Vicipaedia:Taberna

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Haec est taberna Vicipaediae ubi potes si dubia habes, explanationes quaerere, nuntia ad nos mittere et cetera.
Ut sententias antiquiores legas vide tabernae acta priora.
Quaestio nova
Compendium:
VP:T
Hic colloqui possumus.

Magistratura[fontem recensere]

Ite, o amici, ad paginam Vicipaedia:Petitio magistratus. Tres usores ad magistraturam ibi proponuntur. Date s.v.p. voces vestras! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:57, 3 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Grapheocratae[fontem recensere]

Nonne et grapheocratarum numerus renovandus est? Nec paginam petitionis usquam nec quidquid de electione inveni. Si recte intelligo, a conditione huius Vicipaediae nemo de hoc cogitavit nec quidquid mutabatur.
Si tamen existit processus electionis grapheocratarum, nemo nisi Andreas Dalby proponendus est, qui Vicipaediam omnibus modis et omnibus diebus curat. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:04, 4 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Pro certo Andrew noster ad hoc munus perficiendum proponendus est. --UV (disputatio) 20:13, 4 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Gratias ago ambobus. Haesitavi quia rarius grapheocratae singuli necesse est, rarissime duorum! Grapheocrates noster, Adam Bishop, Latinista, omne quod quaerimus (de creatione magistratuum novorum, de destitutione magistratuum non activorum, de renominatione usorum) statim perficit. Si autem censetis melius esse grapheocratam secundum eligere, propositionem accipio. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:42, 5 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

In harenario paginam de grapheocratarum electione delineavi, ibi aliquod tempus manebit (num corrigenda aut emendanda est?). Si non, post aliquot dies (post hebdomadem?) talem paginam creabo. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:39, 5 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

(Creata est.)

De capsibus urbium communitatumque[fontem recensere]

Quite a large number of our pages about cities, towns and villages currently still use country-specific infobox templates, such as {{Capsa communis Germanici}}, {{Capsa communis Germanici 2}} or {{Commune Germaniae}} (these three are not identical), {{Capsa communis Polonici}}, {{Commune-Franciae}} or {{Municipium Italiae}}, just to name a few.

In nearly all cases, the infobox content in the individual articles (e.g. number of inhabitants, name of the city mayor) has not been updated since the article was created, and therefore these infoboxes today partly contain outdated information.

Furthermore, a number of the templates mentioned above (most notably: {{Commune Germaniae}} and {{Municipium Italiae}}) currently have technical problems and therefore cause large numbers of articles to be listed on Special:LintErrors, in particular in the "missing end tag" section.

I therefore propose to replace all these templates with {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}}, which is already in use in more than 1 000 articles and which takes all infobox content (e. g. coat-of-arms image, number of inhabitants, etc.) from Vicidata, where that content is held up-to-date much better than here on la.wikipedia. If there is no objection, Usor:UVbot could help with replacing all these templates with {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}}. What do you think? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 15:41, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

I should add the proposal to replace infoboxes about other territorial subdivisions (e. g. {{Civitas Americae}}, {{Terra Foederalis Germaniae}} and {{Provincia Terrae Foederalis Germaniae}}) with {{Capsa subdivisionis Vicidata}}. --UV (disputatio) 15:50, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:05, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Sic, bonum conslilium. — Hic, in disputatione Praenestis, et alium errorem in paginis Italianis disputavimus: ===Victi=== => ===Hic vixerunt===. Mille paginae cum victis sunt, nemo, nisi automaton, hoc corrigere possit! Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:23, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Recte mones. UVbot potest mutare et {{Municipium Italiae}} in {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}} et ===Victi=== in ===Hic vixerunt===. --UV (disputatio) 17:41, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
In principle nothing against. I would just issue two caveats: The first is that we should still check each and every time whether there isn't any information lost that should be there (and thus be inserted into the text at that occasion). I did a check on Crefeldia, and there are some details that would be lost, but nothing I would have put there if it hadn't been for the template. I would probably just move the image to the pinacotheca. Still, we should always check. My other point is that quite some Wikidata items will appear in English. That should be the occasion to put a Latin label to those items, even if we don't have the relevant page (yet). Sigur (disputatio) 17:48, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Well, neither does UVbot have the capabilities nor do I have the resources to check the contents of individual articles or individual wikidata entries. I can therefore only propose and offer to replace the infobox with the Wikidata one without checking the contents (which is why I am asklng for your opinions here on the Taberna beforehand) - in my view, the benefits of gaining up-to-dateness (or, the benefits of losing outdated information) outweigh the disadvantage of losing some information currently not (yet) present on the Wikidata infobox (information that is currently still accurate but may become inaccurate in the future). When all infobox content comes from Vicidata, we can focus on keeping up-to-date the text of articles, which is where the most relevant information belongs (car licence plate letter combinations or telephone number prefixes should probably not be added to the text of the article).
If you think we will be better off maintaining the status quo, then I will not change those infoboxes. What is your view, should we rather preserve the status quo (with the partly outdated contents of the different country-specific infoboxes) for now (until we find someone who performs the checks you describe) or should we now switch to Vicidata infoboxes (in spite of the risk of losing certain information that is present in the current infoboxes and that is for now still up-to-date)? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 18:21, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Could you have your bot make a list of the pages where it has replaced the infobox? Anybody checking a page could then delete it from that list. For me, that would be good enough, and we would have the advantages you referred to. Sigur (disputatio) 18:50, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
No problem, fine! --UV (disputatio) 19:23, 6 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
I apologise for not commenting here before: as anyone might observe, I have been slightly fixated on tuna and oysters over this period, and I failed to see the above comments until now. I designed those Wikidata infoboxes and I am well aware of their limitations, but my aim, as UV hints, was to ensure that we can have infoboxes that are neat, regular, and as up-to-date as Wikidata -- and to give us all more time for writing Latin text etc. rather than filling in boxes -- and to encourage us to place notable information right there in the text. So I am in favour of the change that UV proposes. As discussed, a list of pages affected will allow anyone working on a particular page or region to verify whether something useful has been lost. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:26, 10 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
A list containing links to a diff for each page would be the most useful of all. Is it possible? That way anyone could see at once what was eliminated when "Capsa urbis Vicidata" was added. In some cases there would be a good image, whose name could be copied from the diff and inserted as a separate image into the revised page.
I should explain that I did not choose to include a photograph of the city from Wikidata into our "Capsa urbis Vicidata", for several reasons: Wikidata has no proper policy for the choice of image; it often has more than one, and our capsa cannot select among them; it often has a collage, which is not encyclopedic unless fully captioned; whatever the image there is rarely any caption at all, and never in Latin. So I included a coat of arms, a map, but not a photographic image. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:55, 11 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
I made a few test edits and started a list of the pages UVbot has edited at Vicipaedia:Automata/Formulae capsarum urbium. Is the list format appropriate? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 00:33, 12 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Sigur (disputatio) 12:58, 12 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Very useful. The arrangement by country is an excellent idea, because that's the way editors often work. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:16, 12 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Optime! Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:27, 12 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Before I make a mistake: I would not only replace {{Loci inhabitati Graeciae}}, but also {{Callicratis demus Graeciae}} both with {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}}, correct? Or should I rather replace {{Callicratis demus Graeciae}} with {{Capsa subdivisionis Vicidata}} instead? From en:Kallikratis Plan#Local administrative reform, I gather that the Callicratis demoi are comparable to municipalities in other countries, so I believe {{Capsa urbis Vicidata}} is appropriate, isn't it? Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:28, 15 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness: {{Regio Graeciae hodiernae}} -> {{Capsa subdivisionis Vicidata}} and {{Unitates regionales Graeciae}} -> {{Capsa subdivisionis Vicidata}}. --UV (disputatio) 22:47, 15 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Sorry not to have replied. I fear Utilo, who worked on these pages, is too busy for Vicipaedia these days.
I assumed that the article on the smallest administrative subdivision, in nearly every country, would in reality be an article on the main village or town, and therefore, to the extent that the two capsae differ, "... urbis ..." would be more suitable. For Greece, this smallest subdivision is the demos, so we should treat demoi as "... urbis ..." Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:43, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! I have now replaced the Greece-related templates accordingly. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:59, 25 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Looking at how this works for the "vici Italiae", I noted belatedly that the heading "Gubernium" needed to be relabelled: it's not a classical Latin word. I relabelled it "Gestio", intending, in general terms, the administration or management of the place. I then saw the utility of adding the detail "Procuratio superior" (placing it under "Gestio"): this now tells us the next highest administrative level to which the place belongs (and sometimes, given the often misplaced enthusiasm of Wikidata editors, it tells us a whole spectrum of administrative levels).
If anyone glances, as I did, at the Wikidata page for a chosen place, and sees another detail that we could consider including, it is necessary first to look hard at how this detail is used on a good sample of other Wikidata pages. If it seems generally useful, we could include it. These things are very easy to change in the "Capsa urbis Vicidata", although thinking of brief labels that will suit all instances is far from easy! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:53, 31 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

ZEIT de quaestione utilitatis linguae latinae[fontem recensere]

Diurnarium Germanicum ZEIT articulum habet quo de utilitate quaeritur nostra aetate linguam latinam discendi. [1] --Alex1011 (disputatio) 20:01, 10 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Stela Rök[fontem recensere]

This is claimed as the oldest item of Swedish literature. Since the recent English translation by Holmberg et al. is more coherent than any previous one, it seemed reasonable to try to turn it into Latin. Whether it was coherent enough for translation, eventually I'm not sure. If anyone cares to look at the English (or indeed Old Norse) p. 20 with a lot of commentary in surrounding text and correct me, or to have another attempt, feel free! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:19, 11 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

De grapheocratis iterum[fontem recensere]

Paginam electionum grapheocratarum creavi, ut supra disputavimus. Facilius erit, si non solum grapheocratam Vicipaedia habebit. Non negligere electionem hortor! Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:26, 12 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Octo Novem pro nec aliquis contra; Andreae grapheocratae de electione et nobis de grapheocrata novo gratulamur.
(Quid porro faciendum sit, nescio; magistratum aliquem scire spero) Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 23:22, 26 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Please ask our current grapheocrates on his enwiki talk page (en:User talk:Adam Bishop) to make Andrew his colleague ;-) --UV (disputatio) 00:19, 28 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Adam statim respondit. Grapheocratam secundum habetis! Gratias vobis ago. Semper pro bono publico, i.e. Vicipaedico, agam.
Rarius his ultimis diebus edidi quia aegrotabam, sed gradatim salutem recipero. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:31, 30 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Ut mox revalescas! Gratias pro labore incessabili tua ad Vicipaediam admeliorandam! --UV (disputatio) 22:51, 30 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

De anonymo Aragonensi[fontem recensere]

I have a general question, and hope anyone can come out with a solution. There is an anonymous contributor who repeatedly adds information about places in Aragonia. They never log-in and change their ip every time they contribute (making the {{invitatio}} useless), so there is no chance for us to communicate with him to make clarifications or to ask questions. Protecting the pages so that he has to create an account seems too harsh, and I doubt they will read this plea. Any thoughts?--Xaverius 14:39, 15 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Here is a list of these contributions. It would be possible to use Special:AbuseFilter to present this anonymous contributor with a warning message before each edit. (It would even – but this would, as you state, be a harsh measure – be possible to use Special:AbuseFilter to prevent these anonymous edits altogether, and to present this user with a warning message every time they attempt to edit). For the warning message, it would be a good idea to use a language (Aragonese? Other languages spoken in Spain?) that this contributor will probably understand. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:11, 15 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
It depends on whether the general effect of these edits is to make Vicipaedia better or worse. My impression is "better". I note the minor improvement to Cadmium, which appears in UV's list. If my impression is correct, we have no reason to discourage editing, just to write a message of advice. For example, the addition of a "Capsa urbis" (as recently to Granienum) will be a waste of time, because it will be soon be replaced.
I wasn't aware of this function of Special:AbuseFilter. We could probably use it in a perfectly friendly way to advise one or two other long term anonymous editors. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:53, 16 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
The message could simply be "Hi there, and thanks for your edits. Please have a look at the talk pages of the articles you have worked on." Any further communication should then be on the talk pages. (A look of theirs into the Granienum talk page could already be fruitful.) Sigur (disputatio) 10:34, 16 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
I never got the impression that they would be reading the discussion pages, but I may give it a try. And how could we make the Abuse Filter seem like a friendly indicator of "please stop for a second, I just have a few questions"?--Xaverius 10:33, 17 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that they read them, either. That's why I suggested to invite them to do so. Of couse we should write our comments or questions on those pages first, then. Maybe the warning can even have links to them? To make it friendly, I think it's enough to start out with "Bene advenisti in Vicipaediam! Gratias tibi agimus pro conlationibus tuis." Sigur (disputatio) 19:32, 17 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Mutationes[fontem recensere]

Mutatione in pagina aliqua facta, non iam video, quo modo legentibus significare possim, quae mutavi. Quid faciendum est?--Bavarese (disputatio) 18:54, 19 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Si quaestionem recte intellexi, in historia paginae omnes mutationes videri possunt (HIstoriam inspicere). Aut editor ipse in pagina disputationis vel alicubi scribere debet, si vult, ut ceteri animum advertant. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 23:05, 19 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

German administrative units[fontem recensere]

There is some hesitation concerning the translation of some German administrative units, e.g. circulus and pagus for Kreis. I think they should be uniform. Below I list the different units, my suggested translation and any alternative translations I'm aware of.

German Suggested Latin Alternatives
Bundesland terra foederalis respublica foederalis
Bezirk circumdarium
Regierungsbezirk praefectura provincia (administrativa), circumdarium exsecutivum
Landschaftsverband confoederatio regionalis consociatio regionalis
(hist.) Provinz provincia
Kreis circulus pagus
Landkreis circulus rusticus pagus rusticus, circulus terrae, circulus provincialis
(hist.) Stadtkreis circulus urbanus pagus urbanus
Stadt urbs
kreisfreie Stadt urbs nullius circuli urbs nullius pagi, circulus urbanus, urbs circulo carens
Amt ballia
Gemeinde commune municipium
Verbandsgemeinde commune confoederale commune generale
Samtgemeinde commune confoederale commune generale

Some explanations:

  • "Bezirk" can be very different things, and in particular part of a city (as in Berlin) or on the other hand a large territory (as in the former GDR), but the "-zirk" in "Bezirk" is the same root as the "circ-" in "circumdarium" (+ the French or Belgian "arrondissements" are often translated as "Bezirke").
  • Regierungsbezirk: Its head (the "Regierungspräsident") has the same function as a French "préfet". Additionally, I don't like the "provincia" we have, because it collides with the historical Prussian provinces (which were subdivided in Regierungsbezirke).
  • "Amt" corresponds to French "baillage" which is said to be derived from Latin "ballia".

There is no hurry in this. It's not as if I'm going to streamline everything tomorrow, but whenever we work on pages concerned by this, we should be using translations consistently as will - hopefully - have been agreed here. Sigur (disputatio) 23:38, 22 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

How much of this is likely to appear in Habsburg Latin documents? Would that be helpful?--Xaverius 09:46, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
You mean from Austria-Hungary? Not so much, as Austrian administrative organisation is different (including terminology). That being said, there might of course be interesting Latin words nobody has thought of, yet, in this context. Sigur (disputatio) 11:04, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
I meant more the earlier Burgundian/Spanish Habsburgs (15th/16th c), which would be more likely to have latin administrative texts. But would not know.--Xaverius 11:07, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
But in fact Latin was still being used administratively in Hungary in the 18th and maybe even 19th century. Yes, the vocabulary could well be useful if we can trace the publications. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:08, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)
Is commune generale for Samtgemeinde attested somewhere? Cf. Categoria:Communia generalia Saxoniae Inferioris. --UV (disputatio) 20:57, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Verba commune confoederalis scribi debent commune confoederale. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 21:32, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Enim. Correxi. Sigur (disputatio) 22:59, 23 Ianuarii 2020 (UTC)

Ratko Janev[fontem recensere]

Dear respectful editors, May I kindly ask you to create a short article on academician Ratko Janev, famous member of Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Sincerely yours, 178.222.6.107 11:52, 10 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Non-Western forenames[fontem recensere]

We recently had a discussion about the Latinisation of the name of Husainus filius Alis; in that case, there finally appeared to be an attested Latin form for that very person, and the issue was easily resolved.

However, in the discussion, the fact came up that our practice of Latinising forenames is not consistently applied when the names are not from what I will cautiously call a "Western" tradition. As I have pointed out there, it is clear that there will be more often attested Latin forms for "Western" names than for others. So be it. But there are others that are perfectly attested in Latin. At the mentioned occasion, I stumbled over several people called "Husainus". "Mahometus" is an obvious example. For "Mahmudus" and "Suleimanus" we even already have pages.

Whenever there is an attested Latin form, I don't see a reason not to use it, because we do it for other forenames as well. But in fact, it's not always done. For "Husainus" see e.g. the pages Hossein Rajabian, Hussein Kamil and Hossein Shahabi. I think we should be consistent and translate these names. In particular, in my opinion there is no objective definition of a "Western" or - worse - "Judeo-Christian" name; we would very quickly get into POV waters with that. What we can objectively determine is whether we have a source for a Latin form of a name or not. I consider that that should be our only criterion.

Any other points of view? Sigur (disputatio) 20:10, 14 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

In discussing this elsewhere it was I who observed that we have been most consistent in our transferring of Judaeo-Christian forenames to their Latin forms because they nearly always have one; also, I might have added, because these forms have until now been much easier to verify. Why the term I used is "worse" than "Western", I don't know, but, anyway, "Western" was not what I meant :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:37, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking of the reactions one might get when trying to categorise names as either "Western" or "Judeo-Christian". My assumption is that one might be "worse" than the other. Sigur (disputatio) 19:36, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
I can't understand that at all. The origin of names, and whether they have or don't have equivalents in Latin, are linguistic and historical questions. How does a value judgement like "worse" come into it? But never mind, it really doesn't matter!
Ah, hold on, by "worse" maybe you meant "more difficult"? If so, I can see what you're saying.
... or maybe that the reactions to one term would be worse than the reactions to the other term? I guess we have certainly shown that to be true! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:47, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
The latter. Sigur (disputatio) 22:47, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
Omnino assentio. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:53, 14 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
Categoriam praenominum Arabicorum creavi. Praeter Husainum Saddamum Husseinum ex Ephemeride habemus. Nescio, an Saddamus Husaini filius sine fonte renominandus est (Husseinus eius patronymum est). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 11:42, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
Certe e categoria a te creata versiones Latinas bonas praenominorum Arabicorum, quae usque adhuc difficiles repertu erant, sine mora verificare possumus! Macte! Quo facto, possumus etiam exempla non iam verta Latine statim vertere paginasque movere.
De patronymis autem necesse erit statuere. Certe possumus, sicut de Russis eorumque vicinis iam facere solemus, "ibn Muhammad" in "Mahometi filius" convertere. Sed Arabophoni sunt in variis civitatibus qui "ibn" omittere his diebus solent. (De casu Saddami nescivi ego, sed alii tales iam vidi.) Bulgari hodierni, si recte intellegi, talem rem faciunt: apud eos praenomen alterum, etiam sine coniunctione grammatica, est patris praenomen. Mea mente, si fontem habemus aut de nomine ipsius hominis pleno vel rituali, aut de praenomine patris, possumus eodem modo tale nomen interpretare: "Saddamus Husaini filius". Sine fonte, necesse erit "Saddamus Husainus" scribere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:26, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
N.B. ibn/bin = "filius": hoc fere ubique videmus. Āl verbum separatum vocali longo = "gentis": hoc in nominibus principum interdum videmus. Ergo Ḫalīfa ibn Salmān Āl Ḫalīfa apud nos erit fortasse "Chalifa Salmani filius gentis Chalifae" (id enim est praenomen conditoris dynastiae) aut "Chalifa Salmani filius Āl Ḫalīfa". Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:40, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
When we know that some Mahmood bin Mohammad is effectively called that way because his father's name was Mohammad, he should in my opinion indeed be "Mahmudus Mahometi filius", again simply as a matter of coherence, because we do that with Icelandic "surnames". But I suspect that some of these "ibn Salman" or "bin Ali" might have become fixed surnames handed down through the generations. And in that case, well we don't turn a German "Peter Hansen" into a "Petrus Ioannis filius" either, do we? Even less "Greta Hansen" into "Margarita Ioannis filius"; that would be outright silly, of course. So, to sum it up, I would say, as long as we don't know for sure what a given Arabic "surname" exactly is, we keep it simply transliterated; if we know it's a real patronym, we can translate it. As to "Āl Ḫalīfa" or "gentis Chalifae", I don't have a strong preference. I guess while we're at it, we can also translate it. Sigur (disputatio) 19:36, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
I believe your suspicion is unjustified. I've written quite a lot of biographies of writers and politicians with Arabic names, and looked at the names of quite a lot of their relatives and friends too, and I haven't come across one yet in which the "ibn/bin ..." is a fixed surname handed down through the generations. If there's evidence for that, please say. In my experience so far they are always real patronyms, just like those of Iceland, just like those of Greece and Russia and neighbouring countries. And we do correctly treat all those as patronyms. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:41, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
You might like to glance at en:Arabic name. I hadn't ever looked at it till now, but it seems to support what I've said. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 21:01, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
The Arab world is vast. I'm sure what you say applies in a lot (if not most) Arab countries. But I've just checked out Morocco (because I had a very specific suspicion): Morocco has fixed surnames, as said in Article 20 of their law on civil registration; it is chosen at the occasion of the first entry in the civil registration system and then "Le nom de famille choisi, une fois devenu définitif dans les conditions fixées par voie réglementaire, reste attaché à la personne qui le porte ainsi qu'à sa descendance..." No more patronyms. However, amongst Moroccan family names (the French "patronyme" means "surname", as you certainly know) you can find e.g. Benkhadra/بن خضراء, Benhenia/بن هَنية Ben M’Barek/بن مبارك, Bensaïd/بن سعيد and Benjelloun/بن جلون. Concerning the latter, we have a page on Tahar Ben Jelloun who is Moroccan. I don't know whether he has kids, but if he has, then Article 20 of the civil registration law tells us that they will also have the surname "Ben Jelloun" (not bin/bint Tahar). I've found "Taherus" attested, and we can thus move to Taherus Ben Jelloun, but "Ben Jelloun" is not a patronymic (anymore) in this case (and even worn by women, by the way; see Nadia Benjelloun). We thus should not treat it differently than other surnames (which we don't translate). I rest my case ☺. Sigur (disputatio) 22:47, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
P.S.: I have another suspicion, that with some more research, we can probably establish some very solid presumptions as to where (Maghreb?) and when (probably not earlier than the 20th century) such surnames may occur. And I'm not saying that we need watertight certainty in every case. Sigur (disputatio) 23:05, 15 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. I strongly agree with your second suspicion! It will be really useful if we manage to get it clearer. I have done few Moroccan biographies except royal ones and I didn't know of that particular exception. There are of course some cases elsewhere where the patronymic is part of the full name, but various kinds of cognomen, following the patronymic, are more commonly used in the short everyday form of the name. Surnames, as you say, are surnames, and in those cases the status of the patronym becomes irrelevant to us. How it all works further south from Morocco I'm still not sure: in that region ould/wuld (still an Arabic word) seems to take the place of ibn/bin. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:07, 16 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Etiam praenomina Arabica e Vetere Testamento orta Latine redigenda sunt: Yusuf => Iosephus, Iakub => Iacobus, Ibrahim => Abraham etc. Bibliander in Alcorano Latino eos omnes latinizavit (exempli gratia) et Vicipaedia paginas Abraham (Islam), Isaacus (Islam) (nec Ibrahim nec Isḥāq) habet. Et haec quaestio erit. Habemus et Ibraimum nec Abraham sultanum cum fonte. Invenientur casus, ubi regula nominum latinizandorum exigat unum, fontes alterum. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 22:47, 16 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Etiam de Suleimano et Salomone dubito. Sigur (disputatio) 08:39, 17 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
Mutationes iam a vobis factas laudo!
De praenominibus e.g. Germanicis, si de hominibus iam a se coaevisque Latine descriptis agit, formam a coaevis adhibitam accipere solemus, e.g. Willelmus Tyrensis (vide disputationem), redirectionibus saepe additis. Ergo, cum de praenominibus Arabicis et Hebraicis statuimus, (vide e.g. nomina et fontes iam sub "Suleimanus I (sultanus Ottomanicus)" citatos) certe non in Solomonem sine fontibus Latinis optimis mutare licet. (Certe iam bene scitis, o amici: ubique, si fons nominis Latini e.g. mediaevalis aut recentioris in pagina nostra iam citatur, molestum erit, nota servata, lemma incaute mutare.)
E primis quaesitionibus "Suleiman" mihi non e "Solomon" derivatum, sed e ra dicibus Arabicis productum esse videtur ... sed incertus sum! Licet distinctionem, iam multis fontibus Latinis confirmatam, retinere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:23, 17 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, I've seen Demetrius move Daniel Eliae filius and Dominicus Cabrini filius‎. I had some serious doubts about those pages as well, but no knowledge of Balkanic naming conventions. If anybody knows when these former patronyms have become fixed, it would be good to post that here. Sigur (disputatio) 20:32, 22 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know when, but in Austria-Hungary on the eve of the First World War it’s for sure the last name. - There are other ambiguities, Cvjetko = Flos? ("cvjet" is Serbian "flos", Cvjetko is more like Florianus, but I’m not sure, that it’s the same name, the same saint.Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:51, 22 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
We don't attempt to translate forenames. So far as I know there's no precedent for doing that, and it isn't in our policies. So without a convincing relevant source we don't say "Flos" for "Cvjetko": that would be original research. We transfer them to Latin if there are reliable sources for a Latin name of that person, or reliable precedents for the general practice. The usual precedents for our general practice on European names are publications with Latin title pages, university diplomas and public addresses in Latin, and Vatican documents; also scholarly works in Latin; also many tombstones. All of these adopt that practice. As Demetrius suggests, saints' names, easily verified, are good sources for a correct Latin form to choose. For Arabic names it has very recently become much easier than it used to be to find scholarly works on Oriental subjects in Latin on line, and surely these are among the precedents for the new practice with Arabic names. That's great.
Personal footnote: there was a move in 2007 or so to call the once famous Britney Spears "Britannia Spears" (a translation based on unreliable sources and a bit of guesswork). Had that move succeeded, I would have left Vicipaedia on the spot: I just wouldn't have thought it a serious undertaking any more. There's a fine line, I thought, between making a real modern Latin encyclopaedia and being a laughing stock. And I still think that, though I also think that we are not getting laughed at as much as we once were! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:00, 25 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
Florem removi, ne Britannia Spears fieret. — Serbi re vera Cvjetko et Florianum adaequabant, ut hic dicitur (necnon Srećko et Felicem etc.), sed dubium mihi est... Exempli gratia, Svetlanam, nomen Slavicae originis (de svet, lux), Ecclesia diu non agnoscebat et Svetlanas puellas ut Photinas baptizabat (Фотинья, Φωτεινή, de Graeco φῶς, lux); sed Svetlanam Alexievich aliasque multas in Photinam adhuc non movi, quamvis cogitabam (et quamvis movendas esse possunt). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 13:32, 25 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Added reflection[fontem recensere]

They are keeping me a bit hungry here, but reflecting after lunch, I think the above conclusion of mine was not sufficiently positive. Vicipaedia is getting far more valuable, informative articles added to it, day by day, than at any time in the past that I remember, and a lot of improvement of existing articles is quietly happening as well. When do we actually become the biggest ever Latin encyclopaedia? Or have we passed that milestone already? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:07, 25 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

We'll certainly be the most up-to-date, but it depends against which ones we are contesting for the title...--Xaverius 12:47, 25 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
I think it's likely that we're the largest. Our census tells us that Vicipaedia has 17,668,653 words. Comparing that with, I estimate that our articles would fill out more than thirteen Britannica-size volumes. Some contenders could be Pliny's Natural History, Hofmann's Lexicon Universale, and Forcellini's Onomasticon, so we should try to find out their word counts. Lesgles (disputatio) 14:38, 25 Februarii 2020 (UTC)
To conclude the personal anecdote, lunch on that day was bouillon. Dinner was bouillon too. Breakfast was a cup of black coffee, so called. Luckily that episode in my adventures is over and I am at home, eating normally, editing normally, and as happy as a sandboy.
I think of Forcellini as a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. My estimate, based on rough sampling, is that Pliny's Naturalis Historia is about 750,000 words; the online copy of Hofmann is close to 8,000,000 words, a great achievement for a single author. We have doubled that already, although, to adopt Jimmy Wales's expression, Vicipaedia is a work in progress, and we still have lots to do! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 7 Martii 2020 (UTC)
True about Forcellini, though the Onomasticon part sometimes goes into detail, about mythological figures and the like. Glad to hear you've recovered! I note that we're still missing an article about bouillon (ius carnium? bulligo?). :) Lesgles (disputatio) 18:01, 7 Martii 2020 (UTC)
"Nempe inter vernas ollae vicinus obunctae, crustula spumantis patinae bulligine tingis, crassi adipis macrum perfundens unguine panem", iam scripsit Saxo Grammaticus. Sigur (disputatio) 20:17, 7 Martii 2020 (UTC)

عيسى/ʿIsa[fontem recensere]

Quod censetis? Melius "Isa, -ae" quam "Iesus" scribere pro "عيسى/ʿIsa" (vide hic)? Sigur (disputatio) 23:13, 10 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Etiam si de nomine unoquoque paginas componere difficile et inutile est, index formarum Latinarum nominum Arabicorum componendus est, qui hunc morem Vicipaediae, quod in descriptionibus mutationum memoras, describat; editori alio hunc cognoscere facilius erit. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 14:56, 11 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. "Index formarum Latinarum nominum Arabicorum Persicorumque"? Et ibi indicem simplicem cum nexibus internis si paginam hominis praeclari cum fontibus habemus, et alio casu cum nexibus simplicibus externis? Ita:
Sigur (disputatio) 17:58, 11 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Et talis utilis erit, et cum translitterationibus — Abdalla (ʿAbdallāh, fontes) — utilior. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:30, 11 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Index horum nominum certe utilis erit (cf. Index praenominum); etiam paginas de singulis nominibus creare possumus. Quod ad nomen Isa attinet, puto hanc formam idoneam esse ad varios Isas (en:Isa bin Salman Al Khalifa etc.) nominandos, sed cum de Iesu Nazareno in contextis Islamicis loquamur, fortasse melius sit formam usitatam servare (cf. en:Jesus in Islam). Lesgles (disputatio) 17:04, 11 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Quod censetis de ista tabula? Sigur (disputatio) 19:31, 11 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Bene, magnum erit auxilium. Ad Vicidatum d:Q2393248 adiungi potest, en:List of Arabic given names Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 20:22, 11 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Litteras Arabicas nescio; si non recte Abdelazizum inserui, corrigendum est. Timui, ne in oblivione maneret. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 23:12, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Optime fecisti. Sigur (disputatio) 07:39, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Malaysian and Greek names[fontem recensere]

In modern Malaysian names the second element is (nearly always, I think) a patronymic. The word "bin" may officially appear, indicating this, but it seems fashionable to omit it. Therefore it will be misleading to put the second element into a Latin nominative form; logically it should be in the genitive, followed (or not) by "filius". If there is a third element, it will often end in -i and can be treated as a surname. See for example Abdullah Ahmad Badawi: it all becomes clear from his full name as given in the English article, confirmed by the family history: his father, Ahmad Badawi, was a religious figure who had duly performed the pilgrimage, hence the son is "Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi". "Abdullah Ahmedus Badawi" was therefore surely wrong. I moved him to the simpler "Abdullah Badawi": the alternative would be "Abdullah Ahmedi filius Badawi" ... awaiting a Latin form of the "Haji"! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:05, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)

I remember seeing a Malaysian passport with a name of the format "Givenname s/o Fathersgivenname", where "s/o" meant "son of". The person's ID card had the same, only with the corresponding Malay abbreviation instead of the English "s/o". Now that was some time ago, another millenium, actually. But he already told me about feminist activists using their patronymic as a Western-style surname (like "Ms Ahmad"). And some Malaysians do have real surnames, pretty certainly ethnic Chinese. So, with this inconsistent practice, it probably will be a case-by-case assessment, but when we are sure about the patronymic, yes, let's go for the structure Abdulla Ahmedi filius Badawi (BTW, I've seen tons of first declension occurences of "Abdulla" (and "Abdalla"), so let's not spoil our pleasure and drop the h). Sigur (disputatio) 15:49, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)

I have never been sure how to deal with Greek women's names. A woman's surname (a form of either her father's or her husband's surname) is always in the genitive. So, for example, should the new Greek president be Catharina Sacellaropulu (literal Latinization of the Greek surname) as we have so far done it, or should it be "Sacellaropuli" (normal Latin genitive of a Greek 2nd declension word)? Let's decide today, and I'll write it tomorrow! (This isn't relevant to my question, but this off-Wikipedia biography shows that she has retained her father's surname in the genitive, not adopted her husband's: her father is or was Νικόλαος Σακελλαρόπουλος and is notable enough to be named in our article.) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:08, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)

As these are surnames in the first place, I'm tempted to say not to touch them. But how do we treat Greek names? Would we inflect the surname when talking about the father in the genitive? Sigur (disputatio) 15:49, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Well, yes, we would. And likewise the accusative etc. It's an aspect of the special relationship (to borrow a political term) between Greek and Latin: all declinable nouns and proper names in either language are declinable in the other. But the reason we didn't do it with women's surnames till now is the reason you give. Which rule takes precedence? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:08, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
But then, hasn't the decision already been taken? We are talking about how we treat names, not people. We write Σακελλαρόπουλος Sacellaropulos in the nominative, and if it's genitive, we write Sacellaropuli. That's what you are saying? And I suppose it's not just etymological (like the German surname "Heinrichs" is the genitive of "Heinrich", but nobody remembers that); both the knowledgeable Latin reader and a modern Greek person perceive it as a genitive? Then let's stick to the genitive we use for the father. Sigur (disputatio) 18:29, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that opinion. I will give the article that title, wait for anyone else's reactions, and then change some others to match. There aren't very many as yet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:35, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)
On top, if it's the "special relationship", so be it. I was a bit worried about a slippery slope, e.g. any female Czech surname is an adjective, thus what Czechs say for "Ms Daisy Carpenter" is in fact "Ms Daisy, the Carpenterian one". You could argue that, given the Greek precedent, we should emulate that in Latin instead of using the Czech suffix and so forth. But I'm sure nothing can be equivalent to the special relationship between Rome and Greece. Sigur (disputatio) 18:29, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
It wasn't evident, but my political allusion was to the long-lasting special relationship between the US and the UK, which means in practice "Do what you want, O great former colony, then tell us, and we'll hastily find a reason to approve". But the one between Greek and Latin languages does contain some real reciprocity, I would say.
I had forgotten about Czech names. In that case, though, the (masculine) surname as we normally employ it is undeclinable in Latin, so I feel it would be obtrusive to try to reflect this grammatical detail in a Latin pagename. Unless we can find a good precedent: are there recent Latin gravestones/monuments? How did the name appear on those? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:25, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)
I had identified the two countries you were referring to, although I didn't push reflection on the nature of that relationship any further. As to Czech names, I don't know about any precedents, and as you might have read between the lines, I'm not really motivated to find them... Sigur (disputatio) 10:10, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Isn't the Czech case just a special instance of general Slavic tradition? One sees -ova as a surname of Russian women whose husband or father is -ov, and in Polish I think I've seen that Mr. Nadoly's wife is Mrs. Nadolna. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:11, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about Polish, but in Russian, you would simply create a feminine form, just as if you would replace 2nd declension by 1st in Latin. In Czech, the daughter of Mr Dienstbier will be Ms Dienstbierová (not simply Dienstbiera, as she would be in Russian). It's only if the surname already is an adjective that it won't get the suffix -ová; Daisy Black stays "Black", you would simply inflect the adjective as feminine. Sigur (disputatio) 16:00, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Iterum de capsis urbium[fontem recensere]

Ecce indicem paginarum ubi UVbot capsas varias removet capsamque simplicem inserit. Bene erit, si tempus habemus, has paginas inspicere resque utiles restituere, atque praesertim imaginem urbis, si nullam habemus, praebere. Paginis aliquibus iam editis, ritum cui obsequor subter exscribo ... sed Vicipaediani liberi sumus, aliique sine dubio alio modo laborabunt!

  1. Nisi pagina imagines iam habeat, categoriam apud Communia quaero et in fenestram novam aperio. Imaginem unam (ad minimum) seligo.
  2. Imagines per paginam distribuo: necesse est enim usoribus "mobilibus" textum + imagines monstrare, non murum imaginum. Nisi textum valde longum iam habeamus, imagines ad dextram partem cogo.
  3. Formulas {{CommuniaCat}} et {{Fontes geographici}}, nisi iam sint, semper addo: quo facto, pagina fontibus carentibus iam fontes habebit; in paginam peioribus imaginibus munitam editor ulterior imagines meliores faciliter addere poterit.
  4. Ordinem rerum, consensu iam diu decretum, restituo: Notae, Bibliographia, {{NexInt}}, Nexus externi.
  5. Titulos exclusivos Viri praeclari, Filii urbis, Cives praeclari etc. in Incolae notabiles muto.
  6. Rubricam Urbes coniunctae vel sim., si eadem enumeratio in capsa iam reperitur, deleo; si autem textu Latino exprimitur, annosque coniunctionis, notas fontium, etc., praebet, retineo.
  7. Sub {{NexInt}} nomina paginarum, si casu accusativo exprimuntur, in nominativum reddo; nomina sive inutilia, sive in textu duplicata, sive rubra, deleo.

Rarius eodem tempore textum corrigo, rarius augeo ... sed si alii hanc rem eodem tempore facere possint, assiduitatem laudo! Certe necesse est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:18, 16 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

Editathon Barii[fontem recensere]

Ave fratres! Barii copiosa scripto (anglice “editathon”) de Vicipedia Vicifonteque apud Lyceum scientiae facenda est. Alumnii scholae, cum magistri auxilio, paginam/librum recensebunt Vestrum auxilium et vestram inspectionem peto.--FerdiMMV[Epistulae] 20:32, 17 Februarii 2020 (UTC)

De pagina nova creanda[fontem recensere]

Salvete,

Nuper nomen meum imposui in Vicipaedia et tironissimus sum.

Possumne creare novam paginam de hodierno Francogallico scriptore Francisco Gilbert (François Gilbert), qui operam dat historiae romanae ?

Hic infra est contributio, quae addere velim :

Franciscus Gilbert est francogallicus historicus, consors investigator in Instituto Generali de Scientificis Investigationibus (francogallice CNRS, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique). Multos libros edidit, pertinentes ad historiam romanam, de militaribus et gladiatoriis rebus. Creavit Lugdunensem consocationem Pax Augusta, quae se dedit restitutioni historiae romanae.

Nexus externi : http://paxaugusta.fr/, situs consocationis https://criminocorpus.hypotheses.org/57379, brevis effictio scriptoris in Interrete https://www.actes-sud.fr/recherche/catalogue/collection/1304/contributeur_paragraph_contributeur/35635?keys= , libri, in quibus Franciscus Gilbert partem cepit (sive contributor, sive scriptor)

Gratias multas omnibus ago.

Bene advenisti! Non video cur paginam creare tu ipse non potes. Et si menda sunt emendabimus. Sigur (disputatio) 17:15, 4 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Gratiosus apud nos Vicipaediam augere poteris. Quamquam te "tironissimum" esse dicis, tamen adeo bona Latinitate uti videris, ut ex emendationibus (si quae erunt) utilitatem capere possis. Neander (disputatio) 19:14, 4 Martii 2020 (UTC)

User with IP adresses can change Userpages ?[fontem recensere]

Hello, My question refers to [2]. Otourly (disputatio) 19:08, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Actually, this kind of abuse begs another question: Shouldn't we adopt the policy to simply delete such pages/changes? It's apparently being used as a template to ask other users to copy text from there. If it's that, we should make sure nobody actually can copy from the history. Sigur (disputatio) 19:21, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. This page was created by a long-term vandal, see e. g. en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ConsumersDistributingonline/Archive. I have now deleted this page. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:41, 13 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Somnolentia?[fontem recensere]

O magistratus! Dormitis? Videte hic. Res diu delenda est. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:21, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Cat yawning in park.jpg
Gratias, Iacobe (velut Sigure), ago.
Quam maxime ad veritatem scripsisti!
Andreas Raether (disputatio) 17:44, 14 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Caretaker government /gouvernement en affaires courantes[fontem recensere]

Anyone an idea how to translate this (an executive in a parliamentary democracy who has limited powers due to not having the confidence of parliament (anymore))? Sigur (disputatio) 16:19, 17 Martii 2020 (UTC)

A caretaker is a custos, so maybe a phrase based on that would work. Rectio custodialis perhaps? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:55, 17 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Professions, functions etc.[fontem recensere]

We recently had a discussion at Capsa hominis Vicidata, because I had noticed that the infobox gives as "officium" and "munus" the labels from Wikidata, which are generally generic masculines, while the person in question may be a woman. Extracting the "female form of label" (where it exists) turns out to be too complicated for any of us. Andrew then suggested that we might use lemmas like "munus politicum" that are neutral instead and update Wikidata accordingly. As I put it there, the label could e.g. be "cantus", with the statement "female form of label" still "cantrix" and the statement "male form of label" still "cantor". But as this goes beyond infoboxes, I thought we should discuss it here. Sigur (disputatio) 16:34, 17 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Me id proposuisse, mi Sigur, confiteor. Sed, exemplis aliquibus capsae biographicae nostrae iterum perlectis, quaero an melius erit lineas "Officium/Munera" ex his capsis biographicis delere! Recte dicis: verba ibi praebita interdum masculina, loco femininorum, sunt. Sed multo saepius Anglice, loco Latine, exprimuntur. Saepius etiam multiplicantur usque ad infinitum.
  • Paula Abdul in textu brevissimo nostro quinque munera Latina habet, id quod iam ridiculum est, sed apud Vicidata tredecim munera! Tales enumerationes nudae lectoribus humanis omnino inutiles sunt.
  • Dianá Abbott textum perbrevem sed non inutilem damus. Secundum Vicidata tredecim officia verbosissima, Anglice expressa, duoque munera habuit.
An possumus omnia talia apud Vicidata in Latinitatem reddere? Quo facto, an utile erit? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:01, 17 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Briefly, for readers who find English easier: Yes, I proposed that, but! Looking at typical infoboxes, their inclusion of extensive, boring, undigested English under "Officium/Munera" is much worse than the gender issue. We could cure both by deleting "Officium/Munera" from the infobox. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 18 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Mihi tamen videtur haec linea delenda non esse; in multis capsis haec unica (praeter annos vitae) expleta est, et bonis verbis Latinis. Perdemus laborem eorum, qui haec munera in Vicidata inseruerunt, etiam in duobus generibus; acquisitiones maiores, quam damna, non erunt. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 17:02, 18 Martii 2020 (UTC)
It's true that I had accidentally given Andrew some pretty extreme examples there, which are probably not really representative... Sigur (disputatio) 17:09, 18 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Cum vocabula Latine non reddita in capsa abundant nec facultas ad vertendum ea in Vicidatis est, ipsae capsae paginarum singularum deleri possunt, nec officia in omnibus capsis. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:51, 18 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Id autem facere non possumus. Haec capsa res sub quaque rubrica Vicidatorum repertas aut omnibus casibus haurit, si id mandamus, aut nullis. Ab initio (anno 2015) eas rubricas selegi, sub quibus res utiliores reperiebantur. Eas rubricas, cuius res saepissime Anglice exprimuntur, sub lineis celatis ordinavi: hac ratione "Officia" et "Munera" sub lineis celatis videntur. Ergo tres optiones habemus, sed ad omnes paginas biographicas eodem modo applicandae: (1) rem monstrare (e.g. imago, nativitas, obitus); (2) rem monstrare sub lineis celatis (e.g. munera, officia); (3) rem omittere.
Quibus rebus dictis, disputationibus nostris rursus perlectis, ad verba Demetrii supra dicta "haec linea delenda non esse; in multis capsis haec expleta est bonis verbis Latinis. Perdemus laborem eorum, qui haec munera in Vicidata inseruerunt; acquisitiones maiores, quam damna, non erunt" -- revenio et cum eo consentio! Capsa imperfecta est, sed, mea mente, labore mutationum difficilium tempus nostrum perdemus. Melius est possibilitates futuras exspectare. Quid dicitis? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:17, 18 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Cur dicis nos capsas (non rubricas!) singularum paginarum delere non posse? Res mihi facilis appparet... Sigur (disputatio) 21:09, 18 Martii 2020 (UTC)
Id dicere non volui. Verba Demetri hora 19:51 scripta sine cura legi. Cavete autem: si capsam e.g. imaginem dataque vitalia comprehendentem delemus (a) res utiles perdimus (b) automaticum verificationis opus ab UVbot factum interdicimus.
His capsis ad labores nostros diminuendos introductis, ab hac disputatione nunc abstineo quia paginas plures creare volo. Salvete optime :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:18, 19 Martii 2020 (UTC)
...et creavi! Uno die, quattuor ministros rerum externarum! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:28, 21 Martii 2020 (UTC)

Macrons?[fontem recensere]

Could one use macrons in the articles? I think most people agree that macrons are useful for the correct pronunciation of Latin, and it also helps with the distinction between certain words. Why are they not used here?

Already have a look here, here and here. Sigur (disputatio) 16:36, 20 Martii 2020 (UTC)