, it lies on the second place in the list of +10 000 Wikipedias. That is quite good for a langauge in this kind of state. -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:46, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC).
    We have investigated this before, and found that the big stumbling block is our very large proportion of stubs. The people who maintain that template do a random check (see "Pagina fortuita" in left margin), and last time they checked us they happened to find (if I remember correctly) that the first 50 pages they came to were all stubs. That was possibly unlucky, but 48 would probably be about right :( Unless they change their policy I can't foresee that we will get into that list any time soon. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:22, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, and it's worth repeating, lest it be missed. The English wiki is effectively dishonest on this point, because it leads readers who see a list of wikis having "More than 50,000 articles" to think that the list is of, well, the wikis that have more than 50,000 articles. IacobusAmor (disputatio)
    No, it's not. It says "some of the largest are listed below". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:42, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    In a perfect world, where readers absorb every word of every text, that might be true; but that's not how readers read, and one expects the most puissant editors over there in the English wiki to be aware of such things. Readers will skip headings, and consequently some will read "More than 50,000 articles" to mean exactly that, not "More than 50,000 articles, except the wikis that, in our opinion, are unworthy of notice." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:08, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I just did a survey of the sort that Andrew recounts. Since we have no absolute definition of a stub (and many exceedingly brief texts are not marked as stubs), I counted articles that filled less than half my screen as stubs and those that filled more than half as bigger-than-stubs. I made a sample of fifty random articles. By this measure, the Galego wiki has 32 percent stubs and 68 percent bigger-than-stubs, Vicipaedia has 34 percent stubs and 66 percent bigger-than-stubs, and in both wikis all but two or three of the bigger-than-stubs are really just-barely-bigger-than stubs (bigger by one to five lines)—yet the English wiki's main-page list includes Galipedia and excludes Vicipaedia. To be sure, Galego is a little bit bigger, with 103 670 articles, as against Vicipaedia's 93 027. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:37, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    The same process for the ไทย wiki (which claims to have only 82 308 articles) showed 38 percent stubs and 62 percent bigger-than-stubs—yet the English wiki's main-page list inculdes the ไทย wiki and excludes Vicipaedia. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:57, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I just did the survey for Vicipaedia. I found 41 pages that were utterly definitely small stubs, 3 that were longer but unfortunately just lists, and 6 that I would have been quite pleased with but would probably count as stubs by en:wiki's standards. I found not even 1 out of 50 that en:wiki would regard as more than a stub. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:42, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Different definitions of stub are going to produce different absolute numbers, but the point remains: the Galego, Latin, and ไทย wikis are structurally comparable, with the Galego overall bigger than Latin and the ไทย smaller, but Latin (not ไทย) is the omitted wiki. To get away from subjective judgments, Wikipedia could set the limit of that subset at 100,000 articles and let the wikis fall where they may. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:08, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Quite apart from the English main-page heading & list of "Wikipedia languages" (discussed above), is there a reason that Wikipedia's main page itself doesn't have a link to Vicipaedia's main page? The import of this omission is that a reader who lands on Wikipedia's main page doesn't find that the Latin wiki has a main page. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:57, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Just to add more of what I said before: it can be good that readers find and get to know that there is a Latin edition of Wikipedia. So it should stand in the main page of the English Wikipedia. Or else, Vicipaedia Latina will be unknown to many people of the world. That it may be unknown to many people is not very very important, but it's part of the Wikipedias. So this case is important anyway. -- Donatello (disputatio) 17:27, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC).
    The place to make the case as regards the list at the foot of the en: main page would be en:Template talk:Wikipedia languages. The place to make the case as regards the left margin of the en: main page would be en:Template talk:Main Page interwikis. (Both of those templates can only be edited by en: admins.) I'd suggest skimming through some past discussions before starting anything ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:42, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    I was thinking about this while thinning my apple crop this morning. (It's a bit like sorting stubs from non-stubs, only my non-stubs often have worms in them.) I agree with Donatello that the more people who get the chance to hear about us, the better, but I think it is sometimes just needlessly frustrating to worry about specific cases. Having taken part in one of those discussions (see my links just above) I don't think the people over at en:wiki are unreasonable, and they are ready to agree that some other wikis are in much worse shape than we are. We are not at the bottom of their mental list. I think, as we improve, we will hit more of these targets quite naturally, and more people will hear about us quite naturally, and the most important thing to do is to go on quietly improving. Anyway, that's my philosophy :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:25, 13 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Consensus for a new pagina prima?

    Notwithstanding the importance of having Vicipaedia Latina added to the list of wikis on English Wikipedia's front page; what do people think about this (IMO more modern and sober-looking) proposal for a new pagina prima? Is it an improvement, and is there a consensus for implementing it?

    I like some of the changes, but the one thing I miss is the capital letters, which to me give a more monumental feel to the page. I have some comments/questions on the Latin:
    • "Gratus esto": I've seen this elsewhere here, but is this the best way to say "welcome"? I can't find any extra-Wikipedian uses of it in that meaning, but I might not have looked in the right places. Other options might be "bene factum te advenisse" (Terence), "adventus tuus gratissimus est" (Traupman), or just "salve" or "ave".
    • "apud Vicipædiam": "apud" or "in"? Also, if we're not using the capitals and interpuncts, I think we should change æ to ae.
    • "apud Vicipædiam, libera encyclopaedia" should be "apud Vicipaediam, liberam encyclopaediam"
    • "quo omnes ad contribuendum invitantur": I think "quo" should be "cui", as the indirect object of "contribuendum", if it can work that way
    • Under "Alii Vicimediorum inceptus", "cui "Vicipediae" omnesque inceptus multilingues et liberi sunt": This is on the current page, but as the other projects aren't Wikipedias (or *Vicipediae?), wouldn't it be better to put "cui alii inceptus multilingues et liberi sunt"? Lesgles (disputatio) 23:29, 15 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I agree on all points. Let me add that "Noviora aliqua addere" isn't good Latin, because novus lacks the comparative. Nobody in Antiquity wrote "novior", instead, they used recentior. My suggestion: Nova addere. ¶ WRT 'welcome!', Traupman's suggestion looks cumbersome to me, but Terence's "bene factum te advenisse" is better (and attested) though also cumbersome'ish. Instead of "Gratus esto", I'd suggest Gratus advenisti! or, to avoid the gender problem, Bene advenisti! This is a modification of Pitkäranta's "Bene adveneris!" (coniunctivus hortativus). ¶ Notice also that the meaning structures of Latin contribuere and Engl. to contribute aren't quite the same. It strikes me as odd to use contribuere absolutely, without adjunct(s) (aliquid contribuere alicui). My suggestion: "Omnes ad adiuvandum invitantur." Neander (disputatio) 07:16, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I like "Bene advenisti". It's just what Cicero would have said to those who brought details of Catiline's conspiracy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:17, 16 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks for the feedback! The monumental style of the current pagina prima has indeed its own appeal. Capital letters might however not suit a modern and sober look as well. Especially so if all headlines that currently are written with serifs in the proposed page were to be capitalised, and perhaps be written with interpuncts and V instead of U. @Lesgles is that what you meant? IMO that reduces the legibility and might create confusion by undermining Vicipaedia's language policy. I wrote a welcoming message (in this case "Gratus esto apud Vicipædiam,[...]") in the introduction since a duplicate logo (as on the current pagina prima) is somewhat redundant, and undermines the actual logo in the left-hand corner. Do we agree that a welcoming message should be used instead of a secondary title/logo? In that case, we need to decide weather such a text should be capitalised or not. I don't think such a text looks good when capitalised:

    GRATUS ESTO APUD VICIPÆDIAM,
    libera encyclopaedia quo omnes ad contribuendum invitantur.     		dies Saturni, 1 Martii anno 2025.
    139 916 commentationes latinae.

    The following is also possible:

    GRATVS·ESTO·APUD·VICIPÆDIAM,
    libera encyclopaedia quo omnes ad contribuendum invitantur.     		dies Saturni, 1 Martii anno 2025.
    139 916 commentationes latinae.

    Moreover I suppose that the purpose of capitalising in the first place was to makes the words look like titles? If we indeed want a welcoming message, then a complete phrase that is short and includes "Vicipaedia" is probably desirable, since something like the following doesn't look right:

    Ave! Vicipaedia
    est libera encyclopaedia quo omnes ad contribuendum invitantur.     		dies Saturni, 1 Martii anno 2025.
    139 916 commentationes latinae.

    So do we want a duplicate title that undermines the left-hand corner logo (could wery well be capitalised) or a welcoming message (should in my opinion not be capitalised)? I'm leaning toward the latter option.

    I agree that the small æ should be avoided. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 16:05, 17 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Regarding the capital letters, I was thinking not so much about the welcoming message, as the other headings, "pagina mensis", "aliquid novi", etc. But it's true that might not fit very well with the otherwise modern look of your layout. For the welcome I think "Bene advenisti in Vicipaediam, / liberam encyclopaediam in qua omnes ad adiuvandum invitantur." could work. I also just noticed "93 280 commentationes latinae", which should maybe be "93 280 commentationes Latine scriptae". Lesgles (disputatio) 22:06, 17 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I would miss both the capitals and Julius Caesar. But I'm thinking maybe their absence will make this place more approachable. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:12, 18 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    The problem with gratus esto apud Vicipaediam is not the ae ligature but the gender! I want to be told grata esto, and if I'm not currently logged in, there's no way for the software to know I'm a woman. So "Bene advenisti" is safer. (Though I notice Spanish says "Bienvenidos" in the plural, which also works.) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:04, 18 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    The MediaWiki software allows for masculine/feminine/"not indicated" variations. So you could use something like this:

    {{gender:username|Gratus esto apud Vicipaediam|Grata esto apud Vicipaediam|Bene advenisti in Vicipaediam}}

    This parses as follows:
    • Me (StevenJ81): Gratus esto apud Vicipaediam
    • You (Amahoney): Grata esto apud Vicipaediam
    • Other (Pagina prima): Bene advenisti in Vicipaediam
    So this, at least, shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 18:59, 18 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    OK, if we use different, gender-free text for anonymous users, then nobody is getting addressed the wrong way; but then we might just as well say "bene advenisti" to everyone! But you're right, this would work. A. Mahoney (disputatio) 14:00, 19 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that the three-way variation, though useful to know about, is unnecessary; "bene advenisti" for everyone is better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:05, 19 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Just as well. What I couldn't find is the variable that invokes the current user's name, without which the rest of it doesn't work. <sheepish grin> StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:09, 19 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I agree that "bene advenisti" for everyone probably is good enough. Any other things that should be altered? Is Imago hebdomadalis (image of the week, rather than of the month) a good idea? - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 00:54, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Either "month" or "week", if you are volunteering to choose one (or if someone else volunteers)! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 06:15, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    As I said above, "noviora" (in "noviora aliqua addere") isn't good Latin. I repeat my suggestion: Nova addere. Except for this detail, the page looks absolutely superb! Neander (disputatio) 07:21, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I've changed it to "Nova addere". - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 18:20, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I think it looks good too. One item that should be added is the "Translatio hebdomadalis". Quite often someone takes up this idea, so it is really useful. If you can add that, and make the changes that Neander (above) and Rafael (below) suggest, we should perhaps go ahead and switch to this page? Does anyone object? We may afterwards think of some other details that should be added, or some that are unnecessary, but those things could be adjusted later. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:21, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    "Translatio hebdomadalis" is now added. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 18:20, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    ["Outdented", not that that is a real word.] One thought here: I wonder if the pagina prima shouldn't have at least one direct link to Vicipaedia:Salve, perhaps including its en/de[/ro] subpages. That might help people like me who are kind of interested (but also feel a little intimidated) get some bearings right away. (Also: there's a typo somewhere on the new pp model: I see a </noinclude> tag showing.) StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:50, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    That was my fault ... but Ssolbergj has corrected it already. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:53, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    "[...]omnes ad adiuvandum invitantur[...]" does link to Vicipaedia:Salve. This link may be too obscure (a bit like the "Ave!" link in the current pagina prima), but frankly, why can't the Salve page be merged into Vicipaedia:Praefatio and/or Vicipaedia:Legatio nostra? It doesn't have that much content. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 18:20, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I don't have a strong feeling about those questions one way or the other. I'm more concerned with doing something like the following, obviously pointing to whatever is ultimately the right corresponding page:

    liberam encyclopaediam in qua omnes ad adiuvandum invitantur (en)(de)(ro).

    StevenJ81 (disputatio) 18:50, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I added the language links to the Participatio box. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 23:18, 23 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Oh, by the way ...

    Just found and fixed a typo on the current pagina prima. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 17:29, 18 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    I like the new page, but there are still typos in the dropdown menus. For example, most contain a link for the pagina prima which isn't necessary. Also under scientia there is "rei humana" sic. It is interesting how you filed humanities under sciences. If I had to prune categories, would have put technology and math under science (and you need a link to the technologia page) and put the humanities and society links together in a category since the field of study is the same, i.e. "man".--Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 07:24, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Well scientia does have the broad meaning of "knowledge", and this is paralleled in German (Wissenschaft), Russian (nauka), and other languages. But I agree that the scientia menu is too long. Another possibility would be "scientiae naturales" and "scientiae humanae". Lesgles (disputatio) 17:36, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    It's meant in the "wissenschaft" sense. See Scientia (ratio): Scientiae rerum humanarum. The problem with dividing scientia into "scientiae naturales" and "scientiae humanae" is that mathematics, as far as I've understood, strictly speaking isn't a natural science. Please do google it. It's listed as one of the Scientiae axiomaticae in the article i mentioned, from which I copied the list of sciences. The other topics' lists came from Formula:Pp-encyclopaedia. The length of the scientia drop-down list could be reduced if we excluded the arcane quasi-sciences.
    The paginae primae in the drop-down menus are links to the relevant, main topics, i.e. Societas, Technologia etc. The chance of someone failing to distinguish between these paginae primae links and Vicipaedia's main page will probably be reduced when the "Pagina prima" top title (preferably) is removed, as it's been in the main pages of most other wikipedia editions. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 18:38, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Agreed, that would reduce the frequency of confusion, but we ourselves still call this one page our pagina prima. Could we use a different phrase for the main topics in the list, such as "res primaria" or "res principalis"? Maybe someone else would have a better phrase to suggest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:05, 23 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Sorry I got this late to the discussion, but it looks amazing! My congratulations. When do we plan to launch it? Would it coincide with the 100.000?--88.17.58.51 09:33, 23 Iulii 2013 (UTC)--Xaverius 23:17, 23 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    I changed it to "res principalis", but as you said there might be some better phrase. @88.17.58.51 As soon as possible I hope, if people want it, and when all issues are sorted out. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 23:15, 23 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    I reverted back to imago mensis instead of hebdomadalis and introduced sonus mensis, which for could give examples of spoken Latin or music sung in Latin. Some can be found at Commons:Category:Music sung in Latin. Both the image and sound module has now a simple system for adding new content: Vicipaedia:Imago mensis and Vicipaedia:Sonus mensis. Thoughts? - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 23:32, 24 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    BTW, should the date in the head banner include "anno"? - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 23:32, 24 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    The advised way to write a complete date doesn't include it, but it's used in many articles, as far as I've seen. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 14:20, 2 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    No one replied yet, probably because this is a matter of choice. I think, in a sentence, it's desirable to use annus when we are giving only the year ("anno 2004" or "res gestae anni 2004" etc.). In the same way, when we are giving the full date, I think it's desirable to put dies, and there is no need for annus as well ("die 24 Augusti 2004" or "hora sexta diei 24 Augusti 2004"). My reason for doing it like this is that the word annus or dies, by its form, makes clear in what way the date is grammatically incorporated in the sentence, and therefore makes it easier to read.
    However, if all these things are going into our headline phrase -- not only the date and month and year but also the day of the week -- the grammar is complicated. At present on your header you have "dies Solis, 4 Augusti anno 2013". There's no full sentence, but I take it "Dies" is in the nominative; "Solis" is definitely and necessarily genitive: I don't know how to parse the numeral "4", but I'm guessing nominative again; "Augusti" is an adjective in the genitive, agreeing with the understood "mensis"; "anno 2013" is ablative of time. So in full Latin what you seem to be saying is "dies Solis, qui dies est quartus mensis Augusti! Anno 2013 [te salvere iubemus]," or in English, letter-by-letter and word-by-word, "The day of the Sun, that is, the fourth day of the Augustan month! [We greet you] in the year 2013."
    OK, if I were writing a letterhead in Latin, modern style, and wanted to get all this in, I would start off the phrase in the ablative, because the ablative tells us when we are, and we are not just in this year but on this day. If you look at Ephemeris you see they do the same. They write "Solis die 4 mensis Augusti 2013", in English "[We greet you] on the day of the Sun, which is the fourth of the Augustan month of the year 2013."
    If that's hard to automate, be aware that the complication is caused by wanting to get the day of the week in. If we decided we didn't after all care about the day of the week we can adopt a simpler style -- "die 4 Augusti 2013", "[we greet you] on the fourth day of the Augustan month of the year 2013".
    ... someone else may now suggest a different and easier style that hasn't occurred to me! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:44, 4 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you for the detailed answer! I automated the Ephemeris format. What do you think about having a monthly, Latin sound clip? It makes the right column a tad longer, but one might easily compensate by adding some more content to pagina mensis, nuntii (or is "alquid novi" for some reason a better term?) and scin tu. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 14:04, 5 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    You did it, well done! "Aliquid novi" was just a different catch-title which I tried out because this is a small selection from the longer page called Vicipoaedia:Nuntii. The name isn't important to me, and "Nuntii" is probably better. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:19, 5 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks. Ok, I wrote "nuntii". - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 01:50, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Go ahead?

    Here is the current proposal: Pagina prima/Nova. (I added a third column by the way; it still seems fine for instance on my mobile phone, but please comment if you don't think it's a good idea or dislike it) The response so far has been relatively positive. Do you have other opinions or suggestions for improvements? The following things ought to be done in case it's implemented:

    1. The big "Pagina prima" headline should be removed, in line with what's been done on the main pages of most Wikipedia language editions (I don't know how to do it and I'm not an admin.).
    2. The length of the list of other Wikipedia language editions on the left-hand side should be drastically cut; e.g. compare with the list on English Wikipedia's main page. It probably shouldn't exceed the length of the content on pagina prima (I don't know how to do it and I'm not an admin.).
    3. Some of the templates used on Pagina prima/Nova are subpages of my userpage (e.g. Usor:Ssolbergj/encyclopaedia). These should of course be moved (easy). - done. -Ssolbergj (disputatio) 23:40, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 01:50, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    I like the new page and I think we should start using it. I don't think admins can get rid of the headline, I imagine changing interface settings is something that a steward would be able to do.--Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 18:49, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    I agree, Rafael. Let's hope someone who knows how that headline can be eliminated will comment. As for the marginal interwiki links, you probably know, Ssolbergj, that the links are placed on the en:wiki first page by a template, en:Template:Main Page interwikis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:04, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    I think we discussed once a long ago (I can't remember when exactly), but we decided to keep (or failed to decissevely agree on changing) the full list of wikipedias on the side bar, on the grounds that on other wikipedias we do not appear on their main page because they make a selection - therefore making our own selection could be considered conter-productive.--Xaverius 20:32, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    IMO the most important consideration for this main page is that the language list per se shouldn't extend the length of the page, creating blank space. Regarding making a selection, I suppose Vicipaedia should argue that article count alone should be the decisive factor, i.e. objectivity instead of a more subjective selection. The English main page is longer than the new pagina prima, and could thus include Latin wikipedia based on its 95 000 articles. The new pagina prima is as I've said shorter, and accordingly cannot include that long a list. An objective and suitably sized selection could for instance be the 15 editions with more than 500 000 aricles as well as a link to the complete list. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 21:49, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    • I like Ssolbergj's current proposal.
    1. I propose moving the main page to Vicipaedia:Pagina prima (the current contents of that page should in my view be moved elsewhere or deleted) since it the main page is not an article (we already discussed this at Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 19#Portae but at that time were not yet ready to implement it since it conflicted with the old design). I have now removed the heading from Vicipaedia:Pagina prima (it may take up to a day until you see it). I suggest to perform this move at the same time when we are ready to switch the design.
    2. We used to have about fifteen to twenty interlanguage links in the left column (all sixteen wikipedias with more than 50 000 articles in 2006, all seventeen wikipedias with more than 300 000 articles in the beginning of 2013). I have now restored this for the moment.
    • Question: On our present main page, we currently have links to many more wikipedias in the "Vicipaediae·in·lingvis·aliis" box. Should we eliminate them with the new design? Or should there be a place for such links on our new main page as well?
    --UV (disputatio) 23:07, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    1. I agree that Vicipaedia:Pagina prima is a better address. Great!
    2. I think the list of 17 other editions seems fine.
    • The "Vicipaediae·in·lingvis·aliis" box is redundant IMO, due to the existing list in the left-hand column. Users at e.g. French and German have apparently thought so too. One might compensate by adding '''[[m:List of Wikipedias|Index plenissimus]]''' to the left-hand side list, similar to what's been done on other language editions' main pages. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 23:40, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Adding that link to the left-hand side list would be a bit more complicated (it would require JavaScript code, which would slow down not just the main page, but every page load for a tiny fraction of a second). --UV (disputatio) 23:52, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    I reckon it's probably nevertheless worth it, provided you (or other editors with insight and permission) know how to do it. This "complete list" link has been added to the main pages of for instance the English, Spanish, French, Italian and German main pages. If those editions load more slowly, I honestly haven't noticed it. - Ssolbergj (disputatio) 00:35, 8 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    If others think that's the best way, I won't object, but I think it would be better to handle this without slowing down loading time, and I believe we could do so. Couldn't we have a Wikipedia symbol, linked to a complete set of links to other languages, as the first item under "Alii inceptus"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:32, 8 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    (Finally weighing in on all this!) I like the new page. I assume it's possible to get rid of the headline, though the obvious modification (analogous to :fr and :en) didn't do it. I don't see that we need inter-wiki links in the left sidebar at all; I like Andrew's idea about just putting the rest of them under one heading in the "Alii Inceptus" group. Putting the page into the Vicipaedia namespace is good (and consistent with what other versions do). Let's go for it! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 18:37, 8 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    I went ahead and implemented the new main page designed by Ssolbergj. For the moment, I have added the "complete list" link to the left-hand side list but I would be most happy to remove it again when someone adds that link to our "Alii inceptus" box: Vicipaedia:Pagina prima/Vicimedia. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 23:18, 8 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Gratias ago Ssolbergj et alii pro nova pagina prima. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 01:53, 9 Augusti 2013 (UTC).

    Jewish Sabbath

    I'm afraid I know just enough Latin to kind-of-sort-of be able to read through things, but certainly not to write. However, I do have an interest in making sure decent articles on Judaism appear in various Wikipedias. To that end, I just finished working on simple:Shabbat, and succeeded in reaching GA status for that article. My question is: Would someone be willing to translate it—or at least its lead—for this Wikipedia? To me, a Wikipedia in Latin surely should cover a subject as important as the Sabbath. Many thanks. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 19:00, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    BTW, when lawiki kicks over 100,000 articles, I will personally make sure it gets onto Simple English Wikipedia's Main Page. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 19:02, 12 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I'm writing this. I worked on translating the first few lines at the English wiki.I hope the latin is ok. --Jondel (disputatio) 06:11, 13 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I'll have a look too, when you've done a bit more, Jondel. (Or someone else may get there before me: this is a topic that would possibly interest Iustinus, noting his recent page Sisith.)
    That's a very thoughtful offer, Steven -- we accept, naturally! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:14, 13 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I think the discussion that ensued about the basic and derived meanings of Sabbath, and what our page(s) on the subject should be called, is tangential to this request and I have gently moved it (complete with all context). All who are interested, please read on at Disputatio:Sabbatum. (If any other admin thinks I was wrong here, feel free to revert me.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:33, 15 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Ich möchte einen fertigen Artikel einstellen, bin des Lateinischen aber nur dürftig mächtig...

    Ich hoffe, ich bin hier an der richtigen Stelle mit meiner Anfrage: Ich möchte einen Artikel über meinen Vater (Michael Haußner, zu finden in der deutschen Wikipedia) auf Latein einstellen; der Artikel wurde von einem Lateinlehrer übersetzt, ich gehe also mal davon aus, dass er sprachlich soweit korrekt ist. Da ich aber im Lateinunterricht nur bescheidenen Erfolg verbuchen konnte schaffe ich es nicht, den Artikel hier als neuen Artikel einzustellen, kann mir da jemand behilflich sein?

    Vielen Dank!

    Ich habe den Artikel "wikifiziert" und dabei einige kleinere Änderungen vorgenommen, z.B. die römischen Nummer mit arabischen ersetzt. Das Latein war an sich von ausgezeichneten Qualität. Nur die im letzten Kapitel angebrachten rhetorischen Ausschmückungen habe ich abgenommen. Neander (disputatio) 20:10, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Hallo Neander, vielen herzlichen Dank für die Hilfe! Vor allem all die Links zu finden hat mir sehr geholfen, das hatte ich wegen des guten Wetters auf morgen verschoben... Danke nochmals, ich werde versuchen, den Artikel im Rahmen bestmöglich aktuell zu halten! ben.haussner 00:30, 15 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Tech News: 2013-29

    Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Translations are available.

    Recent software changes (Not all changes will affect you.)

    Future software changes

    • A new version of the Single User Login system for global accounts will be enabled on July 17. Users will now automatically go back to the previous page instead of seeing the "Login success" page with logos. [99]
    • The software that resizes images on all wikis will change on July 18. Resizing of big images will be faster and more reliable, and the resolution limit for GIF, PNG and TIFF files (currently set at 50 megapixels) will be removed. [100]
    • Edit tags (mostly used by AbuseFilter) will now also be on diff pages. They include a link to Specialis:Tags before the edit summary. Wikis that use links in tag messages should remove them. [101] [102]
    • Global edit filters are currently in testing and will be added to wikis later. [103]
    • Wikivoyage wikis will start to use Wikidata for interwiki links on July 22. [104]
    • A new image gallery design has been proposed by Brian Wolff; comments and feedback are welcome.
    • An IRC discussion about Bugzilla is planned for July 16, at 16:00 (UTC) on the IRC channel #wikimedia-office on Freenode (time conversion). [105]

    Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

    17:38, 14 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Ionathas Stewart

    Salvus sis. Sitne Latine "Ionathas Stewart" ut iam appellatur, aut "Ionathan Stewart"? Cetera, aliae commentationes de hominibus nominibus Jonathan sunt Ionathan. Quomodo sit? -- Donatello (disputatio) 16:51, 18 Iulii 2013 (UTC).

    Can a bot do this?

    We have 19 links in footnotes to pages whose name begins "http://monasticmatrix.usc.edu/MatrixBooks/Dugdale/". The site has moved (leaving no forwarding address!) so the links should now begin "http://monasticmatrix.org/MatrixBooks/Dugdale/". Could a bot with friendly owner change them? If it would be too laborious to set this up, just say so, and I'll do it by hand. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:19, 19 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Done! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:42, 23 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Great! Thank you, Anne. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:11, 23 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    In duas partes divisi

    ... commentationem "Phyle Caucasia", quam ad Varietas Caucasia movi et cum aliis Vicipaediis adnectavi (e.g. en:Caucasian race). Incepi (sed parva manet!) commentationem Albicolores, et cum aliis (e.g. en:White people) adnectavi. Rationem meam in vetere disputatione nostra iuxta Phyle Caucasia videbitis. Sed ego haud possum bonam commentationem de hac re scribere: an quis alius pergere vult?

    An oportet aut Nigricolores incipere, aut Nigrita (nomen sine fonte) ad "Nigricolores" (vel aliud quid) movere? Verbum "nigricolor" pro certo exstat, sed an de cute humana iam adhibitum est nescio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:34, 19 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Iam "Nigrita" (sine fonte) ad Nigricolores movi quia fontem repperi. Alios rursus suadeo ut ea quae feci recenseant: in his rebus tiro sum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:55, 20 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Tech News: 2013-30

    Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Translations are available.

    Recent software changes (Not all changes will affect you.)

    Future software changes

    Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

    21:10, 21 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Britannus aut Britannicus

    Lego in pagina Aliquid novi: Christophorus Froome, Nairobiae in Kenia natus, birotarius Britannus, circuitum Franciae 2013 vicit sed rectior non est Britannicus--Helveticus montanus (disputatio) 17:58, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Apud Lewis & Short, sub verbo "Britanni", video:
    B Brĭtan-nus (Brītannus, Lucr. 6, 1105), a, um, adj., of Britain, British (poet. Britannicus): esseda, Prop. 2, 1, 76: canes, Claud. II. Cons. Stil. 301: litus, id. IV. Cons. Hon. 28: oceanus, id. B. Get. 202; Laus Ser. 40 et saep.—
    C Brĭtannĭcus, a, um, adj., Britannic, British: aestus, the British Channel, Cic. N. D. 3, 10, 24: mare, Mel. 3, 6, 3: oceanus, id. 1, 3, 1; 2, 6, 1: inter Rhenum et Sequanam, Plin. 4, 19, 33, § 109: legiones, Tac. H. 1, 9; 1, 60; 2, 57; 2, 65; 3, 22 al.: balaena, Juv. 10, 14: lingua, Tac. G. 45: herba, water-dock: rumex aquaticus, Plin. 25, 3, 6, § 20.—Subst.: Brĭtannĭcus, i, m., a cognomen of the conquerors of Britain; of the son of the emperor Claudius and Messalina, previously called Germanicus, Suet. Claud. 27; 43; Tac. A. 11, 4; 11, 11; 11, 26; 11, 32; 12, 2; poisoned by Nero, Tac. A. 13, 16; Suet. Ner. 33.—Of the emperor Commodus, Lampr. Commod. 8.—
    Breviter, ambae formae rectae videbantur. Lesgles (disputatio) 18:08, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    Est birotarius. Civitate est Britannus (propter patris originem). Verba pauca et breviora in paginam primam inserere volui! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:41, 22 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Pywikipedia is migrating to git

    Hello, Sorry for English but It's very important for bot operators so I hope someone translates this. Pywikipedia is migrating to Git so after July 26, SVN checkouts won't be updated If you're using Pywikipedia you have to switch to git, otherwise you will use out-dated framework and your bot might not work properly. There is a manual for doing that and a blog post explaining about this change in non-technical language. If you have question feel free to ask in mw:Manual talk:Pywikipediabot/Gerrit, mailing list, or in the IRC channel. Best Amir (via Global message delivery). 13:28, 23 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Deletion

    Please, immediatly remove this page due to legal threat. Any other information on my user talk. --Gnumarcoo (disputatio) - OTRS member, 20:06, 24 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    I've done as requested -- I think we can do without that page for the moment -- but I don't find the promised information, so I'll enquire further. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:01, 24 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Yeah, I wanted to say that if *you want* more information, you can ask for it in my talk. That is confidential information (OTRS), I avoid to bring them here, if possible. Thank you for your help. --Gnumarcoo (disputatio) 07:50, 25 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    I understand, no problem. I deleted the page before going to bed, and might have asked you further this morning, but in view of your reply I think we could leave it there! This page was of very little encyclopedic value. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:28, 25 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Tech News: 2013-31

    Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes; not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

    • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf12) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on July 25. It will be enabled on non–Wikipedia sites on July 29, and on all Wikipedias on August 1. [113]
    • Wikivoyage was offline for around 40 minutes on July 24. [114]
    • Pywikipediabot moved their code from SVN to git; bot owners need to update their tools. [115]
    • The Notifications and Thanks extensions were added to Meta-Wiki on July 26; other wikis will get them soon. [116]
    • It is now possible to add edit summaries on Wikidata using the API; the feature will be added to user interface soon. [117]
    • The software that resizes large PNG images on all wikis was changed on July 25. Resizing of PNG files bigger than 35 megapixels should be faster and more reliable now. [118]
    • Three new webfonts (Gentium, Old Persian and Shapour) will be added to Universal Language Selector. [119], [120], [121]
    • Specialis:MIMESearch, which gives a list of files by type, will be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis with MediaWiki version 1.22/wmf12 (bug #13438). [122]
    • A mailing list to discuss multimedia features was started; users are encouraged to sign up.
    • VisualEditor news:
      • On July 24, VisualEditor was added for logged-in users on the German (de), Spanish (es), French (fr), Hebrew (he), Italian (it), Polish (pl), Russian (ru) and Swedish (sv) Wikipedias; it will be added for all users on those wikis on July 29. [123]
      • A preference to completely disable VisualEditor while it is in beta phase was added on July 24. [124]
      • Many bugs were fixed in right-to-left languages. [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130]
      • It is possible again to scroll down in the template editing window (bug #51739).
      • VisualEditor now works with the FlaggedRevisions extension. (bug #49699)
      • If the user opens VisualEditor using a section edit link, the title of the section is added to the edit summary (bug #50872).
      • Invisible templates now can't be deleted by accident or on purpose (bug #51322).

    Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

    20:51, 28 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Gina Lollobrigida

    There is something I wonder. Maybe you know. This person is an actress known as Gina Lollobrigida, but borned Luigina Lollobrigida. Gina is maybe a short name for Luigina in this context. A user moved the article from "Gina Lollobrigida" to "Aloisia Lollobrigida". I asked the usor about this new name but the person has unfortunately not answered. Anyone who knows if Luigina is Aloisia in Latin? Donatello (disputatio) 15:59, 29 Iulii 2013 (UTC).

    It could possibly be! There is occasionally a gentle debate between Vicipaedians who prefer "Aloisius" and those who prefer "Ludovicus" for Luigi, Louis etc. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:12, 29 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I must say that I fail to understand the pedantry concerning our canon of first names. Gina can be inflected in Latin in a most natural way. So, why would it be "incorrect" to use Gina? Would "Aloisia Lollobrigida" have been more palatable to Cicero? I doubt it. Neander (disputatio) 17:27, 29 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    As you and I have both noticed, Donatello, that particular usor rarely replies to any query. I agree with Neander that "Gina" works perfectly well -- and all other wikis call her "Gina" -- so I'll move the page back for you. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:39, 29 Iulii 2013 (UTC)
    I also think like that about names. Gina sounds good to me to. Thanks. -- Donatello (disputatio) 01:03, 30 Iulii 2013 (UTC).

    De supercategoriis geographicis

    Debeo explicare id quod facio de categoriis geographicis. Categoriis quas iam habemus haud mutatis, volo viam creare ad facilius sciendum quantas paginas iam exstare, et nondum exstare, de oppidis, de fluminibus, etc., civitatum singularum. Igitur supercategorias paucas creo (quas sub Categoria:Loci terrestres possumus explorare), titulis sub quaque civitate similibus.

    I ought to explain what I'm doing with geographical categories. Without disturbing the categories we already have, I want to make it easier to see, in the case of any particular country, how many pages we have (or haven't as yet) about towns, rivers, etc. So I am adding a few general categories (which can be explored via Categoria:Loci terrestres) that will give an overview for every country consistently. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:20, 30 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    VisualEditor and your Wikipedia

    (Please translate this message)

    Greetings,

    The Wikimedia Foundation will soon turn on VisualEditor for all users, all the time on your Wikipedia. Right now your Wikipedia does not have any local documents on VisualEditor, and we hope that your community can change that. To find out about how you can help with translations visit the TranslationCentral for VisualEditor and read the easy instructions on bringing information to your Wikipedia. The User Guide and the FAQ are very important to have in your language.

    We want to find out as much as we can from you about VisualEditor and how it helps your Wikipedia, and having local pages is a great way to start. We also encourage you to leave feedback on Mediawiki where the community can offer ideas, opinions, and point out bugs that may still exist in the software that need to be reported to Bugzilla. If you are able to speak for the concerns of others in English on MediaWiki or locally I encourage you to help your community to be represented in this process.

    If you can help translate the user interface for VisualEditor to your language, you can help with that as well. Translatewiki has open tasks for translating VisualEditor. A direct link to translate the user interface is here. You can see how we are doing with those translations here. You need an account on Translatewiki to translate. This account is free and easy to create.

    If we can help your community in any way with this process, please let me know and I will do my best to assist your Wikipedia with this |exciting development. You can contact me on my meta talk page or by email. You can also contact Patrick Earley for help with translations and documents on Mediawiki. We look forward to working with you to bring the VisualEditor experience to your Wikipedia! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 30 Iulii 2013 (UTC)

    Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Fix here.)

    Note to Vicipaedians

    Visual Editor is still in Beta, and still makes a mess of things. Some other wikis have voted not to have it turned on by default for everyone everywhere. There is a big RfC at enwiki right now on the subject. I don't know if this wiki is big enough to do the same, but I'd ask everyone to think about that. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 09:44, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Interesting. I use an unsupported browser, Opera, but Visual Editor still seems to work for me at en:wiki. How many messes it makes, I don't honestly know yet. I think it will definitely encourage casual readers to make minor corrections, which may be a Very Good Thing (depending ...). But on long pages with lots of templates, images and fiddly formatting it is very slow, in my limited experience. My view on that point is that multiplying templates, images and fiddly formatting is a bad thing anyway. Many Wikipedia readers have slow connections, and Wikipedia is really nothing if it doesn't have useful text.
    So I think I'm in favour of Visual Editor. But I wish they supported Opera :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:29, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Restaurant

    Greetings. What should it be for this thing in Latin? Norstedt's Swedish-Latin lexicon (second edition of 2009) says these three names:

    [lauta] caupona f, taberna refectoria, convictus domus

    The "[telephone]" means that the word in it is not forced to be used, and can be chosed to be used by context.

    Donatello (disputatio) 02:12, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC).

    There was a discussion about this back in 2008 with no decision made. "Taberna refectoria" is maybe the clearest option. Lesgles (disputatio) 04:13, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    I really feel this should be popina and was about to write this article. I will look at that discussion now.--Jondel (disputatio) 14:36, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    I haven't read the old discussion either, but I think "popina" is exactly right. The emperors Claudius and Vitellius used to like them. Go for it, Jondel, and if anyone feels it isn't correct we can discuss the name on the new talk page. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:06, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Great!--Jondel (disputatio) 15:13, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Tada!:Popina--Jondel (disputatio) 16:36, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Good work. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 17:49, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC).
    Thank you! :)--Jondel (disputatio) 18:15, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Pagina Mensis Augusti

    Nullam paginam nominavimus -- fortasse Feles? Quid censetis? A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:07, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Video te iam fecisse. Per me optime fecisti! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Elizabeth II (regina Britanniarum)

    I happened to be looking at Elizabeth II (regina Britanniarum) when I noticed that the information in the article on succession is no longer fully accurate. I fixed up what was there, but my Latin is not up to updating articles about Prince Charles or Prince William, entirely leaving aside writing one about the baby. So perhaps someone can take those tasks on. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 15:24, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    I just started a stipula on little Georgius because it's absolutely shocking that we didn't have an article on him yet. Others may want to revise and expand it. The other royal articles still need some work too. Lesgles (disputatio) 23:05, 1 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    "Absolutely shocking", hmm -- there are lots of other people as yet unmentioned here who are (for the present) even more notable -- but I'm very happy you've started the article :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:49, 2 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    I have to add, following Andrew noster's point, that at the same time that the Royal Baby was born, England totally smashed Australia in the second try of the Ashes. There is an urgent need for an article on Ashes (criccetius lusus), I would say...--Xaverius 13:44, 2 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Ha! Scarcely anything is more notable than cricket. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:39, 2 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    I hope people understood my sarcasm in the "absolutely shocking" bit. There are certainly more notable things, yes, cricket, and 18th-century Russian Indologists. Lesgles (disputatio) 16:31, 2 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Psara

    Psara shows no interwiki-links. When beeing added the following sentence appears: Site link Psara already used by item Q12901639. Who unterstands this puzzle?--Utilo (disputatio) 13:39, 2 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Is is sorted now? I added the IW links, and got no such message.--Xaverius 13:46, 2 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    It is, thank you.--Utilo (disputatio) 14:02, 2 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Templum

    I wonder about the litteral meaning of this word. Do we know already how it's constructed? If so, maybe I'm right with this: tempus plus -culum: tempuculum, "little time", then we "spend a little time" in a temple. Then maybe it got abbreviated to something like templum, or tempullum, or have always been called kind of like templum. Other words don't have the typical -culus, -a, -um to significate that the thing is little, like libellus, "little book", while book is liber. Or maybe templum is instead a derived word from another language. Persona sound Latin with -per and sonus, but it's a derived word from Etruscan.

    Donatello (disputatio) 20:18, 3 Augusti 2013 (UTC).

    Salve Donatello. There is a lot of literature about templum. What the Romans thought you find in Gellius 14,7,7: Tum (Varro) adscripsit de locis, in quibus senatusconsultum fieri iure posset, docuitque confirmavitque, nisi in loco per augures constituto, quod "templum" appellaretur, senatusconsultum factum esset, iustum id non fuisse. Templum = locus per augures constitutus. - When explaining the etymology modern scholars present various explanations. One is an indoeuropean stem *temp- meaning to stretch, to mark sth. out: templum = a place marked out by the augurs. Others think that templum is related with the Greek τεμνω (temno = cut) "a place cutted out for the gods".--Utilo (disputatio) 08:23, 4 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    This is an interesting case, in which the etymology worked out by ancient writers is accepted by (at least some) modern etymologists. Carl Darling Buck, A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages (Sicagi: University of Chicago Press, 1949. ISBN 9780226079370. Textus) is a reliable source, I find. On page 1465 he gives the explanation from Gellius, just as Utilo sets it out for us, and then adduces the Indo-European stem *tem- (the second of Utilo's two possibilities, as in Greek temno "I cut", temenos "sacred precinct") and then *temp- (the first of those possibilities, as in Lithuanian tempti "stretch" and Latin tempus "time"). If this possibility is the correct one, there is an etymological link with time, as Donatello says, because both time and place can be stretched! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:47, 4 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Interesting!(Salve omnes.)Did you the Chinese(and Japanese) character(時) for time has temple character beside a sun character.--Jondel (disputatio) 10:52, 4 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    At a temple you spend (more) time, and from there you see the sun, and the sun goes slowly, like time. Or you go after time after the sun. Therefor a temple and a sun. Maybe that's why for that character (if we don't know already). -- Donatello (disputatio) 14:05, 4 Augusti 2013 (UTC).
    Yes that is possible. Also maybe monks everywhere kept measure of time and maintained sciences. By the way, the right boxes are the day or the sun(日) and the left with a cross on top is the temple(寺).--Jondel (disputatio) 09:06, 5 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Minoritas et Ethernet

    Salve! Quaeso me adiuvare cum his rebus. Nam certe satis sum grammatica et velim delere latinitatis.
    Hi! Please help me to improve these articles. On the other hand, I am quite sure of the grammar and would like to remove the latinitatis. --Jondel (disputatio) 11:28, 4 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you Neander and Donatello for you valued advice and assistance!--Jondel (disputatio) 09:06, 5 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Libenter. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 01:05, 6 Augusti 2013 (UTC).
    :)--Jondel (disputatio) 13:16, 15 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Lager

    Can anyone give me a Latin term for lager beer? (I can reciprocate by offering the phrase "cervisia lagenaria" [with source] to anyone who wants a Latin term for bottled beer.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:30, 6 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Norstedts doesn't mention lager beer (lageröl in Swedish). For "layer" in the sense of this context, Norstedts says stratum and tabulatum. So maybe cerevisia stratorum. -- Donatello (disputatio) 02:06, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC).
    Do we have a latin word for ale?--Xaverius 20:36, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    On ale: the meanings of ale and beer have changed over the centuries. If we look at en:Ale, most of the interlanguage links just use the English word. The cognates in the Germanic languages (e.g. Danish øl) often just mean "beer". So I think it would be hard to find a good historical word. But we could maybe think up a phrase to translate "warm-fermented" or "top-fermented" beer (there appear to be different defintions).
    On lager: the German here actually means "store", so something like "cervisia cellariensis" might work. Or a translation of "bottom-fermented" or "cold-fermented".
    Then of course we have to find ones for stout, porter, etc. And we should say more about the Latin words: camum, celia, fermentum, zythum... Lesgles (disputatio) 21:31, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    This should all be discussed with a dictionary on the table and a pint each, I believe!--Xaverius 22:02, 7 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Norsted's Swedish-Latin Lexicon (latest edition) mention three names for "beer":
    beer cerevísia f (also cervésia, cervísia)
    I guess then cerevisia may be the most used one. What do you know? For "beer glass" there is calix cerevisiarius, and for "beer can", vasculum [metallicum] cerevisiae and óllula cerevisiaria, where this adjective are more related to cerevisia. The "A copious and critial English-Latin lexicon" also mention this adjective.
    The Norstedt's Latin-Swedish lexicon (latest edition) doesn't mention cerevisia, cervesia, nor cervisia, nor about this adjective.
    Donatello (disputatio) 14:43, 8 Augusti 2013 (UTC).
    Cervisia is the spelling that's placed first in C. T. Lewis et C. Short (1879). A Latin Dictionary. Oxoniae: Oxford University Press, but "cerves(i)a" is preferred in Oxford Latin Dictionary ed. P. G. W. Glare (Oxonii: Clarendon Press, 1968–1982), which is the best authority among dictionaries of classical Latin. This also suggests the useful noun "cervesarius: probably a brewer" (cited from two recently-found inscriptions). We have been using the medieval word Braciator for this concept (see Categoria:Braciatores). There is an alternative spelling "Braxator" and a feminine "Braxatrix". There is a whole collection of useful medieval words in Du Cange, but sadly there is no lager, because lager beer was not a medieval invention. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 8 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Also, Spanish (with Portugese and Catalan) use a derivative of this (Sp. cerveza), though French and Italian use a derivative of "beer". StevenJ81 (disputatio) 16:27, 8 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Georges praebet fontes sequentes: cervīsia (-ae): Plin. 22, 164. Isid. 20, 3, 17. Ulp. dig. 33, 6, 9 pr. – cervēsia (-ae): Edict. Diocl. 2, 11 - cervīsa: Marc. Emp. 16. Anthim. 15. Plin. Sec. 3, 6 extr. (Rose) - cervēsa, Corp. inscr. Lat. 13, 10018, 7.--Utilo (disputatio) 17:14, 8 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    There should be someone to serve the wine: puer cauponius. – instĭtor popinae vel cauponae. – minister cauponae. - Fortasse etiam verbum "pincerna" adhiberi possit (ex quo verbum Hungaricum pincér deductum esse videtur), vide Dominus du Cange?--Utilo (disputatio) 17:29, 8 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    De commentationibus suadendis

    Ave. Quid vobis censetur de commentationibus suadendis "Spatium (astronomia)" et "Spatium cosmicum"? Sapientissime esset coniunctioni. -- Donatello (disputatio) 02:21, 9 Augusti 2013 (UTC).

    Ita, paginae contribuendae sunt. Miro nos duas paginas synonymas tanto spatio temporis retinuisse, sed censeo paginam veterem et parvam "Spatium cosmicum", per errorem, nunquam ab aliis Vicipaediis annexam fuisse. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:45, 9 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Contribui. Formas e lexicis hodiernis demptas in nota tantum subiunxi, quia citationes verbi simplicis "Spatium" e fontibus classicis habemus: OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 9 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Bene est. :) Gratias ago. -- Donatello (disputatio) 13:16, 9 Augusti 2013 (UTC).

    Saeculi

    Commentationes nostrae de saeculis omnes habent formam "Saeculum x saeculum est quod annos y–z comprehendit". Nonne melius simpliciter "Saeculum x annos y–z comprehendit" scribere? Scimus omnes saeculum saeculum esse. Lesgles (disputatio) 06:25, 9 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Equidem consentio. Frustra est verbum "saeculum" bis iterare. "Saeculum x saeculum est quod annos y–z comprehendit" est melius. Φιλέτυμος (disputatio) 16:39, 10 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Dum de saeculis colloquimur: cur tantum numeris Arabicis utimur, nec Romanis, sicut Italice, Hispanice, Gallice…? --Anedia (disputatio) 18:10, 11 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    In textu paginarum licet numeris Romanis uti, e.g. "... saeculo XII ...". Id facio ego (at sum neque Gallus neque Hispanus neque Italus)! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:29, 11 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Accordion player

    Hello. How do we say this in Latin? For names of the instrument, see harmonium. -- Donatello (disputatio) 17:16, 9 Augusti 2013 (UTC).

    Well, we could say it much as you've just done in English: qui harmonio cantat or cantor harmonio (or cantor harmoni -- abl. means or obj. gen. would both strike me as OK). I'm not sure *harmonista, -ae is a possible coinage! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:27, 12 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    It's in the Traupman dictionary. Let me get a hold of it first.--Jondel (disputatio) 08:59, 13 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    In the Traupman dictionary its harmonica diductilis p.457. It is defined exactly as harmonic-a -ae f diductilis . --Jondel (disputatio) 13:09, 15 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Meteoroides

    "Meteoroides", "meteora" (n.pl.), "pluvia meteororum"; si quis potest aut verba quibus usus sum citationibus corroborare, aut meliora proponere, gratias agam! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:49, 12 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    UNESCO Patrimonium / Mundi Hereditas

    Usor:Franciesse heri seriem categoriarum novarum fecit, quae incipiunt “Locus patrimonium UNESCO in ….” – Categoria superior (antiquior) autem est “UNESCO Mundi Hereditas” et etiam commentatio de hac re UNESCO Mundi Hereditas intitulatur. – In commentationis pagina disputationis iam antea de notione, quomodo recte nominetur, disputatum est. Disputationem continuandam esse mihi videtur. – Formula “Locus patrimonium” quidem non mihi placet, imprimis grammaticae causa (locus patrimonii).--Utilo (disputatio) 08:40, 14 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Scio me errores fecisse, incipientem probabiliter a categoriis creatis iampridem ab alio usore, sed nunc puto necesse esse inveniri meliorem solutionem. Fontes de nomine horum locorum admodum paucas esse cogito, ergo forsitan licet nobis vertere formulas barbararum linguarum addendo versionem esse usorum Vicipaedianorum. Si haec via electa erit iusta, meae suggestiones in illa pagina disputationis. --Franciesse 18:02, 14 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    motio?

    ←Quo vocabulo solemus reddere eum morem Romanorum, ut nomen masculinum (e. g. Cornelius) vertatur in femininum (e. g. Cornelia) et vice versa ; et m. m. de professionibus (sartor/sartrix, coquus/coqua). Et nostra aetate tales mutationes partim fiunt, e. g. italice dottore/dottoressa, professore/professoressa etc., fran. madame la président, partim iam diu usitatae sunt, ut theodisce Bäcker/Bäckerin etc. (Motio mihi placet, sed dubito, num insit ea vis ei vocabulo.) - Bavarese (disputatio) 12:29, 16 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    De motione nihil certi dicere possum, sed mihi quidem videtur solum motum sine fine et metà indicare. In linguistica, conversio (Angl. conversion) est, cum verbum quoddam ex una categoria grammatica ad aliam categoriam convertitur, ut puta nomen (water) ad verbum (to water), aut adiectivum (dry) ad verbum (to dry). Forsitan etiam hic de conversione dici possit, cum nomen masculinum (Cornelius) ad femininum (Cornelia) convertitur, et vice versa. Neander (disputatio) 14:27, 16 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Linguisticae studentes theodisce vocabulo Motión vel Movierung untuntur, sed solum de mutatione generis. Vide de Wikipedia s.v. Motion. Quomodo res se habeat aliis in linguis, nescio.
    Francogallice féminisation appellatur. Lesgles (disputatio) 15:41, 17 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Iogurtum

    Ave. Quid censetis de nomine commentationis? Probo nomen "Iogurtum", sed nullus fons adest, ita fortasse movere possumus. -- Donatello (disputatio) 15:43, 16 Augusti 2013 (UTC).

    "Visuelles Wörterbuch. Latein-Deutsch" (Coventgarden / Dorling Kindersley 2010) habet "lac concretum", quod verbum apud nos pro "curd" (Anglice) sive "Bruch" (Theodisce) in usu est.--Utilo (disputatio) 16:14, 16 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Pro curd nomen Latinum "melca" nunc inserui cum fontibus. Tu interdum, mi Utilo, citationem praebuisti verbi "iogurti" pro yogurt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:12, 16 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Wikidata prohibita

    Semper, postquam conlationem novam scripsi, studeo, ut eam cum aliis linguis coniungam. Sed convento meo aperto a principio praesentis mensis Augusto 2013 prohibitus sum, ne wikidata recenserem. Convento concluso autem wikidata recensere possum. Quid vitii feci? Forsitan aliquis vestrum mihi consilium dare potest.--Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 08:42, 17 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Difficultates apud Wikidata et ego interdum sentio, sed minora. Ea quae describis non intellego. Alius quis ...? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:48, 17 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Welche Fehlermeldung genau erscheint bzw. welche Schritte schlagen fehl? --UV (disputatio) 18:54, 17 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Wenn ich in Wikidata "add links" anklicke, erscheint nur das Menü für die Sprache, aber kein Feld, in das man den lateinischen Link einfügen könnte. Bin ich ausgeloggt, kann man das entsprechende Feld sehen.--Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 10:13, 18 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Seltsam. Funktioniert es mit einem anderen Browser/auf einem anderen Computer auch in eingeloggtem Zustand (dann könnte vielleicht ein Leeren des Browser-Cache helfen) oder zeigt sich mit einem anderen Browser/auf einem anderen Computer das gleiche Phänomen? --UV (disputatio) 12:29, 18 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Vielen Dank! Das Problem scheint am Firefox (23) zu hängen. Mit dem Internetexplorer funktioniert es--Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 13:44, 18 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    de metris

    Ubi, quaeso mi dicatis, inveniam illa signa, quibus syllabas longas et breves et ancipites indicare solemus, ut structuram versus cuiusdam explicemus. Quae scribens paginam paroemiacum valde desideravi. - Bavarese (disputatio) 10:25, 20 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    ... nescio. An potes paginam aliam indicare ubi hae signa iam videntur? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:56, 23 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    (Licet mihi)Nonne sit "Character Speciales" supra quadrati editionis aperitur cum aperitur? Is this about those special character marks at "Character Speciales" at the top of the box when you open the edit box? Incertum sum.--Jondel (disputatio) 16:35, 23 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Mi illa signa tunc desideranti refugio erant '–' et 'v v'. Videntur bellissime expressa in pagina hexameter, sed plane desunt in Adonius. Fortasse placet ille character, quem hoc interim tempore repperi in characteres speciales/API et qui est: ˘. Quem coniungere liceat cum '–', e. g. – ˘˘. Ea autem re non sum contentus. - Bavarese (disputatio) 17:35, 24 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    HTTPS for users with an account

    Greetings. Starting on August 21 (tomorrow), all users with an account will be using HTTPS to access Wikimedia sites. HTTPS brings better security and improves your privacy. More information is available at m:HTTPS.

    If HTTPS causes problems for you, tell us on bugzilla, on IRC (in the #wikimedia-operations channel) or on meta. If you can't use the other methods, you can also send an e-mail to https@wikimedia.org.

    Greg Grossmeier (via the Global message delivery system). 19:22, 20 Augusti 2013 (UTC) (wrong page? You can fix it.)

    To crash

    Greetings. How do we say "to crash" in Latin? I guess the Romans did not have any word for that, but they had for "to explode". -- Donatello (disputatio) 13:54, 23 Augusti 2013 (UTC).

    Donatello, could we discuss first a translation standard procedure before we go on? You really have to do this when living or working with 2 different languages and cultures. For example, I am looking for "crash" but I don't find it. What do we do? It would be good to look at the 1) Synonyms and 2) Dictionary meaning. Let us say a good synonym is "smash", collide and hit. Here I find "collido", "confringo" and "ferio". Then I back up and look at the meaning from the Latin to English and see smash, crush ruin for collidere. I would select no "ferio" (hit strike). But of course you may select another.Btw for your previous inquiries, I would recommend locus visendus for "Landmark" and figura for "icon" .--Jondel (disputatio) 14:28, 23 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    I see. :) I didn't think on any synonyms like "smash" and "collide"; I missed those. These are good ones. I'm looking now in a Latin-Swedish dictionary and see that collidere is the best choice. Thanks for the advices. Locus visendus and figura are good names. Thanks also. -- Donatello (disputatio) 15:50, 23 Augusti 2013 (UTC).
    From facebook latin Locus notabilis.--Jondel (disputatio) 19:08, 30 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    I guess it didn't happen quite so often in ancient Rome ... but I agree vehicula collidunt "vehicles collide/crash" makes good sense, and in that kind of context the noun collisio -onis (3rd decl.) would also make sense. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:00, 23 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Your welcome (to Donatello). Of course this would be applicable to Swedish as well. Collidere is also a good option. There are many. Select what feels best. --Jondel (disputatio) 16:11, 23 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    About certain Latin adjectives

    Hello. I've seen sevaral articles here in the Latin Wikipedia where adjectives (and some adverbs) who should start in major case (big letter) are written with minor case (little letter), like latinitas, latine, et lingua hispanica. That made me wonder if we are not forced to use major case. I know there are a few Latin dialects. Could that be why?

    To me, I don't like that it's written with major case, then it's not making any sense, nor is important, but it's part of the writing rule of Latin, so I always follow it.

    Donatello (disputatio) 17:37, 24 Augusti 2013 (UTC).

    Yes, our current practice is that proper names (e.g. people, places, languages) are capitalized, whether substantives, adjectives or adverbs. This is quite widely accepted in modern Latin texts ... but not by all writers; there are alternative practices.
    We can't, of course, "force" people! All we can do is to warn contributors, if they don't use our agreed orthography or spelling rules (or indeed if their Latin isn't good) that someone will edit their writing. That's always the case on Vicipaedia anyway. People who don't like to see their writing edited by others are automatically warned not to contribute.
    NB: I'm not sure what you intended with your third example: in text, I would write that with a small l and a big H, lingua Hispanica -- is that what you meant? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:52, 26 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    I see. Thanks. :) About lingua Hispanica I meant about adjective Hispanicus like the other adjectives in the other examples. -- Donatello (disputatio) 23:25, 26 Augusti 2013 (UTC).

    De nominibus aliquarum categoriarum

    Volo (si UVbot adiuvare potest!) titulos nonnullos, quos nisi fallor male scriptos aut nimis longos videntur, mutare. Hic, o amici, videbitis: "nomina quae habemus >> nomina quae, si consentitis, habebimus".

    Si non consentitis, s.v.p., infra disputate! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:55, 25 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Hac disputatione nuper perlecta, propositionem meam mutavi: non "civitate" sed "per civitates". Si quis non consentit, disputato! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:35, 26 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Claudius, Claudia

    Hello, I need to know the Latin IPA pronunciation for the words «Claudius» and «Claudia». Thanks.

    Hello. For the IPA for English it's written like this: ['klaʊdɪʊs] and ['klaʊdɪɒ]. -- Donatello (disputatio) 15:43, 25 Augusti 2013 (UTC).

    Parabola

    Nexus commentationis Parabola non ad parabolam mathematicam, sed ad paginas discretivas ducunt. Aliquis mutet, quaeso!--Utilo (disputatio) 16:09, 25 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Mutavi. --UV (disputatio) 16:17, 25 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    95 000

    Nunc numerus commentationum 95 000 est. :) Bonum opus (good work; don't know how to say it in Latin) vos omnes fecistis. -- Donatello (disputatio) 16:20, 25 Augusti 2013 (UTC).

    Tech News: 2013-34;

    Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

    New features

    • The previous version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf13) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on August 15. It was enabled on non-Wikipedia sites on August 19, and on all Wikipedias on August 22. [131]
    • The latest version of MediaWiki (1.22/wmf14) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on August 22. It will be enabled on non-Wikipedia sites on August 26, and on all Wikipedias on August 29. [132]
    • You can now use new styles of galleries. Please give feedback to User:Bawolff. [133]
    • You can now visit a random page in a category, for example Special:RandomInCategory/Science. (25931) [134]
    • You can now use the <wbr> HTML5 tag to say where a word can be cut. (52468) [135]
    • Gadget authors: you can now use the wikipage.content hook, so that your scripts are re-run when a page is changed after the document-ready event (for example using Ajax). (30713) [136]

    Problems fixed

    • There was a bug where file redirects didn't work when a file was renamed; it is now fixed. There is still an issue with purging, but it should be fixed soon. (52200)
    • Notitiae curatoriae provided by special pages will now all be updated on each wiki every six months. This will for example give you recent information on uncategorized pages, unused templates and most wanted pages (see details).
    • There was a bug that caused false positives for anti-blanking edit filters; it is now fixed. (52077) [137]

    VisualEditor news

    • The "edit" and "edit source" tabs and section edit links can now be changed more easily; for example, some wikis are using "edit source" for wikitext editing, and "edit beta" for VisualEditor. You can ask for the same change in bugzilla.
    • You can now edit references that are added inside a <references> block. (51741)
    • You can now test on mediawiki.org new basic tools to add and edit struck text (with the button for the <s> tag), lower text ( for <sub>), upper text ( for <sup>), underlined text ( for <u>), computer code ( for <code> and <tt>), math text ( for <math>), Egyptian hieroglyphs ( for <hiero>), and to say that text is in another language ( for lang="ar" dir="rtl"). (51609, 51612, 51611, 51590, 51610, 52352)
    • You can now use VisualEditor with the Opera browser. [138]

    Future

    • Starting on August 26, you will be able to use data from Wikidata on Wikivoyage sites. [139]
    • Starting on August 27, you will also get notifications on the mobile site if you're logged in to a wiki using notifications. [140]
    • Starting on August 28, all users with an account will be using HTTPS to access Wikimedia sites. HTTPS brings better security and improves your privacy. Some countries (like China) will not use HTTPS. If HTTPS causes problems for you, tell us on meta. [141]
    • Starting on August 29, you will get the code editor interface to edit JavaScript and CSS pages on all wikis. [142]
    • The plan to use Solr for search in MediaWiki was changed; instead, Elasticsearch is now planned. [143]

    Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by Global message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

    20:05, 25 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Abbaye Notre-Dame de Bellefontaine

    I would like to connect Abbatia Belli Fontis to fr:Abbaye Notre-Dame de Bellefontaine (on French Wikipedia), but I do not succeed. Estne, qui adiuvet?--Utilo (disputatio) 10:14, 26 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Feci! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:38, 26 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Torus, geometrical shape

    Hello. I recently created the article "doughnut" (please move to a Latin name if you know one), and the name "torus", which is a geometrical shape, is good for explaining of the shape of ring formed doughnuts. Do anybody know the name in Latin? -- Donatello (disputatio) 23:58, 27 Augusti 2013 (UTC).

    I always thought torus *was* a Latin word! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:19, 28 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    It is, isn't it -- though rarely used geometrically in classical Latin.
    A "globus" (Varro) or "globulus" (Cato, Varro, Petronius) or "glomus" (Festus) was a doughnut. "Globus", too, gained a geometrical sense: hence we all live on a doughnut ... You might use "globulus" or "glomus"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:39, 28 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Did they already eat doughnuts back then? :) Good that we have these names. I'll move to "globulus". Maybe you Andrew can add notes about the names as a source? Thanks. -- Donatello (disputatio) 15:11, 28 Augusti 2013 (UTC).
    Hmm, now I noticed that we have an article of globulus, but guess it's not exactly as a doughnut. The article explains: "...pemma vel libum rotundum ab alica et caseo confectum et ex oleo profundo frictum.", so I guess it's not exactly as a doughnut. -- Donatello (disputatio) 15:25, 28 Augusti 2013 (UTC).
    The method's the same, but, yes, I suppose the cheese would give it a different flavour!
    Festus, in his description of a "glomus", doesn't mention cheese, but confirms the deep fat frying (which is the defining feature of a doughnut). So you might perhaps use "glomus". At any rate, I doubt if you'll find a Latin term closer than these. Since the modern doughnut is very definitely a US development which has spread from there to other countries, you might prefer to keep the English term "doughnut". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:04, 28 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    My guess is that you will find these to be filled doughnuts, so they don't have a hole in the center. Hence globus. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 18:27, 28 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Yes, and those are the kind I like :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:48, 28 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    But they're not toroidal. In fact they're not even topologically equivalent to tori. :-) So we live on a jelly doughnut, but hardly on a regular doughnut! A. Mahoney (disputatio) 21:05, 28 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Ah, we speak different languages. I always suspected it. You refer, I gather, to "jam doughnuts" (normal and Earthlike) and "ring doughnuts" (toroidal, probably Saturnian). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:14, 29 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    See q:en:English language#British vs. American English. StevenJ81 (disputatio) 14:15, 29 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Niger (civitas)

    Videte, s.v.p., Disputatio:Niger et commenta addite si vultis! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:30, 29 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Pagina mobilis

    Salvete,

    I have noticed that the new pagina prima has also replaced the mobile start site. Unfortunately it appears very corrupt (at least om my iphone and ipad screens). I would suggest reverting to the old mobile site which was more fitting for mobile devices.

    Praeterea de salutatione Latina paginae primae nostrae valde miratus sum cum formulam "Bene advenisti" adhuc rarissime lexissem. Latina lingua nobis mea sententia inter verba salutandi optimam solutionem iam praebuit offerens "Salve/Salvete". Hanc formulam plurimis et doctis et Latinae linguae ignaris notam atque quasi familiarem esse usu certe consentimus. Disputationes anteriores legere fatendum est me neglexisse. Spero autem magistratus hoc de casu optime decreturos esse.

    Me certiorem facite quid hac de re sentiatis.

    --Autokrator (disputatio) 14:52, 29 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    As to your first point: Done, thank you for pointing this out!
    De salutatione alii certe respondebunt. --UV (disputatio) 21:05, 29 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    De categoriis addendis

    Salvete iterum,

    the big Wikipedia versions have a very useful flash-based option to add categories right in the side via a plus symbol. (No wikicode involved.) I wonder if it would be possible to implement this feature etiam in the Latin Vicipaedia. --Autokrator (disputatio) 08:31, 30 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    I think that's a cool idea -- I use this in Commons for example. Support! (and if I get a chance, perhaps early next week, I wouldn't mind implementing it myself, if I can, and if one of our Wiki-tech-experts doesn't get there first) A. Mahoney (disputatio) 12:07, 30 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    HotCat (which it is not flash-based, but JavaScript-based) is now available as a gadget, and you can enable it in your user preferences if you wish, see Vicipaedia:Gadgets. The Latin translation can be found at MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/local defaults (please improve directly or suggest improvements at Disputatio MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js/local defaults). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:18, 30 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Just amazing! Thank you, Autokrator, for suggesting it: thank you, UV, for implementing it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:50, 31 Augusti 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you, too, UV! Great to see how fast things work here. --Autokrator (disputatio) 09:41, 31 Augusti 2013 (UTC)

    Categoriae diei natalis et mortis

    Quid de categoriis novis "homines secundum diem natalem" et "homines secundum diem ultimum vitae" sentitis? Sunt haec categoriae in aliis vicipaediis ut it:Categoria:Nati per giorno et it:Categoria:Nati per giorno. --Schulz-Hameln (disputatio) 10:02, 1 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

    Hmm, utile, sed permultae biographiae iam habemus! An possibile erit tales categorias automatice creare? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:40, 1 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
    Fortasse mox possibile erit tales categorias automatice creare. Sicut {{Lifetime}}, {{bio-stipula}} et {{Capsa hominis}} nunc iam Categoria:Viri aut Categoria:Mulieres imposunt secundum data apud vicidata, mox possibile erit et categoriam anni natalis et categoriam anni ultimi vitae et categoriam diei natalis et categoriam diei ultimi vitae automatice inserere, si dies natalis vel mortis apud vicidata inscripta sunt. --UV (disputatio) 12:22, 1 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

    De categoriis quas nunc creo

    Salvete, amici. Si olim categorias sub paginis tuis adumbravistis atque a creando abstinuistis, vobis loquor! Tales categoriae "desideratae" et non iam exsistentes hic enumerantur. "HotCat" utens, hanc enumerationem nunc perlego et ...

    • ... si categorias hoc tempore haud utiles censeo, non creo, sed nomina rubra categoriarum in paginis vestris aut rescribo aut (si iam alias idoneas ibi video) interdum deleo.
    • ... si categoriae adumbratae mihi utiles videntur, rapidissime creo supercategoriasque rapidissime inscribo.

    Sed ego pauca scio! Nonnullis locis sine dubio malas supercategorias imposui; nexus Wikidata non iam confeci. Adiuvate igitur s.v.p.: si paginam tuam modificavi, recensete; si categorias quas olim adumbravistis nuper creavi, supercategorias verificate et (si potes) nexum Wikidata addite. Omnia, quae efficio, rursus mutare licet. Gratias ago :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:40, 1 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

    Cybernetica

    Salvete ! Would it be possible to ask for your help to improve this article and hopefully improve the latinatis. I made a few changes to the first sentence which is meant to say:Cybernetics is the science of human functions of and the mechancial functions designed to replace them." Gratias tibi ago.--Jondel (disputatio) 20:32, 1 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

    Hello. :) I think disciplina won't be the best word in that sentence. Scientia must be better to use. Functionarum (genetive plural) must be wrong if the word is functio. I would say this about the first sentence: "Cybernetica est scientia functionum humanorum et functionum mechanicarum quorum sententia hominis functiones supplere est."
    About "science": "Science" in Latin, scientia, I never thought is a good word, then it means "knowledge", because "knowledge" and "science" is not the name thing. "Science" is the name for the correct, detailed, and critical investigations, while "scientific" is the adjective aquivalent. "Knowledge" i just the thing you know. Then scientia is not a good word to use. But we have no other one, so it may due.
    To compare with other languages: The English word comes probably directly from Latin scientia, so "science" only means "science", so that's a good word to use in English. In Swedish it's called vetenskap, related to the verb veta, "to know". The ending -skap is "-scape" in English. So litteraly in English it's "knowingscape". So vetenskap is also a good name for "science". The Spanish ciencia comes from Latin scientia, so I guess it just means "science", then it's a good word to use in Spanish as well.
    Donatello (disputatio) 15:47, 8 Septembris 2013 (UTC).
    Thank you Donatello. You are saying exactly what I feel, science and knowledge are not the same thing. Still I guess as you suggest, scientia would be the best word. Your mention of the Swedish equivalents is interesting. hmmm--Jondel (disputatio) 01:11, 10 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

    Aeroplanum bellator

    Could I ask for your help to improve this article? Some improvements have been made.It was meant to say:Fighter planes are planes created to fight in the air versus bomber planes and attack planes. Its principle purpose is to attack targets and establish dominance in the sky. It was first deployed in World War 1. It features superiority in speed, maneuverability and smaller size.Thank you--Jondel (disputatio) 21:35, 1 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

    nomen usoris mutare

    Quomodo possum mutare nomen usoris meum?

    Scribe hic: Disputatio Usoris:Adam Episcopus. Adam est grapheocrates noster. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:01, 4 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

    Hello. The article about Wii U can't be added in the interwiki link list at Wikidata. Please help. -- Donatello (disputatio) 01:25, 4 Septembris 2013 (UTC).

    Hi, Donatello. Try again now. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 4 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
    It worked now. Thanks. -- Donatello (disputatio) 13:05, 4 Septembris 2013 (UTC).

    De categoriis adumbratis (rubris)

    Salvete omnes! Categorias adumbratas et nondum creatas (rubras) nunc omnes, si per longum temporis spatium manebant, aut creavi ego aut e paginis repectivis delevi. Si categorias rubras a vobis adumbratas delevi, quid facere?

    1. Gaudete! Paginam enim vestram minus imperfecte splendet :)
    2. Si categoria a vobis adumbrata aliis categoriis exstantibus persimilis est, ita! oportet deletionem meam revertere et categoriam sine mora creare
    3. Si categoria a vobis adumbrata aliquas paginas continebit, ita! oportet deletionem meam revertere, categoriam sine mora creare et paginas idoneas in novam categoriam inserere
    4. Si categoria unam tantum paginam continebit, oportet exspectare. Paginis idoneis nonnullis creatis, oportet categoriam creare

    Hoc opus ad systema categoriarum nostrum lectoribus utilius reddere perficio. Plura reperitis apud Vicipaedia:De categoriis.

    Hi, everybody. I have now eliminated all of the links to non-existent categories from Vicipaedia pages that were more than two weeks old, either by creating the categories, or by emending the category names, or by deleting the links. If I have deleted one of your "redlink categories" (links to non-existent categories), what to do?

    1. Rejoice! There's one less thing to be improved on your page :)
    2. If the link that I deleted was to a category that would belong to an already-existing series of similar categories, yes! revert my edit -- and create the category now
    3. If the link that I deleted was to a category that would already contain several pages, yes! revert my edit -- and create the category now, and add the other pages to it
    4. If the link that I deleted was to a category that will only contain one page, it's best to wait until a couple of other pages exist that can be added to the category: then create it

    I'm doing this work to ensure that our category system is as useful as possible for readers. There is more about this at Vicipaedia:De categoriis. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:23, 7 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

    A Latin sentence

    Hello. What would be the most normal way to say "Alpha Orionis is a star in the constellation of Orion." in Latin? Would it be "Alpha Orionis est stella in constellatione Orione." or "Alpha Orionis est stella in constellatione Orionis."? I guess in constellatione Orionis is not so normal in Latin, but still works.

    Donatello (disputatio) 15:15, 7 Septembris 2013 (UTC).

    I'd say the first option is better, Donatello. Another possibility is to say "Alpha Orionis est stella constellationis Orionis", because the star belongs to the constellation Orion, and the Latin genitive case is often used in this way. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:09, 7 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
    I see. Yes, that third option; I didn't think on that one though I'm aware of that way of writing. It sound better than the other options. Thanks. :) -- Donatello (disputatio) 17:15, 7 Septembris 2013 (UTC).

    paginam qui antea iam deleta est creas

    Valde miratus sum de nonnullis mendis, qua paginas Vicipaediae Latinae perscrutans iam inveni. Multae enim sententiae huius situs interretialis rectificari debent. Rogo quomodo fieri possit, ut errores maxime exstantes quam celerrime corrigantur. Ego quoque ipse libentissime huic rei manum admovebo. Ceterum displicet mihi tam frequenter Anglica lingua utendum esse, exempli gratia in imaginibus inserendis (ibi enim verbo "thumb" uti necesse est, quod Latine notione "parvulum/paululum" aut "(im)minutio" reddi potest), quapropter contentionem horum verborum inveniendorum atque compensandorum propono. Spero ne vos talia verba eloquenti ingratos fore, sed fando prodesse in animo est. --Autokrator (disputatio) 09:13, 8 Septembris 2013 (UTC)

    Salve, Autokrator! Pro auxilio perutilissimo tuo gratias ago! Tu ipse menda apud translatewiki.net corrigere potes:
    1. Mendum invenis: (paginam qui...) e.g. hic: [144]
    2. Adde ad finem URL &uselang=qqx (vel ?uselang=qqx): [145]. Sic pro nuntio mendoso invenis titulum nuntii mendosi (hic: "(recreate-moveddeleted-warn)")
    3. I ad https://translatewiki.net/wiki/MediaWiki:Recreate-moveddeleted-warn/la et mendum corrige! (Nunc feci.)
    4. Nonnullas horas post, quae apud translatewiki.net correxisti apud Vicipaediam Latinam apparebunt.
    Glossarium invenis hic: Usor:UV/MediaWiki l10n/Glossary.
    In nearly all cases, no prior discussion is necessary: if someone dislikes a translation, it can simply be changed again. However, in those cases that affect the wikitext of articles, it might be wise to discuss changes beforehand, e. g. for "thumb" - if we switch to e.g. parvulum and later decide that e.g. minutio is better, what happens to those articles that already contain "parvulum"? (In some cases, the old translation can be kept as an alias, but better nevertheless discuss proposed changes that affect the wikitext of articles beforehand, e.g. here on the Taberna.)
    Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 10:57, 8 Septembris 2013 (UTC)
    Gratias ago, UV. Cum sententias rectificare inciperem quot et quanta sit copia sententiarum interpretatione Latina carentium animadverti. Etsi operam dare fert animus quam plurimam constat me tantam multitudinem versorum nullo pacto perficere posse, quamobrem contendo, ut mihi in versibus vertendis subveniatis. Haud est dubium, quin opus quondam perfectum Vicipaediae nostrae valde prosit. ~~--
    Receptum de "https://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_20&oldid=3830005"