Fontem paginae Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 18 inspicere

{{Antiqua disputatio|ab=2011-09-18|ad=2012-10-17}}

== [[:fr:Tutoiement et vouvoiement|Tutoiement / vouvoiement]], [[:en:T–V distinction|T–V distinction]] ==
Quo modo reddatur, exempli gratia, phrasis "[[Lingua Cambrica|Le gallois]] pratique le vouvoiement de la même façon que le français"? [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 20:02, 18 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
:Cambri eadem urbanitate alias dignitates salutant, ut Galli. --[[Usor:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|Martinus Poeta Juvenis]] 16:25, 24 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
::Bonum et perspicuum est enuntiatum. Nescio autem qualis debeat esse titula paginae, si paginam volumus. "Pronomina urbanitatis," fortasse? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 17:50, 24 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
:::[[Distinctio T-V]] (nomen ad ''T-V-distinction,'' locutionem a Brown & Gilman factam, proximum)? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 19:22, 24 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
::::"Lingua Cambrica item atque lingua Francogallica [[distinctio T-V|distinctione T-V]] utitur"? Aut, cum in Vicipaedia Latina neque Francogallica scribamus, "Propter [[Distinctio T-V|distinctionem T-V]], homo unus, gradui congruenter urbanitatis, pronominibus et ''ti'' "tu" et ''chi'' "vos" appellari potest"? [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 23:53, 24 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

[[Fasciculus:Fyrstikkalleen skole mac.jpg|thumb|left|upright=1.5|... et sine intervallo Latine scribere]]
== Categoria: "Homines ex quibus taxa appellantur"? ==
Since we have categories for each of several taxonomic levels named for people (with more to come!), maybe we should also have categories constructed in the opposite direction: categories for people whose names have become taxonomic? For instance, [[Henricus Suter]] (1841–1918) is honored in the specific epithets of ''[[Asteracmea suteri]], [[Athoracophorus suteri]], [[Dentalium suteri]], [[Limatula suteri]], [[Munditia suteri]], [[Oligosoma suteri]], [[Omphalotropis suteri]], [[Peripatoides suteri]], [[Rhyssoplax suteri]],'' and ''[[Tugali suteri]].'' (Most are gastropods; one is a skink.) For readers who might want to find the taxonomic names derived from people's names, such a category perhaps ought to be developed. What would be the best phrasing? "Homines ex quibus taxa appellantur" (~ "appellata sunt")? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:24, 24 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
:It's logical, certainly, and the category name looks OK to me.
:You (I say "you" because you are currently the Vicipaedian with the enthusiasm to do do this!) would be giving yourself a fair bit of extra work, I think, because the identity of the person commemorated is not ''always'' immediately evident from the article about the taxon (though one would think it ought to be!) Additionally, in the example you give, you can't add [[Henricus Suter]] to the proposed category until we have a page for Henricus Suter. So initially you would be dependent on whether we have a bio about the person commemorated; if we haven't, there won't be any page to add to this category (unless/until you write the page yourself) ... Have I understood you correctly? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:44, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

== Babel categories ==
The Babel system, which is widely used on la.wikipedia, allows users to indicate the languages that they speak or understand on their userpage.

(A few days ago, the Babel ''extension'' has been deployed on all wikimedia wikis. This extension might at last make the dozens of Babel ''templates'' unnecessary - more about the extension in a few days' time!)

The arrival of the Babel extension marks a good opportunity to re-think our current Babel category naming scheme. Currently, we have the following categories (and when the Babel template is used on a userpage, then the userpage is automatically placed in the corresponding category):
* [[:Categoria:Linguae usorum]]
** [[:Categoria:Usor nl]]
*** [[:Categoria:Usor nl-N]] native speaker
*** [[:Categoria:Usor nl-4]] nearly native speaker
*** [[:Categoria:Usor nl-3]]
*** [[:Categoria:Usor nl-2]]
*** [[:Categoria:Usor nl-1]] basics
*** <s>[[:Categoria:Usor nl-0]]</s> no understanding at all (only for ''la'', not for other languages)
** [[:Categoria:Usor it]] etc.

I propose the following two changes (which I would perform in the course of the possible implementation of the Babel extension – more about that later):
# I propose to rename [[:Categoria:Usor qqq-#]] to [[:Categoria:Usores qqq-#]] (''Usor''→''Usores'', in order to comply with our ''Nomina categoriarum sunt pluralia'' rule, see [[VP:CAT]]).
# I propose to rename the Babel root category from [[:Categoria:Linguae usorum]] to [[:Categoria:Usores secundum linguas]] (or [[:Categoria:Usores secundum linguas digesti]] or … what would be the best name)?

Objections? Comments? --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 23:37, 25 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
:Very good idea. As to the name of the new root category, the style including "secundum" is not preferred, I think; my understanding is that among our stylists Iacobus goes for the ablative "Usores lingua digesti" while Neander prefers per+acc. "Usores per linguas digesti". Maybe they, or others, would like to comment further. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:36, 27 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
:: Thank you! I am in the process of moving the categories, and I have chosen [[:Categoria:Usores lingua digesti]] for now but the latter category name can easily be changed. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 23:25, 28 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

=== Switching from Babel templates to the Babel extension ===
Since a few days ago, the Babel extension is active on all wikimedia wikis. This extension may make the Babel templates that we currently have obsolete. For a few examples of the Babel extension in action, see [[Vicipaedia:Babel]] (please help improve this page!) and [[User:Jafeluv]].

In usage and in appearance, the Babel extension is very similar to the Babel templates. The difference in usage is that while the Babel templates are used using <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>babel'''|'''fr-2|la-1|grc-1}}</code>, the Babel extension is used using <code><nowiki>{{</nowiki>'''#'''babel''':'''fr-2|la-1|grc-1}}</code> (note the hash sign # near the beginning and note that the first language code is not preceded by a pipe symbol | but is instead preceded by a colon : ).

Advantages/Disadvantages:

The Babel extension has one big advantage: It does not need any templates (currently, when a new user comes around who speaks a new language, we have to fetch the appropriate Babel templates from, say, en.wikipedia – with the Babel extension, all Babel boxes for all languages should in theory be available).

The Babel extension has a number of small disadvantages, all of which I consider relatively minor:
* The text in the language boxes links just to the language category, not to the language-skill category (the language-skill category can be found near the bottom of the page).
* The language code in the language boxes does not directly link to the article about the language (but I added the link to the article about the language to most of the Babel category pages).
* Using other boxes (e. g. the {{fn|Usor globalis}} template) ''within'' the Babel box is somewhat tricky and in some cases not possible. However, such other boxes can be placed e. g. just below the Babel box.
* Language boxes cannot be used outside of the Babel box. Thus, language boxes cannot e. g. be arranged horizontally next to each other instead of vertically one below the other, as they are in the Babel box.

Despite these small disadvantages, I propose (and I volunteer, partly with the help of UVbot) to switch all userpages where Babel templates are currently in use to the Babel extension and thereafter to delete all Babel templates, in order to get a homogeneous look (no mixing between Babel templates and the Babel extension) and in order never to have to worry about maintaining Babel templates any more.

Questions/Objections/Comments? --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 23:25, 28 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
:I think we should be grateful to you (and UVbot!) for offering to sort this out. It'll be much better when done. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:51, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
::I like this: anything that makes this kind of maintenance easier is a Good Thing. And I'll be delighted to be able to identify myself as a Sanskritist, too! If you need another pair of hands, let me know (and I do have Python installed here so if more bot-work is required I can pitch in there too). [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 12:07, 29 Septembris 2011 (UTC)
::: All done! A. Mahoney, thank you for offering your help! Luckily, we are a bit smaller than en.wikipedia, so UVbot and I could manage ;-) --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 21:54, 8 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

OK, who are the wiseguys who marked themselves [[:Categoria:Usores_la-N|la-N]]? --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 19:35, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== Pagina mensis ==
We need to agree on pages for the rest of the year. Please comment at [[Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis]].

Oportet paginas laureare pro mensibus Octobri, Novembri, Decembri. S.v.p. commenta addere apud [[Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis]]. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:36, 27 Septembris 2011 (UTC)

== Historia Graeca ==
Shouldn't [[Historia Graeca]] and [[Graecia antiqua]] be merged?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 21:59, 8 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:In the long run, not necessarily ... Many other wikis have both; "Ancient Greece" and "History of Greece". But I agree that our current article [[Graecia antiqua]] doesn't do what it should; it is just a short section from a "History of Greece" article. If you have the enthusiasm, I'd say, you could certainly merge them into a single history -- which certainly needs to be written! -- and afterwards decide if a more specialised article [[Graecia antiqua]] is also needed. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 07:06, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

== An unexpected vicissitude ==
During the creation of articles, is there a reason the "Custodire hanc paginam" box has moved from a position above the "Monstrare praevisum" box to a position above the "Servare hanc rem" box? An unwanted result, since one always wants to preview a new contribution before saving it, is additional effort, since checking the box and then clicking on "Monstrare praevisum" requires more motion of the cursor. (Another result is the danger that after clicking the box, one will nudge the "Servare hanc rem" box prematurely.) In the tradeoff of design & function, that's the loss. What's the gain? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:29, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, that took me by surprise as well. I agree it's bad, and for another reason: it is exactly where you expect the "Haec est recensio minor" box to be, and so I have been unchecking it, and now realise I need not have done so. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 12:51, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::Ah yes, that's another point of confusion. Could that box be put back where it was? or could an explanation be offered? ¶ Also, the past few days, we've seen a change in how the categories are displayed (at the bottom of articles): more space occurs on either side of the divider ("|"), at least on my screen, where it looks like unnecessary airiness. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:52, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::: As to the position of the "Custodire hanc paginam" checkbox: The current version of MediaWiki does not allow an edit to be marked as minor when this edit creates a new page or when the "Partem novam addere" feature is used. Consequently, the "Haec est recensio minor" checkbox is not present in these cases, which causes the "Custodire hanc paginam" checkbox to move to the far left in these cases. I agree that this inconsistent position of the "Custodire hanc paginam" checkbox is bad. I have filed a bug report here: [[bugzilla:31567]].
::: By the way, Iacobe: If you (nearly) always watch those pages that you create, you can use a preference for that: [[Specialis:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist]], check "Paginas quas creo in paginarum custoditarum indicem addere".
::: As to the changed display of the categories list: Yes, that too is a change that was introduced by the current version of MediaWiki. The "airiness" can be observed e. g. on de.wikipedia or fr.wikipedia as well. Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 20:56, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::It is indeed a Very Good Thing that it is no longer possible to mark new pages as minor edits. I know I sometimes do this by mistake. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:19, 10 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::::Indeed, our longest article, the longest on its subject in all of Vicilandia ([[Cultura]]), was so marked at its inception. :/ [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 00:00, 24 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

== Ubi quaestio pro automato? ==
Ubi quaeso pro automato? Est pagina ''[[:en:Wikipedia:Bot requests]]'' in Vicipaedia Latina? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 20:25, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
: We have a request page for category move requests: [[Vicipaedia:Automata/Category move requests]]. For other bot requests, the Taberna is a good place (or my talk page for uncontroversial requests, since I operate a bot on la.wikipedia). Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 20:36, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:: Thank you - gratias tibi ago. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 21:01, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

== Automaton pro Formula:Commune Italianum ==
[[Formula:Commune Italianum]] started from [[:it:Template:Comune]] but now this template has been deleted from Italian Wikipedia. Right now I think that there is no reason to keep the old parameter names in Italian from that template. I think that a bot can (easily?) replace the old parameter names with the corresponding latin name.
<pre>
nomeComune -> NomenItalicum
nomeUfficiale -> NomenOfficiale
linkStemma -> Insigne
nomeAbitanti -> IncolarumNomen
nomeComuneLOC -> NomenLocale
siglaRegione -> RegionisSigla
siglaProvincia -> ProvinciaeSigla
latitudineGradi -> LatitudinisGradi
latitudineMinuti -> LatitudinisMinuta
latitudineSecondi -> LatitudinisSecunda
longitudineGradi -> LongitudinisGradi
longitudineMinuti -> LongitudinisMinuta
longitudineSecondi -> LongitudinisSecunda
altitudine -> Altitudo
superficie -> Area
abitanti -> NumerusIncolarum
anno -> Annus
densita -> SpissitudoIncolarum
frazioni -> Fractiones
comuniLimitrofi -> CommuniaProxima
cap -> NumerusCursualis
prefisso -> PraefixumTelephonicum
fiscale -> NumerusTributarius
istat -> ISTAT
patrono -> Patronus
festivo -> DiesSollemnis
sito -> PaginaInterretialis
provincia -> Provincia
regione -> Regio
</pre>
Can someone please help?

This template has other issues, but I will analyze the results of this first bot before asking for other help. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 21:14, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
: UVbot can do this rather easily. Beforehand, can someone please comment whether the new parameter names are good Latin? --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 21:18, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::For "official," Cassell's says to use "''publicus'' (= of the state)"; so, for ''Nomen officiale,'' better ''Nomen publicum.'' ¶ ''Incolarum nomen'' is backward, and might better be ''Nomen incolarum.'' ¶ ''Locale'' isn't a (classical) word; for "local," Cassell's says to "render by a genitive, such as ''loci, regionis.''" So: ''Nomen loci.'' ¶ The eight phrases starting with ''RegionisSigla'' are backward. ¶ ''Gradi'' isn't a Latin word. ¶ The mysterious ''Fractiones'' has been discussed elsewhere. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 21:46, 9 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::Well, these are some of the OTHER issues of this template :) The template is already working with the Latin or pseudoLatin names on the right side. I thought that we could fix one issue per time, anyway if we want to fix ALL the issues together then the discussion will be much longer. What is the preference in these cases? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 07:25, 10 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::If I understand correctly, what is listed above will never appear on our pages: it will be hidden in the workings of the template. Yes, we want it to be good Latin and not Italian, but there is no need for it to be perfectly idiomatic.
::::Cassell's is handy for Iacobus because (I suspect) he has it on his desk, but it's not the ideal authority for Vicipaedia because (so far as I know) it isn't on line.
::::"Officialis" is in Lewis & Short. I would say it's OK, it serves our purpose -- in fact I think we can hardly manage without this word. However, I don't know what the difference is between nomeComune and nomeUfficiale: Can you explain, Achille?
::::I take it that what is meant by nomeComuneLOC is "name in local language/dialect". If I am correct, better than "NomenLoci" would be "NomenVernaculum", I think.
::::For Frazioni I continue to prefer "Vici". [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:02, 10 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::::''Officialis'' is indeed in L&S, where it's shown to be postclassical, and its meaning, especially its basic meaning (which might be summarized as 'relating to duty'), isn't the most usually heard modern one (which might be summarized as 'prescribed for public use'). An official language is a language prescribed for public use, not a language relating to duty. Perhaps, though, one could sneak ''officialis'' in, like the proverbial camel's nose, under the notion of 'relating to use in (government) offices', where one might indeed expect to encounter the use of an official language. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:35, 10 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, Iacobe amice! Yes, I admit its postclassicality, but it is such a handy word in the bureaucratic (= "ruled by people in offices") world that we live in ... [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:43, 10 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::::::"NomenOfficialis" is the name to be used in offices. For most Italian municipalities it is the same name than "NomenItalicus", but for some municipalities it is the compound of the Italian name and the local name, for instance "Bolzano / Bozen" is the official name of [[Bauzanum]]. "NomenLocale" is the name in the "second" language, for instance "Bozen" for Bauzanum. Well, just note that the "second" language may be the "first spoken" language for some municipalities.
:::::::I add "NomenItalicus" to the issues, because it should be "NomenItalianum".
:::::::In order to simplify the fixes I need the help of the botter(s): a first run of the bot should perform the changes exactly as above, even if the issues about the names are not solved yet. Then I can fix the template by removing the Italian parameter names and adding support for the new better Latin names that we are discussing right now. After this, I will need a second run of the bot in order to replace the worse Latin names with the better Latin names. Sorry to ask this but this procedure will simplify the fixes to the template and have a less risk of mulfunction of the pages that include the template. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 14:55, 10 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: Ok, first rune is done. Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 00:16, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: Great, thank you. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 11:54, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:Let's recap and see.
:*LatitudinisGradi -> GradusLatitudinis
:*LongitudinisGradi -> GradusLongitudinis
:*NomenItalicum -> NomenItalianum ?
:*NomenLocale -> NomenVernaculum ? NomenLinguaLocali ? ''(fixed)''
:*NomenLocaleAliud -> NomenVernaculumAliud ? NomenLinguaLocaliAlia ? ''(fixed)''
:*NomenOfficiale -> NomenPublicum ?
:*Fractiones -> ViciMunicipii ? ViciInMunicipio ? PartesMunicipii ?
:*PerCentumItalice -> PerCentumItaliane ? ''(added)''
:*PerCentumLocale -> ? ''(added)''
:*PerCentumLocaleAlio -> ? ''(added)''
:Just to revert genetivus with noun (I will add other parameters I found in the template):
:*IncolarumNomen -> NomenIncolarum
:*RegionisSigla -> SiglaRegionis
:*ProvinciaeSigla -> SiglaProvinciae
:*LatitudinisMinuta -> MinutaLatitudinis
:*LatitudinisSecunda -> SecundaLatitudinis
:*LongitudinisMinuta -> MinutaLongitudinis
:*LongitudinisSecunda -> SecundaLongitudinis
:*NominisGenetivus -> GenetivusNominis ?
:*ImaginisInscriptio -> InscriptioImaginis ?
:*NominisLocalisLingua -> LinguaNominisLocalis ? (see NomenLocale for alternate forms)
:*NominisLocalisAliisLingua -> LinguaNominisLocalisAliis ? (see NomenLocaleAliud for alternate forms)
:*RegionisNexus -> NexusRegionis ?
:*ProvinciaeNexus -> NexusProvinciae ?
:*LinguarumAnnus -> AnnusLinguarum ?
:*LinguarumIncolae -> IncolaeLinguarum ?
:*MagistriCiviumAnnus -> AnnusMagistriCivium ?
:And last but not least... Formula:Commune Italianum seu Formula:Municipium Italiae? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 13:12, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::If you prefer "NomenLinguaLoc..." to "NomenVernaculum", OK, but it needs to be "NomenLinguaLocali". All place-names are local names: the point of this one is that it's in a local language, so the word "localis" has to be in the same case as "lingua" -- ablative here.
::"NominisLocalisLingua", "NominisLocalisAliisLingua", "LinguarumAnnus" and "LinguarumIncolae" make no sense to me. I can't offer a better version for those because I don't understand them. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:32, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::As pointed out above, ''localis, -e'' isn't a (classical) word; for English ''local,'' Cassell's says to "render by a genitive, such as loci, regionis." So: LinguaNominisLoci &c. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:50, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::Here is the explanation required: some municipalities have statistics about the languages spoken by the inhabitants, as declared by themselves in some census of some year. So the first language in the statistics is always [[Lingua Italiana]], the second language is "NominisLocalisLingua" and (if present) the third language is "NominisLocalisAliisLingua". The year of the census is "LinguarumAnnus" and the inhabitant count for that census are "LinguarumIncolae"; this can be different than "Annus" which is the year for the census of "NumerusIncolarum". The percentages are respectively "PerCentumItalice" (should be changed to "PerCentumItaliane") "PerCentumLocale" and "PerCentumLocaleAlio". I added these three parameters in the list above.
::::Regardless of whether the statistics about the spoken languages are present, the language in which "NomenLocale" is written is "NominisLocalisLingua" and (if present) the language in which "NomenLocaleAliud" is written is "NominisLocalisAliisLingua". Note that only few municipalities have a compound "NomenOfficiale"; if this applies, the official name is a compound of "NomenItalicum" and "NomenLocale". On the other side a municipality can have a "NomenLocale" in some "NominisLocalisLingua" language but in fact its official name is simply "NomenItalicum".
::::Thank you for the note about ablative, I fixed it though the adjective is still disputed. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 14:10, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::::"Localis" ''is'' a word (see L&S), though, again, postclassical. But if it's likely to be disputed, I suggest "NomenVernaculum" even more strongly.
:::::I see what those names mean now. Then I would say:
:::::# NominisLocalisLingua > LinguaNominisVernaculi
:::::# NominisLocalisAliisLingua > LinguaNominisVernaculi2
:::::# LinguarumAnnus > AnnusDescriptionisLinguarum
:::::# LinguarumIncolae > Locutores
:::::# PerCentumItalice > ItalianePerCentum
:::::# PerCentumLocale > VernaculePerCentum
:::::# PerCentumLocaleAlio > Vernacule2PerCentum
:::::For the word "descriptio" meaning "census" (in more or less the modern sense), see the page I created [[Descriptio in Bethleem (Bruegel)]]. But that's a word from the Versio Vulgata: someone may have a more classical word for it! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:34, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::::If our grammars are to be believed, Classical Latin sometimes uses a genitive where modern languages use an adjective: so 'local name' is ''nomen loci'' 'name of a place', not ''nomen locale'' (which might have struck Cicero, one imagines, as something intelligible but goofy, like 'placey name'), and visual art is ''ars oculorum'' 'art of the eyes', not ''ars visualis'' (which similarly might have had the quality of 'sighty art') and 'headache' is ''capitis dolor'' 'pain of the head', not ''dolor capitalis'' (which similarly might have had the quality of 'heady pain'). Of course if one wishes to abandon a classical standard, then anything can be said to go. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:42, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::::::The problem with "nomen loci" is that it doesn't have the required meaning. We aren't trying to say "name of a place" but "name in local/vernacular language/dialect". So how do you feel about "nomen vernaculum"? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:45, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::::::That's problematic in a different way: vernacular things are basically those having to do with house-slaves (''vernae''), and if Cassell's is to be believed, a classical extension of the sense covered domestic things in general, but not necessarily the modern sense of a vernacular language, which Cassell's says is ''sermo patrius, sermo noster, lingua nostra, verba nostratia.'' Ergo vos locutionem fortasse petitis ''nomen (in?) sermone patrio''&thinsp;? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 15:04, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::I accept that there is a problem with "vernaculum", yes. How would you feel about "NomenSermonePatrio", Achille? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:12, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC) 
:::::::By the way, Iacobe, do you have a better word for "census" (i.e. count of heads, and in this case a linguistic count of heads) than "descriptio"? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:49, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Well, ''census'' (''-ūs'') was fine with Cicero & Livy, so what's the worry? Taking the census is what (apud Ciceronem, Horatium, Ovidium) the ''censor'' did. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 15:04, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::OK, "census" (4th decl.) is a handy choice! So then "AnnusCensusLinguarum". [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:12, 11 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Well... ''patrius'' means both "of father" and "of nation" and may lead to some misunderstanding for those who do not know Cicero's Latin. Maybe can we simply use Sermo, Sermo2, NomenSermone, NomenSermone2? Or maybe ''sermo paternus'' has the same meaning? (Little note: in Italian we say "mother language" instead). --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 09:50, 12 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Quo brevius, eo melius. I agree with the simple word "Sermo". You are right, "patrius" causes problems. (By medieval times, phrases like "''langue maternelle''" were commonly used in this sense -- as also in modern English, "mother tongue".) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 10:08, 12 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::A little change in my mind. We use "Lingua" almost everywhere in Vicipaedia, so what about "LinguaLoci", "Lingua2Loci", "NomenLinguaLoci" et "NomenLingua2Loci"? Then I found two others:
:* CommuniaProxima -> MunicipiaProxima ?
:* Formula:Commune Italianum -> Formula:Municipium Italiae ?
::::::::::::The latter is about the name of the template itself. What do you think? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 09:33, 13 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::PS: About CommuniaConiuncta... this is a list and it is not necessary that the towns listed are in Italy; in fact they use to be outside of Italy. What aboud OppidaConiuncta? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 09:41, 13 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Recap again, I see no one adds so I suppose "silence means agreement".
:*LatitudinisGradi -> GradusLatitudinis
:*LongitudinisGradi -> GradusLongitudinis
:*NomenItalicum -> NomenItalianum
:*NomenLocale -> NomenLinguaLoci
:*NomenLocaleAliud -> NomenLingua2Loci
:*NomenOfficiale -> NomenPublicum
:*Fractiones -> Vici
:*PerCentumItalice -> ItalianePerCentum
:*PerCentumLocale -> LinguaLociPerCentum
:*PerCentumLocaleAlio -> Lingua2LociPerCentum
:*IncolarumNomen -> NomenIncolarum
:*RegionisSigla -> SiglaRegionis
:*ProvinciaeSigla -> SiglaProvinciae
:*LatitudinisMinuta -> MinutaLatitudinis
:*LatitudinisSecunda -> SecundaLatitudinis
:*LongitudinisMinuta -> MinutaLongitudinis
:*LongitudinisSecunda -> SecundaLongitudinis
:*NominisGenetivus -> GenetivusNominis
:*ImaginisInscriptio -> InscriptioImaginis
:*NominisLocalisLingua -> LinguaLoci
:*NominisLocalisAliisLingua -> Lingua2Loci
:*RegionisNexus -> NexusRegionis
:*ProvinciaeNexus -> NexusProvinciae
:*LinguarumAnnus -> AnnusCensusLinguarum
:*LinguarumIncolae -> Locutores
:*MagistriCiviumAnnus -> AnnusMagistriCivium
:*CommuniaProxima -> MunicipiaProxima
:*CommuniaConiuncta -> no change
:*Formula:Commune Italianum -> Formula:Municipium Italiae
:::::::::::::Vici et CommuniaConiuncta are my personal preference; the first because "Municipii" or "InMunicipio" is understood for all parameters, the other because these "twin municipalities" are not in Italy with few exceptions. If no one comments I will add support for new parameters to the template, will move it to the new name and finally will ask for the second span of the bot. Thank you all for all comments. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 09:57, 22 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:Almost all is ready. I had a little problem, I missed something when I asked for the first span, so unfortunately I will need a third span of the bot. The second span of the bot should be this:
<pre>
Formula:Commune Italianum -> Formula:Municipium Italiae (i.e. name of the template)
CommuniaProxima -> MunicipiaProxima
Fractiones -> Vici
IncolarumNomen -> NomenIncolarum
Inscriptio_imaginis -> ImaginisInscriptio
LatitudinisGradi -> GradusLatitudinis
LatitudinisMinuta -> MinutaLatitudinis
LatitudinisSecunda -> SecundaLatitudinis
LinguarumAnnus -> AnnusCensusLinguarum
LinguarumIncolae -> Locutores
LongitudinisGradi -> GradusLongitudinis
LongitudinisMinuta -> MinutaLongitudinis
LongitudinisSecunda -> SecundaLongitudinis
MagistriCiviumAnnus -> AnnusMagistriCivium
Nomen_latinum -> NomenLatinum
Nomen_latinum_gen -> NominisGenetivus
NomenItalicum -> NomenItalianum
NomenLocale -> NomenLinguaLoci
NomenLocaleAliud -> NomenLingua2Loci
NomenOfficiale -> NomenPublicum
NominisLocalisAliisLingua -> Lingua2Loci
NominisLocalisLingua -> LinguaLoci
PerCentumItalice -> ItalianePerCentum
PerCentumLocale -> LinguaLociPerCentum
PerCentumLocaleAlio -> Lingua2LociPerCentum
ProvinciaeNexus -> NexusProvinciae
ProvinciaeSigla -> SiglaProvinciae
RegionisNexus -> NexusRegionis
RegionisSigla -> SiglaRegionis
</pre>
:Thank you. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 11:31, 30 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:: Ok, I will do the secund run probably tomorrow. Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 00:30, 2 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:: Second run done. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 00:49, 3 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:::Thank you very much. I am analyzing the results. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 12:28, 3 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

== De musica ==
Just for fun, I've been experimenting with [[Formula:Audire]], a variant of [[:en:Template:Listen]], slightly simplified. I've put an example into [[Iohannes Sebastianus Bach]]. Discussion, refinements, and so on are welcome. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 18:10, 12 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

== ''South Africa'' vs. ''Southern Africa'' ==
Vicipaedia needs separate articles for the country ([[:en:South Africa]]) and the region ([[:en:Southern Africa]])—concepts that cover vastly different geographical areas. The former in Vicipaedia is [[Africa Australis]]. What's the latter? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:28, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:Hmm, it may not be very easy to find an existing Latin source for that. Well, we have at least two other words for "south" (austrinus, meridianus). I guess you could arbitrarily adopt one of those, or you could say "Africa Australis (regio)" ... In favour of a proposed "Africa Austrina" would be the fact that Pliny uses "austrina (n.pl.)" to mean the southern regions of somewhere. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:40, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::So [[Africa Austrina]] it is! Curiously, the use of ''south'' in ''South Africa'' violates the norm of the usual English contrast, where the plain forms (''north, east, south, west'') seem to denote larger regions, and the modified forms (''northern, eastern, southern, western'') seem to denote smaller regions, subregions, or pieces of regions. In this sense, ''[[:en:North Africa|North Africa]], [[:en:East Africa|East Africa]],'' and ''[[:en:West Africa|West Africa]]'' illustrate the norm, and ''South Africa'' is an exception. (Similarly with [[:en:East Asia|East Asia]], but then [[:en:Eastern Europe]] is another exception.) Maybe ''South Africa'' for the smaller entity reflects usage in some other language or languages. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:56, 14 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::Aut [[Africae Australis Res publica]] et [[Africa Australis (regio)]], nulla nominum fictione adhibita? --[[Usor:Ceylon|Ceylon]] 18:54, 21 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

== De nominibus provinciarum Italiae ==
Subdivisiones Italiae nunc sunt regiones, provinciae, municipia et vici. Regiones, municipia et vici nomina propria habent, provinciae nomina propria non habent. Exempla: nomen regionis est Langobardia, nomen municipii est Hyspica, nomen vici est Mestria. Nomina provinciae Italiane scripta sunt ''provincia di'' et sequitur maxime nomen capitis (''provincia di Milano'') aut minime nomina capitum (''provincia di Forlì-Cesena''), vel nomen terrae (''provincia dell'Ogliastra''), vel nomina terrarum (una: ''provincia del Verbano-Cusio-Ossola''), vel nomina capitis et terrae (una: ''provincia di Monza e Brianza''); una provincia nomen proprium habet cur Vallis Augustana regio etiam est provincia.

Quomodo Latine provinciae Italiae nuncupandae sunt? Nunc in Vicipaedia paginae provinciarum Italiae sunt maxime "Caput (provincia)" aut minime nomina capitum ([[Forum Livii-Curva Caesena]]) vel nomen terrae et "(provincia)", vel nomina terrarum ([[Verbanus-Cusius-Oscela]]), vel nomina capitis et terrae ([[Modicia et Brigantia]]). Mihi titula haec videntur ut non apta sint cur titula haec non sunt nomina propria provinciarum. Exemplum: si volo de municipiis provinciae alicuius dicere, "municipia Medioliani" dicere possum? Mihi non videtur. Fortasse "municipia Mediolani provinciae" sicut etiam "influentia Padi fluminis", sed "Mediolanum" mihi videtur ut nomen proprium provinciae non sit at contra Padus nomen proprium fluminis. Fortasse mihi modo, at mihi videtur ut Mediolanum sit urbs et municipium, nec sit provincia. In paginis provinciarum Italiae sunt crebro nomina alia duo: "provincia" et genetivus (Provincia Mediolani) vel "provincia" et adiectivum (Provincia Mediolanensis). Quomodo Latine melius? "Mediolanum provincia", "Provincia Mediolani", vel "Provincia Mediolanensis", vel alia? Et postea "municipia Mediolani provinciae", "municipia provinciae Mediolani", vel "municipia provinciae Mediolanensis", vel alia? Seu formae aliae ("municipia in provincia...")? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 12:00, 15 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:Utraque forma "provincia Mediolani" et "provincia Mediolanensis" aeque adhiberi videtur in paginis; exempla etiam ''provincia Aquilae'' vel ''provincia Aquilana'', ''provincia Patavii'' vel ''provincia Patavina'' et cetera. Credo utramque formam bonam, minime autem formam "Mediolanum provincia", cum non "Mediolanum (provincia)" simplicitatis gratia scripta sit. Si Latina lingua unam formarum praeferat, nescio. Ubi de municipiis tractetur, forma "municipia in provincia Aquilana" frequens in provinciarum paginis adhibetur; formam "municipia Aquilanae provinciae" sane bonam puto, et fortasse paulo meliorem quam formam "municipia provinciae Aquilanae". --[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] 22:20, 15 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::Consentio ego. Licet formam simpliciorem e.g. "Mediolanum (provincia)" in titulis praeferere sed formis variis et Latinitati classicae congruentibus in textu uti. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:01, 16 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::Simplicitatem in formula <nowiki>[[Brixia (provincia)|provincia Brixiana]]</nowiki> non video, at contra formula <nowiki>[[provincia Brixiana]]</nowiki> simplicior est. Hoc praetermisso, Italiane solimus adiectivum praeferire magis quam "genetivum" quando de terra provinciae alicuius loquimur; Latine idem? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 20:09, 19 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::Laete accipio aut "Brixia (provincia)" aut "provincia Brixiana". Lingua Latina, sicut Italiana, adiectiva saepe praefert. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 16:41, 20 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::::Norma ut videtur est [[Brixia (provincia)]]. Vide [[Augustus (imperator)]], [[Hell (pellicula)]], [[Miletus (genus)]], [[Mnaseas (papilio)]], [[Novum Eboracum (urbs)]], [[Ohium (flumen)]], [[Sicilia (provincia Romana)]], et plurima provinciarum nomina in commentario [[Provincia Italiae]] perscripta. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 16:55, 20 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::::Vicipaedia non est fons Vicipaediae. ;) Auctor idem est paginae de [[provincia Italiae]] et paginarum de provinciis Italiae; norma eius est, errata possit sicut aut non. Italiane ''Brescia'' (Brixia) est urbs et municipium at non est provincia; Italiane nomen publicum subdivisionis huius est ''Provincia di Brescia'' et nomen terrae est ''bresciano'' vel ''provincia di Brescia'', at quando ''Brescia'' dicitur certo urbem vel municipium capio tamquam certo provinciam non capio. Nescio si Latine idem sit et ex disputatione nondum intellego. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 09:16, 22 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

== De rebus politicis Canadensibus ==
... scribo. Mores Francogallicum Anglicumque sequens, res "Canadae" neque "Canadenses" appello, ut puta [[Camera Communium Canadae]], [[Senatus Canadae]], [[Factio Liberalis Canadae]], et cetera. Fortasse autem melius sit adiectivo uti, contra morem Canadensem. Vestra sententia, commentationes suntne transnominadae? [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 03:14, 18 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:De his adiectivis nihil habemus quod dicamus, sed modo classico secundum Cassell's, adiectivum ''politicus'' (ex verbo Graeco) Anglice = 'relating to political science', cum adiectivum pro 'political' Latinitate vera = ''civilis'' et ''publicus,'' et "often rendered by ''reipublicae'' (genit. sing.)." Simile, Anglicum 'politics' = ''civilis ratio'' et ''respublica''&thinsp;; exempli gratia, 'to be engaged in politics' = ''in republica versari.'' Ergo in animo fortasse habebas scribere ''de civili ratione Canadensi'' vel tantum ''de republica Canadensi.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:22, 18 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::Gratias tibi ago ob consilium :) Profecto movenda est [[Factio politica|commentatio de factionibus "politicis,"]] unde nomen adiectivum "politicum" accepi ... fortasse ad ''[[Factio publica|Factionem publicam]]''? [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 17:02, 18 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
:::Censeo verbum "politicus" nobis utile esse, etsi apud Cassell's incognitum. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 16:37, 20 Octobris 2011 (UTC)
::::The point Cassell's is apparently making is that ''politicus,'' though relevant to modern concepts of "politics," is in classical style unidiomatic, or perhaps at least not the most frequent or unmarked way of expressing the idea. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 16:48, 20 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

== Terms of Use update ==
''I apologize that you are receiving this message in English. Please help translate it.''
 
Hello,
 
The Wikimedia Foundation is discussing changes to its Terms of Use. The discussion can be found at [[m:Talk:Terms of use|Talk:Terms of use]]. Everyone is invited to join in. Because the new version of [[m:Terms of use|Terms of use]] is not in final form, we are not able to present official translations of it. Volunteers are welcome to translate it, as German volunteers have done at [[:m:Terms of use/de]], but we ask that you note at the top that the translation is unofficial and may become outdated as the English version is changed. The translation request can be found at [[m:Translation requests/WMF/Terms of Use 2]] -- [[m:User:Mdennis (WMF)|Maggie Dennis, Community Liaison]] 01:02, 27 Octobris 2011 (UTC)<!-- EdwardsBot 0119 -->

== Verba vocesque quibus in Vicipaedia proprie utimini ==
Ut novicius, qui modo hanc paginam interretialem legere coepi, imprimis sciscito, ubi verborum eorum, quibus vos in Vicipaedia proprie ad res administrandas utimini, velut conventum, symbola, tessera, recensere, magistratus, abrogare ceteraque, explanationem reperiam, quae ad vestrum usum spectet. Nam multa verba prout locus quo apparent postulat varia et diversa significare possunt. Proin indicate, amabo vos, ubi, si omnino, quae quaero, exponuntur. Sin minus, quin quisquam talem paginam scribit, ut initium noviciis facilius fiat?

:Nobis explanationem de his verbis non credo esse. Pro tempore, i simpliciter ad "praeferentias meas"; sub "minutiis rationis" inveni "internationalizationem" ubi linguam tuam mutare potes. Non nulla verba, quibus utimur, Latinitate sunt horrida (e.g. "ratio" pro Anglico "account," quamquam "account" vim habet Francogallici verbi non "raisonnement" sed "compte"), sed egomet quo modo ea mutarentur, nescio. Salvus sis apud nos, mi amice! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 18:09, 30 Octobris 2011 (UTC)

== 1000 Paginae ==
It's been a while since I ran my [[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus/1000 paginae sizes|1000 paginae script]], as [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] pointed out to me, so I just finished updating it. Enjoy! <span style="font-family:'Courier New';">--[[Usor:Secundus Zephyrus|SECUNDUS ZEPHYRUS]]</span> 02:25, 5 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:For those who enjoy such things, I've put together a slightly different [[Usor:Amahoney/1000 Paginae epitome|presentation]] of basically the same information. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 15:29, 17 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, nice! It inspired me to take ten minutes and boost [[Oceanus Antarcticus]] a little. Several hundred of those articles would happily receive similar augmentation, and the table unmistakably tells us which ones they are. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 16:25, 17 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

== Bot Emijrp/List of Wikipedians by number of edits ==
The errors noticed last week seem not to have been corrected, so the figures added to last week's figures seem to be wrong (though the amounts of the additions look to be about right). A notice was posted in the bot's own discussion page, to no avail. Could a magistrate perhaps block the bot so as to attract its attention? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:13, 7 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:I didn't do this because it didn't appear to me than any harm resulted: these are just unofficial statistics, after all. To tell the truth, I had never seen them before. But if any other magistratus thinks it advisable to use a block, fine :) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:40, 7 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:::Well, but everybody knows that if an alleged fact appears in Wikipedia, it must be true! :) [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 22:49, 7 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
::If you wish, you could talk to the bot's operator here: [[:en:User talk:emijrp#error in List of Wikipedians by number of edits?]]. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 21:07, 7 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:::I've already tried. If you read up that talkpage, you'll see that somebody else noticed the same thing in another wiki. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 22:49, 7 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

== Adiuva! ==
Si robotum habes, lege, s.t.p., [[Disputatio Usoris:Helveticus montanus#"Municipium"|hanc disputationem]]. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:49, 9 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

== datum vs dies ==
Salve. In parametra [[Formula:Municipium Italiae|formulae meae prelatae]] ;) parametrum vidi ex origine "datum" nuncupatur, neque nomen illius mutavi, ut "dies" (Anglice: ''date'') significet. At timeo ut "datum" modo "aliquid donatum" significet (ex "do")... Quomodo "date of census" translari potest ex lingua Anglica? "Datum census incolarum" sive "dies census incolarum"? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 11:10, 12 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:Fortasse re vera de anno loquimur, minime de die. In quadam alia formula (ubi? nescio!) verbis "annus census" iam usus sum. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 12:24, 12 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
::Verba "annus census" in formula [[Formula:Provinciae Canadae|Provinciarum Canadae]] insunt; consentio hanc esse bonam versionem verborum anglicorum ''date of census.'' [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 23:55, 12 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:::Opinamur ut "annus" non sit... "datum" est vel "dies"? (Ex [[ISTAT]] numerus incolarum quot mense aestimatur, sic numerus 10000 die 31 Martii potest et 10010 die 30 Aprilis potest). --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 21:15, 13 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
::::Est igitur "dies"; "datum" enim Latine, ut scis, alias res varias significat. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 21:24, 13 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::Gratias tibi ago. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 13:56, 16 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

== Capsae successionum ==
Mutationes minores feci in formulas {{fn|Arca initii}} et {{fn|Arca finis}} (quae capsas creant de successionibus regum, consulum etc.). Si id detrimenta efficit in paginis mihi ignotis, s.v.p. revertite mutationes meas. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:22, 19 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

== De ordine alphabetico ==
Ave. Solemus, more contemporaneo, distinguere intra "u" et "v" cum scribentes sumus. At, more Romano, distinctio haec non fuit. Vicipaediam quaesii de ordine alphabetico at nihil inveni. Dubius meus oritur ex ordine alphabetico uribium Italiae: "Tar'''v'''isium", "'''U'''rbinum", "'''U'''tinum", "Venetiae", "Verona", "Vicetia" seu "Tar'''u'''isium", "Venetiae", "Verona", "Vicetia", "'''V'''rbinum", "'''V'''tinum"? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 09:02, 22 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

:Sententia mea (necnon more nostro) haec sic sunt scribenda: Tarvisium, Urbinum, Utinum, Venetiae, Verona, Vicetia: ''u'' est [[vocalis]], ''v'' [[consonans]]. In his ordine alphabetico scribendis, antepone igitur haec, quae littera ''u'' incipiuntur, eis, quae littera ''v''... velut Italiane. :-) [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 05:28, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

== Ave ==
Paginas scribendi causa accipiuntur etiam tradutiones? --[[Usor:Traianus|Traianus]] 12:54, 23 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:Translationes ex alias Wikipedias accipimus, sed translationes humanas tantum! Machinae (e.g. Google, Babel) Latine scribere nesciunt. Si tu traductionem ex alia Wikipedia facis, indica fontem s.t.p. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:05, 23 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
Non traducere in toto ab aliarum wikiarum paginis cogitabam, sed solum exordium accipere. Etiam sic cogitata scriptura est fons indicanda? --[[Usor:Traianus|Traianus]] 13:14, 23 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:Utile, fortasse: potes simpliciter in "summario" indicare e.g. "initium ex it:wiki versum" ... [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:06, 23 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

== Degree day ==
Does anyone know how to translate "degree day" into Latin? See [[:en:Degree day]]. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 14:57, 25 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
: Dubito quin sit translatio Latina (facilis repertu) rei isti plus minus obscurae ... quid de "dies [[gradus]] (gen.)"? [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 05:46, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:: More physicae, solitur nomina duorum unitatum mensurae simpliciter componere cum "dimensio physica" unitatis compositae est "multiplicatio dimensionum physicarum" unitatum simplicium. Exempla (Anglice): [[:en:Ampere-meter|Ampere-meter]] vel [[:en:KGM|kilogram-metre]] (IV elementum). Ita est "degree day". Gnosces si "Ampere-meter" possit "Amperium metrum" seu "kilogram-metre" possit "chiliogrammum metrum" translari? Si possit, "degree day" sit "gradus dies"...
:: <small>Contra: solitur "per" praepositionem uti cum "dimensio physica" unitatis compositae est "divisio dimensionum physicarum" unitatum simplicium; exemplum: [[:en:kilometres per hour|kilometres per hour]].</small> --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 09:40, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
::: Ah, I see. I'd simply interpreted it as "day of degree" (not having paid much attention to the article), which I now see to have been completely off-mark. "Kilometres per hour" is ''[[chiliometra horalia]]'', so in the same spirit, I'd go for something along the lines of "gradus diarii." But wait to see what others think. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 15:14, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:::: Well... Maybe my Latin-2 is not as good as my English-3 ;) We are _not_ in the case similar to "kilometers per hour" (with ''contra'' I meant "on the other side") but we _are_ in the case similar to "ampere-meter" and "kilogramme-meter". --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 08:29, 29 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::Ecce [[gradus dies]]... spero intellecturum esse. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 11:19, 12 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::::E' buona la tua voce! :) [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 23:02, 13 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Merci! :) --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 15:53, 14 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== Fascicula ==

Quem paginam specialem necesse me adire fasciculum novi adiungendi fasciculi causa? --[[Usor:Traianus|Traianus]] 21:30, 26 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:Fasciculi in Vicipaediam ipsam non recipiuntur; oportet in Communia addere [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload e.g. hac pagina]. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 21:52, 26 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
::Etiam potes clicere (imprimere) ''Fasciculum imponere'' in sinistra supra columna intra ''Arcam ferramentorum'' <s>et missilem intorquere</s>.:)--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] 10:28, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
:::Gratias ago, Jondel, de eo oblitus sum! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:44, 28 Novembris 2011 (UTC)
::::Libenter!--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] 09:16, 29 Novembris 2011 (UTC)

== Translata est (rogatio pro formulam novam) ==

Ave. [[Usor:Achillus/Translata est]] est mihi idea formulae ut includenda sit in disputationes paginarum translatarum. [[Usor:Achillus/Translata est/Harenario|Ecce harenarius]] effectus monstrans. Plane stipula est. Prima perfectio est "Vicipaedia Italiana" vel "Vicipaedia Francogallica" et cetera legi: gnoscitis si verbum magicum sit nomen latinum linguae daturum ex codice? (Unfortunately <nowiki>{{#language:}}</nowiki> does not work this way, it gives the language name in the language itself). Forma verborum etiam perficienda. Dite mihi. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 16:25, 12 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
: Nomen linguae addidi. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 22:15, 12 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:: Our current custom is to write "ex [[:en:Name of translated page]]" in the ''summarium'' when editing the page; see [[Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium_17#Acknowledging_a_whole-article_translation]]. I'd rather we stay consistent and keep to what we're already doing, personally. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 23:17, 12 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::Laborem Achilli et UV laudo, sed cum Mattie consentio; simplicius est (sicut in Taberna statuimus) originem inserere in summario. Praefero in paginis disputationum disputationes reperire; si sit nulla disputatio, esto nulla pagina. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:47, 13 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::Gratias, nescibam... Vicipaedia Latina ex Vicipaedia Italiana differt. At nunc in summarium paginarum a me translatarum nexus ad paginas originales non est... quomodo summaria corrigentur? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 15:10, 13 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::: Summaria corrigi non possunt. Potes novam recensionem (fortasse recensionem minorem) facere et ibi fontem tuam in summarium inscribere. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 16:07, 13 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::: [[Fasciculus:Yes check.svg|18px|alt=ok]] Facta sunt. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 13:54, 14 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== Template:Ling and references formatting ==
Does anyone understand why template <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Formula:Ling|Ling]]}} makes weird results with vector skin when used in references, when the <nowiki><references /></nowiki> tag is surrounded with <nowiki><span class="references-small"></span></nowiki>? See for instance [[Desertum (Italia)]] (no template, all ok) and [[Paludes Tartari fluminis]] (the rows after the one containing the template do not display as "references-small"). I am sure that it's template <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Formula:Ling|Ling]]}} that makes the difference (I tested it alone in previews). --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 15:53, 14 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:I'm not at home so can't experiment right now, but it looks to me like the style attribute in the Ling template may be part of the problem. The template declares a <nowiki><span></nowiki> with attribute "style=font-size:0.95em; color:gray;" and it seems that the style isn't getting dropped at the end of this span. Perhaps it would be enough to drop the font-size part (which would mean the language name would be the same size as surrounding text rather than a smidgeon smaller). [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 17:07, 14 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:: The {{tl|ling}} template is fine, the problem was in the [http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paludes_Tartari_fluminis&diff=prev&oldid=1806840 the syntax of the ''Paludes Tartari fluminis'' page]. Explanation: In markup, '''"span"''' is an "inline" element and can only form part of a paragraph or list item, it can (despite its name) never span across the boundary of a paragraph or of a list item (such as a reference item). On the contrary, '''"div"''' is a "block" element and can encompass several other block elements (such as paragraphs or lists, or, in our case, the entire references list with several items). --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 19:23, 14 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::: Eia! Gratias tibi ago pro explicationem. Ego paginam aliam corrigam. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 13:57, 15 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::: Aha: should have looked more closely! Thanks for researching this. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 13:22, 16 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== Structura paginae ==
Does [[Vicipaedia:Structura paginae|this page]] still holds or should it be updated? I notice, for instance, that nowadays {{tl|CommuniaCat}} is usually put in the "Nexus externi" part instead of in the bottom of the page. I also notice that the order of final "standard" sections differs from [[:en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Standard appendices and footers|English Wikipedia]] order, while most editors seem to stick to the EW structure. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 14:32, 17 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:Mihi logicius videtur nexus ad Communia inter nexus externos ponere. Quod ad alia spectat, haec structura paginae simillima est huic, qua ipse utor... licet sine dubio semel bisve peccaverim in notis, parte "vide etiam," nexibusque externis bono ordine conlocandis :) [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 17:33, 17 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:: In those articles that I have written (or begun), there tends to be a rather intimate relation between "Notae" and "Bibliography". Therefore, I feel averse to putting "Nexus externi" between them. Furthermore, methinks, "Vide etiam" and "Nexus externi" are external additions that don't belong to the internal structure of the article. These are my reasons for rejecting the "Forma typica" (which, btw, ought to be written in Latin). [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 18:54, 17 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::: Notae → bibliographia → vide etiam → nexus externi certainly looks good to me. The page is written in Latin... [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 19:39, 17 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::: Paginam mutavi ut et usus Vicipaediae linguae nostrae et maxime manualis Anglicum reddatur. Spero intellecturam esse. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 11:00, 18 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::: Emendationes laudo, sed nescio an utile sit et "Bibliographia" et "Lege etiam" accipere. Ego si "Lege etiam" in paginis nostris repperi, ad "Bibliographia"m semper mutavi! Suadeo simplicius esse indicem librorum commentationumque singulum usoribus praebere.
::::: Si novum ordinem supplementorum (i.e. Notae, Bibliographia, Vide etiam, Nexus externi) omnes accipimus, quaero an fortasse bot quoddam paginas iam factas rursus ordinare posset. Ego enim multas centenas paginarum alio ordine creavi!
::::: Anglice, If everyone is happy with this revised order of supplement sections, would it be possible for a bot to rearrange already-existing pages in this order? Because I know I have written many hundreds of pages in the other order (Vide etiam, Notae, Nexus externi, Bibliographia)! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:20, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::: <small>Bot rearrangement: Probably not, the risk would be too high that the bot moves things around in undesired ways. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 22:06, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)</small>
:::::::OK, thanks for considering this: I see the difficulty. If everyone agrees on a new fixed order, we can gradually move to it as we edit existing pages. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:54, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::::IIRC, the order received from (not long after) the Founding was: Vide etiam, Notae, Fontes, Nexus externi. I've contributed many hundreds of pages following that order. (I used to use the heading "Fontes," but it was Andrew's use of "Bibliographia," despite his present protestation, that abhinc annos tres ~ quattuor led me to favor that heading most of the time.) Since prints are often readable online, a distinction between physical objects and electronic versions of them may no longer be useful, though perhaps a distinction between electronic versions of prints and electronic versions of texts that have never gone through the press may still be worth keeping. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:45, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I make no protestation -- I have always favoured "Bibliographia" and still do. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 17:14, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I agree 100% (or more) with your last point. My fixed rule, wherever I compile a Vicipaedia bibliographia, is to include in it only items that have been published or have undergone an equivalent peer-review process (thus I have, for example, sometimes included ''Encyclopaedia Iranica'' articles even though these no longer appear in print). All other on-line items I relegate to "Nexus externi". [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 17:22, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC) 
::::::: Until a couple of days ago, I didn't even know (or possibly remember) the existence of the "structura paginae" page. I edited the page ''bona fide'' without any notion that I might thereby create some bureucratic trouble. My edits can be reverted, of course. I may occasionally, though, fail to show obedience to rules whose ''raison d'être'' escapes my wit. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 16:24, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Don't be diffident: I (for one) see no bureaucratic trouble. I have been hoping that eventually a logical reason to prefer one or other order would show up: yours, Neander, is the only one that I have seen expressed, and it suits me ... but perhaps others take different views? Several different arrangements are to be found when glancing through random pages. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 20:13, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::What is "Vide etiam" for? This is the main thing we have to understand. My assumption is that "Vide etiam" is *not* a list that replicates somehow the wikilinks already present in the article (exactly as it is written in the explanation below the ''consilium'' page: ''Sub rubrico "Vide etiam" adde paucos nexus lectoribus utiles quae in textu non potes inserere.''). In the English Wikipedia there is written that ''As a general rule the See Also section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes'' and this is also what is written in our Latin page; but then it adds a very interesting thing: ''Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a See Also section.''. I agree.
:::::::::Assuming this (as this is the main point in my opinion) the "Vide etiam" section should not precede the "Notae" and "Bibliographia" sections, because "Notae" are part of the article itself and the "Bibliographia" section (well... here is another assumption in my opinion) is the list of printed books used to build the Wikipedia article; on the other side, the "Vide etiam" section collects links to related articles and (by definition) this list is not a part of the article.
:::::::::Having this assumption in mind, my preferred order is "Notae", "Bibliographia", "Vide etiam", "Lege etiam" (a list of related books, but not used to build the article - same rationale used to build the "Vide etiam" section), "Nexus externi". "Lege etiam" is my personal translation of "Further reading" and can be changed with a better expression if needed. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 09:25, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::I think it is important to discuss these matters, and I am really glad that you and Neander have raised them.
::::::::::As regards "Vide etiam", I agree with you completely. An ideally good article will not have a "Vide etiam" section, because all related topics will already have a link in the text. An incomplete article will often have a "Vide etiam" section. Part of my aim, if I improve articles, is either to incorporate "Vide etiam" links into new text, or to delete them if they are not really relevant.
::::::::::I agree with you and Neander completely over the order of elements, and, if we all agree, I will be happy if my existing pages can be changed by a bot so that the order is standard.
::::::::::I am uncertain whether it is useful to readers to have a separate list of books that were used for building the article, and books that are also relevant. I am trying to look at it from the eventual reader's point of view, and I do not see why the reader will be helped by having two book lists. I am thinking aloud here. Wikipedia articles are "works in progress": therefore, as we improve the article, we should use all available sources, and we might well consult books from both lists. If we have done so, what do we do? Transfer the book from "Lege etiam" to "Bibliographia". So eventually there will be no "Lege etiam": either we will have consulted those books, or else we will have decided they are not useful, and deleted them. Therefore an ideally good article will not have a "Lege etiam", because the books will either have been consulted (so they go into the bibliographia) or found to be useless (so the mention can be deleted).
::::::::::OK, so, in my opinion this morning (!), both the "Vide etiam" and "Lege etiam" sections should be regarded as temporary: an ideally complete article probably will not have either of them. What do others think of this? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 10:29, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::: I agree with you in every respect! I've never understood why there should be two bibliographies. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 12:04, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

(I draw the line at ''twelve'' indentation markers. I'm going back to the left margin!)

Summarizing, then: we want our reference sections in the order Notae, Bibliographia, Nexus Externi. '''Notae''' is the <nowiki><div class="references-small"></nowiki> etc. '''Bibliographia''' contains the books, articles, and other sources cited in footnotes or otherwise relevant to writing the page, or useful for readers (for an example of how this might work, see [[Mathematica]]). '''Nexus Externi''' begins with a link to Communia if appropriate, and presumably also to Vicifons if appropriate, then any other useful web links not already included. Vide Etiam, containing internal links, should be removed in favor of incorporating those links into the text. Lege Etiam, containing bibliographic items not directly cited in footnotes, should be merged into Bibliographia. Have I got it right? If so, this seems sensible to me. I'm not sure we need a concerted effort to make all existing articles conform to this shape (though at least some easy cases should be bottable), but we might want to re-order articles we find ourselves working on. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 15:06, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:"Nexus Externi begins with a link to Communia if appropriate, and presumably also to Vicifons if appropriate, then any other useful web links not already included." That arrangement is visually awkward: it's bad graphic design. Links to Communia & Wikimedia, unless they're redesigned, should ''follow'' the other nexus externi; as something-more-than-just-plain-text, they'd lead more smoothly there to the sign of a stipula. Alternatively, if the links to Communia & Wikimedia could be made into a box that would fit on the right-hand side, as in the Find-more-about-Martinique-on-Wikipedia's-sister-projects box in [[:en:Martinique]], that would look good. Incidentally, [[:en:Martinique]] shows an exemplary series in: Miscellaneous topics + See also + References + External links. The last two sections naturally go at the bottom because that's the area to which presses always shunt material that nobody reads. In contrast, a Vide etiam function can still be part of a text (the part that people might read). Just yesterday I read a text in which were embedded vide etiams like this: "Blablabla (Smith 1992; on the contrary, see Jones 1993; for more on the by-election, see Turtelheim 1993). Blablabla." And yes, it makes no sense to have both a Lege etiam section and a Bibliographia section. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 16:03, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::Yes, I agree with you that vide etiams can be included in the text and notes.
::A "miscellaneous topics" section seems a bad example to me (possibly an excuse for not deleting the "trivia" section that was wisely outlawed on en:wiki a few years ago).
::What's your view about the proposed order "Notae", "Bibliographia", "Nexus externi", Iacobe? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 17:13, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::Agreed about a "miscellaneous topics" section. IIRC, the ''notae, bibliographia,'' and ''nexus externi'' sections have been in that order since time immemorial. ¶ But a new question arises! Is there any support here for putting photogalleries at the very bottom, below everything that's been discussed in this thread? That's where we occasionally find them in Wikipedia (for example, at [[:en:Polygonia c-album]].) Ex contrario, they seem to belong more with the text than with the supporting matter, so one should prefer to continue Vicipaedia's tradition of putting them just before the ''vide etiam'' section (itself just before the ''notae'' section); however, if we had unanimous consent to put them at the very bottom, one might not object. ¶ A propos galleries: contributors may have a tendency to overdo the ''pinacotheca'' section, especially when numerous images are available, but multiple images can sometimes be useful. For example, with butterflies, it can be helpful to show (1) the egg, (2) the larva, (3) the pupa, (4) the adult from above, (5) the adult from below, (6) any major or diagnostic dimorphic differences between males & females, and (7) other relevant things, such as the damage that the larvae can inflict (one of these, usually #4, will already be in the taxobox), but of course at this stage of development, the wikipedias don't have a complete array of such images for most species. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:53, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::I must look up "IIRC" some time, but it seems that all who have so far spoken agree :)
::::I agree with you also about the pinacotheca! If I use one at all, it is (as you say) because there is a special need to display a series of images; e.g. near the foot of [[Triumphi Caesaris (Mantegna)]], where I wanted small images of the woodcut versions of the pictures. In general, Vicipaedia is not a picture gallery, and another aspect of improving an incomplete page is aligning useful images alongside the text, deleting useless ones, and thus eliminating the great majority of our pinacothecae. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:15, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::I like the summary by A. Mahoney a lot. We can make it clear that sections like "Vide etiam", "Pinacotheca" and possibly "Lege etiam", "Miscellaneous", "Trivia" and the like are strongly discouraged. One can add "Vide etiam" and/or "Pinacotheca" sections at the bottom of the article as a suggestion to other editors to "inline" the items; by the way, other editors are free to inline the items as well as to remove the sections if the items are found to be unrelated. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 13:03, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::: I can see the benefit of functionally organised galleries of the type of which Iacobus gave a good example, but in general, there are way too much pages in which galleries have been piled up obviously in order to compensate for the dearth and jejuneness of the text. I agree that galleries might be put before the ''vide etiam'' or even before the ''notae'' section, provided that they're carrying a sensible function. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 15:08, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== De pagina "''Cuba''" in Vicipaedia ==
Avete! Ecce Cubanus sum, et in Habana, caput insulae Cubae, habito. Intellegere non possum cur nomen civitatis nostrae in pagina Vicipaediae ad Cubam dedicata, "Avana" et non "Habana" scriptum est. Cubani nunquam ita civitatem nostram nominamus, sed omnes semper, a temporibus Hispanicae coloniae, consensum habemus quod nomen "Habana" litteram B utentes, et praeterea in principio verbi litteram H adiungentes, recte scribundum est.
Insuper nihil dicit Vicipaedia de Latinitate in Cuba, ubi semper hanc pulcherrimam Linguam multi docti viri coluerunt. Primi libri nostri Latine scripti sunt. Lingua Latina et non dialecto Hispanico magistri docebant in prima nostra Universitate Sancti Hieronimi Habanae. Et etiam in publicis inscriptionibus, Lingua Latii semper praestitit; verbi gratia, videte Epigrammam in memoriam defuncti Episcopi Iohannis Iosephi Diaz Espadae et Landae, quam scripsit egregius presbyterus Iosephus Augustinus Caballerus: "Animus si ipsius, moresque despingi potuissem, pulchrior in terra nulla tabella fovet". 
Puto hanc paginam Vicipaediae rem valde inchoatam esse. Et vellem magis de Cubana Latinitate et coloniale Historia nostra hic scribere.
Valete.

<small>&mdash; ''Commentationem pristinam [[Vicipaedia:Subscriptio|non subscriptam]] [[Usor:Habanensis|Habanensis]] scripsit ([[Disputatio Usoris:Habanensis|disputationes]] <small>•</small> [[Specialis:Conlationes/Habanensis|conlationes]]) 19:48, 18 Decembris 2011‎''.</small>
:Salve Habanensis et gratus apud nos. Nomina aut Havana aut Avana sola invenitur Latine, quamquam Habana nomen verum Hispanicum est nullo dubio. Inspice exempli gratia fontes complures Latines qui dantur apud pagina [[Havana]].Rafael
:<small>&mdash; ''Commentationem pristinam [[Vicipaedia:Subscriptio|non subscriptam]] [[Usor:96.242.237.48|96.242.237.48]] scripsit ([[Disputatio Usoris:96.242.237.48|disputationes]] <small>•</small> [[Specialis:Conlationes/96.242.237.48|conlationes]]) 12:35, 19 Decembris 2011‎‎''.</small>

== Automaton pro formulam:Municipium Italiae (tertia pars) ==

Hi. Now I am ready for the third span of the bot. Sorry for long delay, but I had to build some pages: [[Seismologia]], [[Classis seismica]] et [[Gradus dies]]. These seems to me good terms in Latin, see [[#Degree day|this discussion]] about the third one; I then found a bilingual (Italian-Latin) journal (year 1906) where "seismologia" was the equivalent for "sismologia" (i.e. seismology) and "seismicus" was the adjective in use in the Latin part. I hope that these are agreed translations. If so, these are the new equivalences:
 NominisGenetivus -> GenetivusNominis
 ImaginisInscriptio -> InscriptioImaginis
 Datum -> DiesCensusIncolarum
 zonaSismica -> ClassisSeismica
 gradiGiorno -> GradusDies

Then some parameters are not used and can be deleted:
 mappaX -> (delendum)
 mappaY -> (delendum)

The last parameters are tricky: they need some computation by the bot, if possible:
 Annus=2005 (exemplum) -> DiesCensusIncolarum=anno&amp;nbsp;2005
 AnnusMagistriCivium=2010 (exemplum) -> DiesElectionis=anno&amp;nbsp;2010
 AnnusCensusLinguarum=2009 (exemplum) -> DiesCensusLinguarum=anno&amp;nbsp;2009

Is this feasible? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 13:54, 19 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
: That would be an easy thing to do, but it would not be a good idea at all, because the parameter "Annus" currently contains data in a variety of date formats, for example:
:* [[Genua]]: Annus=31.03.2006
:* [[Roma]]: Annus=31-03-2009
:* [[Panormus]]: Annus=2010
:* [[Mantua]]: Annus=31-12-08
:* [[Neapolis]]: Annus=30 Septembris 2009
:So, there are several possibilities, including:
:* To leave the parameter value of "Annus" unchanged (the parameter name can be changed if desired) (UVbot can do this)
:* To delete the day and month and to keep only the year (UVbot can do this)
:* To edit the pages manually to whatever form is desired (UVbot can probably not do this)
:Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 21:45, 19 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::Hm... those boxes (except Panormus) have been compiled in the wrong way, they should have used "Datum" parameter instead of "Annus" parameter.
::Well... by the way the second bullet make me feel that the bot can understand if there is a day and month or if there is year only. In this case, I wonder if it is possible to split execution, i.e.:
::* if only year, add "anno&∓nbsp;", else leave it as it is
::Or maybe the best solution should be to leave the data unchanged. The result would not be so bad, say something like this:
::* Numerus Incolarum: 11&thinsp;358 <small>(2010)</small>
::instead of:
::* Numerus Incolarum: 11&thinsp;358 <small>(anno&nbsp;2010)</small>
::The last thing I can think of is the following: if both Datum and Annus have values, then the priority goes to Datum (as they both "collapse" into DiesCensusIncolarum).
::Oops... I forgor another thing: the bot should also remove all formatting from these parameters:
 Locutores=11&amp;thinsp;358 (exemplum) -> Locutores=11358
 NumerusIncolarum=11.358 (exemplum) -> NumerusIncolarum=11358
::I do not think I ever found anything after the number in "NumerusIncolarum" (something like a comment or a note), by the way if I am wrong this comment or note should go in NotaCensusIncolarum; this parameter creates a "ref" tag so in this case the "Notae" section should also be checked and created if necessary... Too many things? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 08:49, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::: Removing dots and &amp;thinsp;s from "Locutores" and "NumerusIncolarum" seems doable. What shall we do about "Datum" now, leave it as it is (no changes to parameter values, and no changes to the parameter name either)? --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 22:03, 20 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::Ok, I stroke the preceding and I summarize the new request:
 NominisGenetivus -> GenetivusNominis
 ImaginisInscriptio -> InscriptioImaginis
 Datum -> DiesCensusIncolarum
 Annus -> DiesCensusIncolarum
 zonaSismica -> ClassisSeismica
 gradiGiorno -> GradusDies
 AnnusMagistriCivium -> DiesElectionis
 AnnusCensusLinguarum -> DiesCensusLinguarum
 mappaX -> (delendum)
 mappaY -> (delendum)
 Locutores=11&amp;thinsp;358 (exemplum) -> Locutores=11358
 NumerusIncolarum=11.358 (exemplum) -> NumerusIncolarum=11358
::::As you see, both Datum and Annus collapse into DiesCensusIncolarum. The request is: if at most one parameter is valued, then keep that value. If both parameters are valued, keep the value that was in "Datum". Examples.
::::Old:
::::* Datum=31-12-2009
::::* Annus=
::::New:
::::* DiesCensusIncolarum=31-12-2000
::::Old:
::::* Datum=
::::* Annus=2008
::::New:
::::* DiesCensusIncolarum=2008
::::Old:
::::* Datum=31-10-2011
::::* Annus=2010
::::New:
::::* DiesCensusIncolarum=31-10-2011
::::I hope that it is clearer now. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 10:20, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::: Ok, I will look into this within the next few days. Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 23:22, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::: Done. Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 21:35, 27 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::: Gratias :) Nunc optimae sunt. Vale. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 09:32, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== Slipping magnifier, and: Adiutatum? ==
* I’ve noticed that the magnifier of the vide-etiam-formula slips over the pages (at least on [[Graecia]] and [[Cos]] – and maybe somewhere else? Could someone fix it to the right place?
* Where ist the data content of Adiutatum? Where are the formulae etc.?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 20:18, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

:* Done. The magnifier was defined as a "floating element" instead of an "inline element" so its position was unpredictable
:* Right now the "Auxilium:" namespace (if this is what you mean) is empty. You can find most help in [[:Categoria:Consilia Vicipaediana]]. You can also refer to [[Specialis:Praefixa]] and specify "Vicipaedia" as "spatium nominale". Formulae are in [[:Categoria:Formulae]]. I hope that I answered your question.
:--[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 08:37, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks about the magnifier, Achille: I never understood that problem.
::I'm not sure, but maybe the second question was about this: There was a sudden change in the position and function of items in the left margin yesterday: one of the changes was that "Adiutatum" moved upwards and pointed to nothing. It has now moved back to its usual position and leads to [[Vicipaedia:Praefatio]] as it normally does. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:58, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::Oh, I see. Thank you. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 12:50, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::Thank you both!--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 13:48, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== Any Thurber enthusiasts? ==
I've just started [[Surgere mane]] and interwiki linked it to [[:en:Waking up early]]. The English page seems to consist largely of errors, but I think it possible that the reference to James Thurber is correct. (His book ''Fables for our time'' appeared in 1940: the relevant fable is presumably "The Shrike and the Chipmunks", which had previously appeared in the ''New Yorker'', Feb 18, 1939, and the quotation I need to confirm is "Early to rise and early to bed, makes a Shrike healthy, and wealthy, and dead".) Can anyone confirm or emend this from a printed text? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 20:45, 21 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::OK, I've done it now. Like every other sentence in that en:wiki article, it is partly wrong. My problem in trying to verify the quotation via google was that the error is in the key word. The correct text is surely "Early to rise and early to bed makes a male healthy and wealthy and dead" {{Google Books|6Lb0zPJcYOwC|see page 339}}. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:23, 25 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:Can't help with the printed text, but what have you done with Dr. Millmoss?! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:12, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::He is unknown to me. Please enlighten me! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:16, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::Google is our friend! (The quotation is from one of Thurber's best-known cartoons; it turns up in conversation from time to time.) [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 15:53, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::I prefer "Early to bed and early to rise, makes a man stupid and blind in the eyes." --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 15:03, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::Nice one. Seems to be a wise insight first spoken by Mazer Rackham, a character devised by [[:en:Orson Scott Card]] in ''[[:en:Ender's Game]]''. Have I got that right? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:32, 24 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::::[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ender%27s_Game Wikiquote] agrees, although it claims there's no ''and'': "Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man stupid and blind in the eyes." Of course, if someone actually has the book, that's always a better source. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 17:55, 24 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Exactly. Web sources, especially wikis, tend to get these things subtly wrong. Of the sources I can find, the one I am inclined to trust is [https://kindle.amazon.com/work/enders-game-ebook/B000B229H4/B003G4W49C this] because there's a chance it was copy-pasted from the book text. What I don't know (maybe Robert does) is whether this quote first appeared in the 1977 ''Analog'' novelette, or only in the 1985 book version.[[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:54, 25 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: I've only read the 1985 version, not the novelette. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 00:04, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Thanks for replying!
:::::::::You were right, Robert, and Wikquote is wrong, about the exact wording of the quotation. I've checked the book myself meanwhile. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:58, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: (sigh) We really are a bunch of nerds, aren't we. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 14:53, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::I prefer "pedants" :) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 18:15, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::Hardly relevant, mais ceci me déçoit : ''[http://fr.wikiquote.org/wiki/La_Strat%C3%A9gie_Ender Se coucher tôt, se lever tôt, rend l'homme stupide et aveugle.]'' Pourquoi pas "rend l'homme aveugle et sot"?! (ou même ''cela rend...'' pour le bon montant de syllabes!) [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 18:02, 24 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::::"Quand les traducteurs se font mieux payer, nous aurons meilleures traductions ... peut-être" -- Andrew Dalby
::::::::Ouais, ça m'a pris presque cinq secondes pour ''aveugle et sot'' (-; Joyeux Noël, Andrew! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 19:40, 25 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Pareillement! ... et à tous nos amis Vicipædiens ... [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 21:32, 25 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== Open Call for 2012 Wikimedia Fellowship Applicants ==
[[Fasciculus:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg|80px|right]]
''I apologize that you are receiving this message in English. Please
help translate it.''
* Do you want to help attract new contributors to Wikimedia projects?
* Do you want to improve retention of our existing editors?
* Do you want to strengthen our community by diversifying its base and increasing the overall number of excellent participants around the world?
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking Community Fellows and project ideas for the Community Fellowship Program. A Fellowship is a temporary position at the Wikimedia Foundation in order to work on a specific project or set of projects. Submissions for 2012 are encouraged to focus on the theme of improving editor retention and increasing participation in Wikimedia projects. If interested, please submit a project idea or apply to be a fellow by January 15, 2012. Please visit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships for more information.

Thanks! --[[m:User:Sbouterse (WMF)|Siko Bouterse, Head of Community Fellowships,
Wikimedia Foundation]] 02:53, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

<small>Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)</small><!-- EdwardsBot 0139 -->

== Placement of code for a stipula ==
One notices that in [[Provincia Ravennas]] noster Achillus has moved the sign of the stipula from just before the categories to just after them. Since the stipula box always prints at the bottom, the placement of this code doesn't matter, but the tradition in Vicipaedia has always been to type the code just ''before'' the code for the categories. The practice in other wikis may differ. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:03, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:Disputationem vide de [[#Structura paginae|Structura paginae]] :) It makes no difference to me either, I was just using the structure that was "in charge" at the moment of my edit (a copy-and-paste from English WP - yes, according to the rules there the stub templates should go between categories and interwikies). Now the structure of our VP has changed again, my next edit will reflect the new structure. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 15:41, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::Sorry about that, Achille. I think in practice we have always followed the order that Iacobus states: it's just that the "Structura paginae" page never said so (until today) :( [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 16:06, 22 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::Never mind, VP is a work-in-progress. We all are (should be) aware of this. My preference goes to {{tl|stipula}} placed before categories, by the way the visual result is the same so I have no special reason to prefer this in spite of that. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 13:07, 23 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== De "Categoria:Locus patrimonium UNESCO continente digesta" ==
Amice Nuada, matutinum huius diei felicis [[coffeum]] imbibere iam coepimus, sed [[grammatica]]m tuae locutionis non intellegimus. Eheu! Forsitan Anglice sit 'a place, a UNESCO patrimony, arranged by continent'? Sed quid significant haec verba occulta? Nostris huius generis categoriis plerumque sunt formulae plurales, quia digerere [[unus|singulam]] rem nullo modo fieri potest. Praeterea, adiectivum ''digesta'' perperam nomen ''locus'' (vel nomen ''patrimonium'') petit, atque verbum Anglicum 'patrimonial' (in locutione congruente 'a patrimonial place') Latine est ''patritus, -a, -um.'' Haud scimus ergo an melius sint verba "Loci patriti UNESCO continente digesti." ([[Acronymum]] ''UNESCO'' hic erit adiectivum quod verbum ''loci'' petit, ut sit ''UNESCOenses,'' non?) Belle, alium nobis faciamus calicem coffei nunc. :/ [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:44, 25 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== Jakarta ==
''*Jakarta est nomen in lingua maternali Indonesia constitutum et ab Ephemeris Latina praelatum;''

''*Habemus paucas citationes pro "Iacarta" (sed possum accipere!) et "Iacartum" (cur neutrum?) Andrew Dalby 10:00, 6 Novembris 2010 (UTC)''

Andrea carissime, auctoritatem appellandi, quemadmodum patrii terram ipsam nominauerint, non intellego necque percipio: nunquam enim ea genera rituum secuti sumus quae consuetidunum natura Latine scribendi quam uehementissime contrauertuntur. Maxima cum audacia [[Ianus Pannonius|Janum Pannonium]], qui nomen sibi cum ''J'' dederat, cum ''I'' moris Vicipaediani respectu inscribimus; ut etiam apud eos, qui se Iohannem neque Ioannem appellabant. Quae cum ita sint nequeo usum ''J'' accipere. Quod ad ''k'' spectat, a me accipitur; sed nescio cur oporteat ut in hac littera iamdudum prorsus exstincta permaneamus, quippe qua uti in iis uerbis consueuerint, si litteram uocales ae, oe, e, i, y sequantur sed antiquo modo item ac post a, o, u, consonantes et uerbo finito pronuntiantur. --[[Usor:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|Martinus Poeta Juvenis]] 10:24, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:Fontes Latinos pro "Jakarta" et pro "Iacarta" repperi; ego igitur olim formam quae cum nomine vulgari congruit selegi, sed licet aliis aliter statuere! ([[Victrix causa deis placuit sed victa Catoni|Victrix causa deis placuit, sed victa Catoni]] :) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:20, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== Stipula coleopterorum ==
Is there a chance that some kind programmer will find an icon of a beetle and insert it into the stipula {{coleoptera-stipula}} 
so we don't have to keep looking at that #$%#$% flower where a beetle should be? A tiny beetle could well be sitting on the flower, but we can't see it. :/ [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 18:45, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:Is this beetle good enough? ;) [[Fasciculus:HirschkäferÜbach ohne Hintergrund.jpg|80px|thumb|right|[[Lucanus cervus|coleopteron]] pro Iacobo]] --[[Usor:Aylin|Aylin]] 19:32, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::Ooh, that's a lovely one, a stag beetle, ''[[Lucanus cervus]]''&thinsp;! We'll have to make a page for it someday. Gratias ![[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 19:57, 28 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== #REDIRECT categoriarum? ==
How do we redirect categories? Redirection would help people who, for example, might search for ''Categoria:Taxa Bily,'' rather than ''Categoria:Taxa Bílý''‎ (note the accents). Or is redirecting categories possible? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:53, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:Redirecting is possible, but if you add pages to <nowiki>[[:Categoria:Taxa Bily]]</nowiki> they will not display in [[:Categoria:Taxa Bílý]]. So I think it is preferable not to create redirects for categories. For queries: you can always search VP without accents; pages and the rest with accents will display even if there is no redirect. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 14:56, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::Achillus is right: redirection, although technically possible, is deprecated for categories. The result of setting up a redirect would be that if you then added a category under the variant name to a page, it would look blue, but no one would be able to navigate to it. It would be effectively lost. This is a weakness of the wiki environment which we by ourselves can't overcome.
::Luckily, as Achillus says, a search without accents should normally result in finding the titles that have accents.
::A more complete solution, if you want to go this far, is to create a biography page for the biologist Bílý. Such a page can have all the necessary redirects and can have a link to the category. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 18:47, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
:::OK, my mistake. Then could some kind soul delete the redirect we made for "Bily." Sorry! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 20:52, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
::::Done. No problem. It ''is'' frustrating.
::::Incidentally, I edited the page for [[:Categoria:Taxa Bílý]]. You might like to glance at it to see what I did. The name still looks right, but it will now file in the expected place between Bik and Bim![[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 21:39, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== Mandatum "<nowiki>{{reflist}}</nowiki>" ==
UV ut videtur mandatum "<nowiki>{{reflist}}</nowiki>" mandato "<nowiki><div class="references-small"><references /></div></nowiki>" mutat. Quia mandatum "<nowiki>{{reflist}}</nowiki>" in [[monitorium|monitorio]] recte in Vicipaedia imprimitur et multo brevius est, cur id vitare debemus? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 20:52, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
: Vitare non necesse est. <nowiki>{{reflist}}</nowiki> est mandatum brevius, "<nowiki><div class="references-small"><references /></div></nowiki>" immo est mandatum directius.
: Non feci solum hanc mutationem, sed dum res aliae mutavi, mutavi etiam hanc rem. Vale! --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 23:48, 29 Decembris 2011 (UTC)

== Any programmers handy? ==
If possible, <nowiki>{{Infobox military conflict}}, {{Campaignbox Indochina Wars}},</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Campaignbox Vietnam War}}</nowiki> need to be made to work in [[Bellum Indosinense II]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 21:06, 30 Decembris 2011 (UTC)
: Working on this. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 15:51, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:: Need an administrator to go to [[:en:MediaWiki:Common.css]], copy out the two blocks relating to the .hlist style, and insert into [[MediaWiki:Common.css]]. Then do the same for [[:en:MediaWiki:Common.js]] to [[MediaWiki:Common.js]]. After that, I can continue to work on this. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 16:21, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::Macte! For the article in question, fixing the boxes will improve our standing in regard to the 1000 paginae. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 16:35, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::UV has solved the issue without having to change Common.*, and as an added benefit, I feel like an idiot :) --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 21:24, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::: No need at all and no justification at all for this "added benefit"! I am just a bit reluctant to add several lines of code to our Common.* that would affect only a few of our pages but that would nevertheless have to be served and processed/executed on ''every'' page view. Glad you like the solution! Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 21:28, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
: Iacobus, or anyone, can you provide better Latin terms for the terms "military engagement", "Indochina Wars", "Belligerents", "Commanders and leaders", "strength" (i.e. number and type of forces), "Casualties and losses", "Territorial changes", "Units involved"? Then I can change all the headings and the names of the formulae for great Latinitas. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 21:30, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:: The formulae can now be used: {{tl|Capsa belli}}, {{tl|Campaignbox Indochina Wars}} (pending Latinitas for "Indochina Wars"), and {{tl|Expeditio Belli Indosinense II}}. The above terms still need translation. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 01:09, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::Pro "military engagement", "Indochina Wars", "Belligerents", "Commanders and leaders", "strength" (i.e. number and type of forces), "Casualties and losses", "Territorial changes", "Units involved" : fortasse: ''pugna ~ proelium, Bella Indosinensia, belligerentes, imperatores et duces, vires, casus, mutationes terrae ~ territorii, copiae''&thinsp;? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 16:19, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::OK, we now have {{tl|Capsa belli}}, {{tl|Expeditio Bellorum Indosinensiorum}}, and {{tl|Expeditio Belli Indosinense II}}. Have fun! --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 02:41, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::I've allowed it to print just now, and a few bits of coding still need work. "Part of" needs to be "Pars." The flags and flagicons aren't converting at all. And we need to import & Latinize the <nowiki>{{Campaignbox Indochina Wars}}</nowiki>. You may notice a few other matters that still need attention. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 16:23, 22 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC) ¶ Also not printing: <nowiki>{{Age in years and days|1955|11|1|1975|04|30}}</nowiki> and "causes" (see "Doctrina Ludi Domini" &c. in the text. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 17:07, 22 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::Best just to delete the flagicons. They add nothing. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 18:08, 22 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== crater impactionis? ==
Lucubrans verbum ineptum pro „Einschlagskrater / Impact crater“ excogitavi (vel melius ex-somniavi): [[crater impactationis]]. Antequam paginam (denuo) movebo, sententiam vestram de optima notione quaerere mihi videtur: crater impactionis, crater ictus, crater meteoritae impactione / ictu ortus .... ?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 14:01, 2 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:''Crater impactus''&thinsp;? ''Crater incussu factus''&thinsp;? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:17, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:: Constat ''impactationem'' a verbo frequentativo ''impactare'' 'saepe pluriesve impingere' deductam esse. Itaque potius ''cratera impactionis'' suaserim. Quod Leo Latinus quidem de ''cratere illisionis'' loquitur, fontem extravicipaedianum habemus: ∓''crater illisionis'' ([http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/scientiae.php?id=325 ''Ephemeris'' 2007]). [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 17:38, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::Cassell's doesn't have ''inlisio'' (or ''illisio,'' or even ''lisio''). What's it's root? ''Laedo''&thinsp;? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 22:20, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::: Ita vero. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 22:33, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::''illido'' iam apud scriptores "Latinitatis aureae" in usu est, ''illisio'' apud Hieronymum et Caelium Aurelianum; contra ''impactio'' ne tarda quidem antiquitate apparere videtur. Quare (et propter fontem extravicipaedianum) verbo ''crater illisionis'' utar. Gratias vobis ago pro sententiis vestris!--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 22:51, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== Sphaerae ==
Spheres are ''sphaerae'' (f. pl., well attested), except when they arent: hemispheres are ''hemisphaeria'' (n. pl., well attested). So what are the rarer spheres: biosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, pedosphere? One assumes that ''hemisphaerium'' is an exception because of its halfness; hence its derivation from a Greek diminutive, ''hemisphaerion.'' The other spheres being whole, one assumes they're not diminutives and therefore follow the pattern of ''atmosphaera'' (f. sing., well attested). Right? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:17, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
: Certainly makes sense. Another difference is that ''hemisphere'' uses ''sphere'' in the sense of ''geometrical figure'', and the other *-spheres use ''sphere'' in the sense of ''region''. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 15:49, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== Bars ==
No, not the drinking establishment or the ones on the window, but the two-dimensional geometrical shape whose one side is much larger than the other side (as in ''search bar'' and ''bar code''). My Traupman doesn't have this sense. It has ''vectis'' as the unqualified translation, but that seems to specifically mean ''a thing used to impart leverage'', as in a crowbar, a lever, a bar on a door or gate, and so on. Ideas? --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 16:38, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:For ''bar'' in the sense of 'crossbeam', Stearn's ''Botanical Latin'' gives ''transtrum.'' It doesn't have a word for 'stripe', but for 'striped' it gives ''fasciatus'' and ''grammatus'' ('with raised lines') and ''vittatus'' ('longitudinally striped'). It doesn't have a word for 'band', but for 'banded' it adds that ''fasciatus'' = 'with transverse stripes of one colour crossing another'. These are technical terms in botany, and of course their analogs in zoology could differ. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 17:04, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:: Based on pictures of bobcats, probably ''fasciatus'' will have to do since the lines are neither raised nor longitudinal. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 17:33, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::''Fascia, -ae'' would be the nominal form of ''fasciatus'', I believe. Its definition, as provided by [[Felix Gaffiot]], is "bande, ruban" (inter alia). [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 18:45, 5 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::: Ah, one of the subspecies of ''L. rufus'' is ''L. rufus fasciatus'', the striped bobcat, so it's a good choice. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 01:00, 6 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== automata ==
Ave! Ego cum [[Vicipaedia:automata|automata]] laboro. Meum auxilium libenter offero ad la.wikim. Quomŏdo possum adiuvare vos? "welcomer bots" vultisne? Spero non multa errora ego feci ut scrivere vos. Can I speak English? i am italian, i studied latin at school but it is faster for me to write English than Latin.--[[Usor:Nickanc|Nickanc]] 22:13, 7 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:Salve, Nickanc. Yes you can write English (or Italian) on the Taberna and there are people who will understand! I expect those who know more about bots will answer your question, but certainly your offer is welcome. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 10:17, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::Thank you, Andrew. I would like to make my bot welcome automatically new users using [[mw:Manual:Pywikipediabot/welcome.py|welcome.py]], therefore adding in every new user talk <tt><nowiki>{{salve|Taberna}}</nowiki> %s</tt> where %s will be a random signature of the ones of you who want to welcome new users. My bot's name is [[User:Cellistbot]].--[[Usor:Nickanc|Nickanc]] 21:34, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::: Well, we should discuss beforehand whether we actually want to have new users welcomed automatically by a bot. If yes, then your help is greatly appreciated, but I am not yet convinced that this is desirable, for the following reasons:
:::* The vast majority of "new" users are visitors to la.wikipedia who are editors on a different Wikimedia project (mostly: on a wikipedia in a different language) and most probably have followed an interwiki link. I suspect that hardly any one of them is able to write Latin. I believe that in most cases a welcome message is not helpful for these users, as they do not intend to edit or visit la.wikipedia regularly, and they know wikipedia (albeit in a different language) quite well. You can look at [[Specialis:Log/newusers]] and watch out for "Ratio automatice creata" (an account created beforehand on a different Wikimedia project, before visiting la.wikipedia) and for the redlink to "conlationes" (not a single edit). I would prefer not to have users without edits welcomed (minimum: 1 edit).<br />Apart from this vast majority, there are two tiny fractions:
:::* Users who do perform edits, but whose edits are not too helpful. This is mostly due to the fact that these users try to create content, but have insufficient Latin language skills. Nearly always (of course there is a small number of exceptions), such users over time do not make significant progress in learning Latin, even if they stay here. As these user's attempts to create content are not too helpful, I see no advantage in welcoming these users.
:::* Users who perform useful edits (perhaps by improving the content, perhaps by useful administrative edits like maintaining interwiki links). Here, I consider a welcome by a human user more appropriate than a welcome by a bot, and the rate of arrival of new such users is small enough that, in my view, it is managable to welcome them all by a regular contributor.
::: Thoughts? --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 23:37, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::Uhm, actually I work on welcoming it.wiki and on some small wikis of italian regional languages (as venetian): we use to welcome both sul users and local registered users, but only if they make at least a edit. This solves the first of your points. Anyway, if you feel that this issue could be better done by a human, no problem. :) I am open to work with my bot on every kind of task you need, ok? :)--[[Usor:Nickanc|Nickanc]] 15:37, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::: I thought about some other issues i could help with: 
:::::* i may set my bot to make some of the corrections about the [[Vicipaedia:De orthographia|ortography]] (changing ligaturas, for example). Could I do some tests of this issue?
:::::* i could help if we need mass-creation of pages (if yes, we have to talk about good methods to work with this issue)
:::::I really want to contribute to latin wikipedia. Unfortunately, i am very slow in writing in a good latin and i have not so much time, but with bots, I think to be able to help. :)--[[Usor:Nickanc|Nickanc]] 19:55, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::Can your bot find the genera of plants & animals that were created by a bot within Wikipedia? Their code usually contains a notice like "bot-generated article," with or without the (obligatory) hyphen. If so, translating their (one-sentence, formulaic) definitions and adapting their taxoboxes might be something a bot could do. The main problem would be in their categories, which don't always match ours, but if you could do the articles in small batches—say, 25 to 50 every few days—and place them in a temporary category (designed for the purpose), a human could come in after you and categorize them. I've been reluctant to import many of these by hand, partly in hopes that a bot could do it and partly because the process doesn't improve Vicipaedia much in relation to the (human) time spent on it. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:40, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I am less familiar with the detail but I definitely agree with Iacobus that automatic creation of articles about species and genera could be a very good idea. If doing this, it will be wise to plan carefully, get good information, and write readable text to fit around the specific information (for a different example, see the new asteroid articles like [[3001 Michelangelo]]). That way, we could increase the number of pages without reducing the overall quality of Vicipaedia. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 19:15, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: That is a good idea, but in my view, we should derive our information from a reputable source different from the English wikipedia. Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 19:52, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: Nickanc, I like your idea about tidying up some of the ligatures and so on; that's going to be very easy for a bot, very tedious for a human, and a visible (if small) contribution to uniformity. But it's not particularly substantial! As for the biological pages, is there a suitable source on line ''outside'' English Wikipedia that could be mined? If so, then pages could perhaps be generated from there. Iacobe, as the local bio-guru, do you know of any such source? Meanwhile, Nickanc, welcome to Vicipaedia, and don't hesitate to work on an article if you want; you can put the <nowiki>{{tiro}}</nowiki> formula at the head of a page to indicate you're out of practice with Latin. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 21:36, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::We're talking about articles whose entire text will have this pattern: ''X est genus Y(gen.pl.) familiae Z(gen.pl.).'' The text will have been constructed from information already present in Wikipedia, in a human-authored article about family Z, where the genus will originally have been listed with a redlink. From the family-Z article, in addition to the lemma and the definition, a taxobox can be taken and extended to the genus-level. But all that will already have been done by an English-speaking bot, which will have inserted that fact into the code. The trick is to find such articles and adapt them to Vicipaedia's format. We wouldn't be asking the bot to write a new text, or even to compile anything. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 22:43, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::I have certainly encountered errors among the redlink lists of genera and species in en:wiki higher-level articles. When I say errors, I mean e.g. palimpsests of names some of which are (by currently accepted norms) synonyms of one another; and also misspellings and deprecated names. We know that "Wikipedia is not a reliable source", the founder says so! For building large numbers of articles it really would be better to use a source that everyone can consider reliable. I suspect we can find such sources.
:::::::::::For plants I have found [http://www.tropicos.org/ Tropicos] particularly useful, with info about the botanists as well as the species. Could it help? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:36, 15 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

(redeo) Plantae: that is a topic i am working on it.wiki (about mass-creation i have written a short guide line in italian on it.wiki [[:it:Aiuto:Creazione_sistematica_di_voci]]). The principal problem is reliability. On it.wiki we are working on a specific order of plants (see [[:it:Progetto:Forme di vita/Festival della Qualità:Operazione Cycadales]]) using [http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/search iucnredlist] database, that it.wiki life forms project found reliable (for details you may ask them at [[:it:Discussioni_progetto:Forme_di_vita]], if you write in English, you will be answered, I think latin too). Once we have the reliable source, we need to define the structure the articles would have. Then, bot!--[[Usor:Nickanc|Nickanc]] 21:53, 16 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:Do you agree about following this path to mass add pages about plantae?--[[Usor:Nickanc|Nickanc]] 20:18, 27 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::I am in favour, yes, I think it's a very good idea, as long as
::# We have a reliable source (I agree that IUCN Redlist is suitable if it supplies the information we need)
::# We agree on a format, including a good quantity of text (as we have done with the asteroid pages).
::If others do not object, Nickanc, perhaps you would like to produce a sample page, showing the information that you can get from your source(s), and we can work on making it a useful page in good Latin. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 10:55, 29 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::A draft test at [[Bowenia serrulata]]. basically, the bot compiles with iucn database datas and substitues in pages the template [[User:Nickanc/Taxa]]. I am sure it is possible to improve it.--[[Usor:Nickanc|Nickanc]] 19:27, 4 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::::That's great, Nickanc. I will have a good look at it this afternoon. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:29, 6 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::a small note: that template is related to [[Cycadales]] ordo (the last i have been working with on it.wiki), but in fact, just changing ordo, divisio or classis in the template, it will work for every kind of plant.--[[Usor:Nickanc|Nickanc]] 15:11, 6 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

==Anglice 'weak' =?==
For the weak force (or weak interaction) in [[physica particularum]], wikitradition has given us [[Vis imbecillis]], but that lemma can't be right, not least because the adjective is in the wrong declension; also, this kind of weakness is meant to be the opposite of ''fortis,'' and one wonders if ''imbecillus'' (sic) serves that function better than, say, ''invalidus'' or ''levis.'' Furthermore in several related articles, is ''vis'' the best gloss for 'force' = 'interaction'? According to Cassell's, its genitive singular is wanting, and at least one text that wikitradition has given us needs a genitive singular and uses ''vis'' for it. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:42, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:''vis'' seems to be "terminus technicus" in sciences for "force" (e.g. [http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Philosophiae_Naturalis_Principia_Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica]), but in my opinion we should avoid mixing it up with other concepts (energia, mutuum commercium etc.).--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 15:29, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:Sunt quattuor vires fundamentales physicae: 1. [[gravitas (physica)]], 2. [[Physica electromagnetica#Opera Caroli Coulomb et Caroli Gauss|vis electrica]], 3. [[vis imbecillis]] (?? weak interaction = weak (nuclear) force / schwache Wechselwirkung), 4. [[vis fortis]] (strong interaction = strong (nuclear) force = color force / starke Wechselwirkung = starke Kraft = starke Kernkraft = Gluonenkraft = Farbkraft).--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 15:57, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::what about exilis, tenuis, gracilis? In my opinion they are more similiar to the meaning of weak in "weak force". Imbecillis makes me think of [[wikt:en:imbecile]]. In italian we use "forza nucleare debole" being debole = weak. Debole comes from latin "debilis". Maybe all my suggestions are quite original research, but i don't know books about modern physics in latin and i doubt there are so many books of this type.--[[Usor:Nickanc|Nickanc]] 17:06, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::I omitted ''gracilis'' and ''tenuis'' because they're technical terms in botany, both meaning, not 'weak', but 'slender, thin'; similarly in botany (according to Stearn), ''exilis'' = 'small, meagre, weak, thin, slender', in which weakness, again, doesn't seem to be the basic idea. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 15:57, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm grateful that IacobusAmor has competently taken these poor pages under his wing (being myself ''no'' physicist); I found the lemmata in [[physica particularum]] and took them up more or less assuming they were OK. I think ''vis'' probably is appropriate, and I'm not sure what would replace ''fortis,'' but I agree that ''debilis'' is better than ''imbecilla'' (and I feel silly for not noticing that ''imbecillis'' isn't the f. nom. sg.!). [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 21:11, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Yes, ''debilis'' looks tempting; but as to "these poor pages," I don't know much about the subjects and am just converting the words: just wait until I tackle noiselets and wavelets and singing candles! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 22:36, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::"vis debilis" inquisii googlando: [https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=%22vis+debilis%22 hic sunt effectus]. Primus effectus dixit: "Quattuor sunt hae vires, nempe 'gravitationalis', 'electromagnetica', 'fortis', 'debilis'; quae in hoc differunt, quod diversa est ipsarum potentia." <<Debilis>> usare possumus? quid creditis?--[[Usor:Nickanc|Nickanc]] 13:33, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::mihi debilis melius imbecilli esse hoc sensu ( Words dat adiectivos et imbecillus et imbecillis Eodem sensu) ; proposita autem mutatio est bona.--[[Specialis:Conlationes/123.192.101.224|123.192.101.224]] 08:49, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== Alicui erant dicenda ... ==
Haec Tabernae nostrae imago photographica est horribilis!
[[Fasciculus:WikiSampa_001.jpg|thumb|center|Argghh!]]
Hae fortasse meliores essent:
<gallery>Fasciculus:Carl_Ostersetzer_Wirtshauspolitik.jpg|A
Fasciculus:Jakob_Emanuel_Gaisser_Erzählung_des_Trompeters.jpg|B
Fasciculus:Bieresel_3.jpg|C
Fasciculus:Dining_Booth.jpg|D
Fasciculus:Vector_cup_of_coffee.svg|E</gallery> Quid de hac re dicitis? [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 19:26, 8 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:Tibi consentio Mattie, dum non aliae propositiones sunt iam suffragator A. quia mihi videor optime congregationem ad commercium loquendi audiendique apta effingere. --[[Usor:Leonellus Pons|Leonellus Pons]] 03:05, 9 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

:: Non est horribilis. Amo! Quia est imago de amicis loquentibus et bibentibus. Ut nos. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 02:31, 9 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::: Amici lepide inter urceos cerevisiae colloquentes mihi valde placent. Itaque picturam praesentem aliis propositis, licet per se iucundae sint, picturis praefero. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 03:40, 9 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::B-b-but the ''framing''. The ''lighting''. The awkward can of Pepsi in the corner. The overly busy background. The ''colouring''. They're not talking, they're posing ... this belongs on Facebook! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 03:56, 9 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Ne mihi quidem mercium (sicut Pepsi) collocatio placet. Sed hilaris loci genius me delectat. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 14:25, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::Cum Matti consentio imaginem nunc in pagina impulchram esse. Et aliud addo: omnes in imagine, necnon in aliis quas Mattie nos proponit, sunt ''viri.'' Ubi sunt feminae? Fortasse una ex his:
<gallery>
Fasciculus:Hipp hipp hurra! Konstnärsfest på Skagen - Peder Severin Krøyer.jpg|F
Fasciculus:Gaetano de Las Heras Parisian Cafe 1903.jpg|G
Fasciculus:Jules Pascin Café scene.jpg|H
</gallery>
-- quae imagines ''feminas'' una cum viris monstrant, ut hic apud Vicipaediam nos cum vobis aliis laboramus! [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 13:25, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:Profecto bene mones! Hae omnes quas proposuisti imagines mihi satis placent. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 13:46, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::F! F! F! Pulcherrima est et laeta :D ¶ Imagines quas posui eventum erant investigationis celerrimae... potius ad imaginis praesentis turpitudinem spectabat nuntius initialis meus, quam ad propositiones. Quomodo has imagines invenisti tu? Ego verbis sicut "pub," "restaurant," "coffee(house)," "(dinner) party" inter Communium imagines quaesivi, neque, ut videre potes, nihil optimi inveni. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 16:47, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::Ego quoque verbis "pub" et "cafe" usa sum, etiam "conversation"; verbum "women" addi; tunc, categorias sicut "cafes in art" et "wine in art" inveniens, ibi quaesivi. Tam multae imagines apud Communia sunt, ut paene impossible sit id invenire, quod quaeras, nisi Fortuna faveat! [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 17:06, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::: Iterum apud Communia scrutatus sum, modo ut viderem utrum plura invenire possem, sed incommode nunc, nihil reperto, ad scholam mihi redeundum est! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 17:22, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Picturas quae sequuntur --
<gallery>
Fasciculus:James Tissot - La Partie carrée.jpg|I
Fasciculus:Monet dejeunersurlherbe.jpg|K
Fasciculus:Johannes Martini Frühstück in der Lokomotivwerkstätte 1891.jpg|L
Fasciculus:Diego Velázquez - Breakfast - WGA24352.jpg|M
</gallery>
-- e categoriis nostris [[:Categoria:Convivia figurata]] extraxi. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 19:07, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

Ut quam vicipaediae Latinae proprias imagines habeamus has propono:
<gallery>
File:Quadriga-verleihung-rr-09.jpg|N
File:House party in Denver Colorado.JPG|O
File:Fyrstikkalleen skole mac.jpg|P
File:International Friendship.jpg|Q
</gallery>
--[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] 20:02, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:Nice one, Alex! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 20:59, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::Addo explicationem verbalem: ego sum qui imaginem ab Alex selectam ad caput Tabernae hodiernae imposui, sed pro tempore et ad experimentum faciendum neque ad disputationem praecipiendam! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:17, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
Puto, ut monuit AMahoney, tales imagines eligi debere, quae et feminas et viros monstrent. Tales sunt: F, G, H, I, K, N, O, Q. Quodsi Tabernam nostram etiam in posterum ''tabernam'' appellare velimus, mihi quidem videtur inter G et H eligendum esse. (Num F ''taberna'' appellari potest?) Ergo, si imaginem feminas virosque in taberna conviventes monstrantem eligere velimus, G mihi maxime placeat. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 08:04, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:Hmm ... F maxime mihi placet, sed non est taberna, ut dixis. Quod ad G pertinet, maestior est haec. Egomet autem alias inveni picturas! Ecce:
<gallery>
Fasciculus:Auguste_Constantin_Viollier_The_traveller%27s_rest_1882.jpg|R
Fasciculus:Amedeo_Preziosi_-_Istanbul_cafe.jpg|S
Fasciculus:George_Goodwin_Kilburne_A_meal_stop_at_a_coaching_inn.jpg|T
Fasciculus:Heinrich_Zille_In_der_Kaschemme.jpg|U
Fasciculus:Axel_Törneman_Nattcafé_II.jpg|V
Fasciculus:Ludwig_Passini_-_Künstler_im_Cafe_Greco_in_Rom.jpg|W (absentibus autem feminis)
Fasciculus:Paul_Hoeniger_Cafe_Josty.jpg|X
Fasciculus:Willard_Leroy_Metcalf_Au_Cafe.jpg|Y
</gallery>
[[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 18:15, 15 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

:::Nunc multum proficimus! Inter has, V et X mihi praecipue placent, et H supra, vel etiam K (imago notissima). Quid censetis? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 20:46, 15 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

<gallery>
Fasciculus:Hr-wikipedian meetup-10092006.jpg|Z
Fasciculus:Sydney Meetup November 2011.jpg|α
Fasciculus:Wikimedia Cairo Meetup at LeCaire.jpg|β
Fasciculus:NYC meetup 3.jpg|Γ
Fasciculus:Street cats (1).jpg|Δ
</gallery>
--[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 01:59, 19 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

=== Alia quaestio ===
Quid tibi placet? Imago abstracta ut E? Imago picta ut F? Aut imago photographica recentior ut Z? (Aut fortasse imago ridicula ut Δ!) --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 02:04, 19 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:Imagines photographicae mihi saltem videntur efficere, ut homines depictos putes aliquos e nobis Vicipaedianis Latinis esse, etenim cum primum Vicipaediam duos abhinc annos inveni, hanc imaginem, quam adhuc ostendimus, hoc quidem repraesentare putabam! Quinam alioquin sint ei, quos in taberna habemus nostra? Qua ratione picturam photographicae (homines neque feles monstranti) imagini praefero ego. Quod ad alias quaestiones attinet tuas, picturae (F, &c.) imaginesque ridiculae (Δ) valde mihi placent! F quod pulchra felixque est, Δ autem faceta et iucunda, ex parte quod non eius generis imaginem in Vicipaedia ''Latina'' invenire expectaveris! Satis autem sententiarum mearum: quid tune putas, Roberte? [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 03:04, 19 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::Imago Δ mihi quoque placet, sed quomodo scimus hi feles ''Latine'' miaulent? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 14:21, 20 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::Possumus [[:en:Speech balloon|orationis orbes]] addere quinque, ut feles "Maumo! Maumas! Maumare! Maumavi! Maumatum!" dicant! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 22:12, 20 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Credo linguam Latinam odiosam esse feli secundae a sinistro. O mala felis! --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 02:55, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::Ex Z ad Γ mihi placent, α praefero. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 14:29, 20 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::Praefero α et β. --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] 23:37, 23 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Imago quam non habemus, sed mea certe praedilecta, est illa non facta fuit apud [[Vicipaedia:Conventicula vicipaedianorum/Primum conventiculum: Roma 2010|conventiculum vicipaedianorum Romae]]! Sed ex imaginibus praepositis, egomet malo M--[[User:Xaverius|<span style="color:blue;">Xave</span>]][[:eu:Lankide:Xaverius|<span style="color:green;">ri</span>]][[:eu:Lankide_eztabaida:Xaverius|<span style="color:red;">us</span>]] 00:19, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::Mihi placet imagines photographica Γ et picta A (etsi haec absque feminis sit). --[[Usor:Leonellus Pons|Leonellus Pons]] 00:24, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Imagines photographicae mihi placent. Et α et Γ mihi placent, quamquam feles non adsunt. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 02:50, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== Salvete! ==
Revera! Omnino assentior tibi. Omnium imaginum expositarum a te pictura prima mihi placet centuplicato quam haec. At haec imago risum commovet :))
<small>&mdash; ''Commentationem pristinam [[Vicipaedia:Subscriptio|non subscriptam]] [[Usor:178.46.88.28|178.46.88.28]] scripsit ([[Disputatio Usoris:178.46.88.28|178.46.88.28]] <small>•</small> [[Specialis:Conlationes/178.46.88.28|conlationes]]) 01:51, 9 Ianuarii 2012‎''.</small>

== Paper ==
I am expanding [[Liber]] and need to talk about what books are made of, notably paper. OK, when I say "paper" in English it covers wood paper and rag paper but not papyrus. In modern Latin I have an attested term for rag paper [[charta cottonea]], I can easily specify [[charta lignea]] and [[charta papyracea]], but I don't think I know any term that corresponds precisely to English "paper", because [[charta]] includes papyrus while "paper" does not. Am I right? If so, it's no problem, I can work with it, I just need to be sure I'm not making a silly mistake. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 12:48, 10 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:For ''paper'' in the sense 'material for writing on', Cassell's offers only ''charta.'' For 'paper made of papyrus', it offers ''papyrus'' (citing Martial & Juvenal). For ''paper'' in the sense 'material for writing on', White's offers ''charta'' (citing Cicero & Horace) and ''papyrus'' (citing Juvenal and Catullus), and in the sense 'a written document', ''instrumentum'' (citing Suetonius) and ''codicilli'' (pl., citing Quintilian); also, it has ''charteus'' 'made of paper' and ''chartarius'' 'dealing in paper'. For ''a piece, or scrap, of paper,'' Ainsworth has ''chartula''&thinsp;; for ''a sheet of paper,'' it has ''chartae scheda'' and [''chartae''] ''plagula'' (note the seeming backwardness of the word-order, which will excite our Neander no end); for ''made of paper,'' it has ''chartaceus''&thinsp;; and it confirms White's ''chartarius.'' Further, Ainsworth tells us that ''charta'' is 'paper', "first made of the flags from the river Nile. . . . It is taken for ''any material to write upon,'' or ''for a thin plate of any thing; as,'' ¶ Charta plumbea, ''a sheet of lead''" (citing Suetonius, italics original). So English ''paper'' does cover papyrus, and ''charta'' does appear to be your most general word. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:30, 10 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::Btw, in some article or other (one forgets where one saw it), a link to "liber" now goes to the book-article instead of a proposed bark-article (and Vicipaedia should have an article for Liber, the deity). That's because you changed the name of the page from "Liber (litterae)" to just plain "liber." It's perhaps better to treat bark under [[Cortex]], as suggested by Stearn's ''Botanical Latin,'' with the specific sense of 'inner bark' presumably then being ''cortex interior'' or some technical term (other than ''liber''). [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:42, 10 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::Agreed. I think the move was a reasonable idea, because (as you say) liber = bark can equally be "cortex", the deity is usually "Liber Pater" or vice versa, and many, many, many links point to "liber" expecting it to mean 'book'. If you do come across that stray link again, I suggest you revise it to "cortex" (or to "liber (cortex)" if you think the specific sense of inner bark requires an article): sorry. And thanks for your useful comments above. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:49, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
: ''charta'' may include ''papyrus'', and ''paper'' may not include ''papyrus'', but ''charta'' does include ''paper''. ''charta'' is like a big circle containing two non-overlapping smaller circles, ''paper'' and ''papyrus''. Perhaps the first time you mention paper in a book, you can specify what types (rag, cotton, and so on), and then just use ''charta'' more generally. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 02:30, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, that seems to be the thing to do. Thanks! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:49, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== Formula:Documentation ==
{{Fn|Documentation}} is a powerful tool I am going to translate. The code is complicated so I am not going to give backward compatibility but I am simply going to give a new formula with all names translated, first of all parameter names but also including all depending template names and so on. So here are my suggested translations for all names I need to translate:
* documentation -> documentatio
* sandbox -> harenarium (see [[Vicipaedia:Harenarium]])
* testcases -> testificanda
* doc (abbreviation of documentation) -> doc (please note that some ''formulae'' use "manualis" instead; nevertheless, I still prefer "doc")
* namespace -> spatium nominale (I see this [[Specialis:Praefixa|here]] for instance)
* pagename -> nomen paginae
* start box -> capsam incipe (is 2nd person imperative correct?)
* end box -> capsam desine
* edit -> recense
* create -> crea
Then I need some suggestions for these English words I cannot figure out how to translate:
* notice (I need to translate the expression "Template sandbox notice", see {{Fn|Template sandbox notice}} to see what this notice is)
* content (I also call this the "body" of the documentation, the "main part" i.e. everything but the headers, footers, notes and the like)
:''Corpus.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:09, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
* heading (maybe it's "header" mispelled... I use the word "header" for the meaning that this parameter has)
:''Caput.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:09, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
* style (for HTML programmers: this is the meaning of attribute "style" in a "span" element)
:Pro 'style of language', Cassell's praebet: "''dicendi'' or ''scribendi genus, orationis'' or ''sermonis genus, oratio, sermo, elocutio.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:09, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::yes, but this is about typographical appearance; perhaps ''forma''? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 18:30, 16 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
* preload
* purge (see {{Fn|Purge}} for instance)
I think this is all I need now... I hope I remembered everything. Can you please help? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 09:32, 11 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
: Thank you for suggestions. I will use ''forma'' for "style". I add:
:* preload -> exemplar (the meaning of this "preload" parameter is "template, model")
:* purge -> purga (etymological...)
:Any suggestion for notice? "nota" seu "notitia" (etymological...)? --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 10:44, 20 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::In this case it's really a "header" or "rubric" rather than a notice. So maybe "rubrica". [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:09, 21 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== Acoustique ==
Quid est Latinum huius verbum nomen? Nobis iam est commentarium de [[Acustica]], sed est illud lemma rectum? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:08, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:''acusticus'' est adiectivus (humanisticus?). ''scientia acustica'' fortasse melius est. --[[Usor:Achillus|Achillus]] 13:25, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:: ''Acustica'' lemma iustum est. Ab origine quidem adiectivum, sicut etiam ''mathematica'', ''physica'' &c., sed omnes nominis substantivi locum optime implent. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 14:11, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::''Acoustica'' quoque, cum littera O? Et utra forma est melior? (Lege primam commentarii sententiam). [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:30, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC) ¶ Ah, OK, nunc videmus Neandrem lemma iam emendavisse. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:33, 12 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== linguistica? ==
Id nomen censeo esse nomen ex sermone quotidiano conuersum in linguam Latinam. Humaniorum litterarum studiosi, qui humanistae dicuntur, hoc uerbum cum << ''grammatica'' >> substituerunt, quod proin non potest accipi, quippe quae postea in huius scientiae progressu pars scientiae ipsae facta sit. Ideo uerbum recentius usurpatum <<glottologiam>> inuicem huius uocabuli proicerem. Quid sentitis?--[[Usor:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|Martinus Poeta Juvenis]] 12:56, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:Linguistica, licet sit verbum plus minusve novatum, tamen in litteris varie invenitur, ut puta [http://www.kirj.ee/lu hic] apud Academiam Scientiarum Estoniae. Glottologia mea sententia pars est linguisticae (linguistica historica sive diachronica).--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 15:18, 13 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== Happy Caturday! ==
[[Lolcat]]. Those cats get everywhere! --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 14:36, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:At last we are a serious scholarly resource! (i can haz artiklez?) :-) [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 21:25, 14 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== Announcing Wikipedia 1.19 beta ==
Wikimedia Foundation is getting ready to push out 1.19 to all the WMF-hosted wikis. As we finish wrapping up our code review, you can test the new version ''right now'' on [http://beta.wmflabs.org/ beta.wmflabs.org]. For more information, please read the [https://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/RELEASE-NOTES-1.19?view=markup release notes] or the [[mw:MediaWiki_1.19|start of the final announcement]].

The following are the areas that you will probably be most interested in:
* [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33711#c2 Faster loading of javascript files makes dependency tracking more important.]
* New common*.css files usable by skins instead of having to copy piles of generic styles from MonoBook or Vector's css.
* The default user signature now contains a talk link in addition to the user link.
* Searching blocked usernames in block log is now clearer.
* Better timezone recognition in user preferences.
* Improved diff readability for colorblind people.
* The interwiki links table can now be accessed also when the interwiki cache is used (used in the API and the Interwiki extension).
* More gender support (for instance in logs and user lists).
* Language converter improved, e.g. it now works depending on the page content language.
* Time and number-formatting magic words also now depend on the page content language.
* Bidirectional support further improved after 1.18.

Report any [http://labs.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Problem_reports problems] on the labs beta wiki and we'll work to address them before they software is released to the production wikis.

'''Note''' that this cluster does have SUL but it is not integrated with SUL in production, so you'll need to create another account. You should avoid using the same password as you use here. — [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]] 16:21, 15 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 0145 -->

== Non ortus sed virtus ==
Hello, I'm trying to say in latin "not birth but virtue" or "not by birth but by virtue". After a bit of searching, I found this translation : "non ortus sed virtus". Do you think it is a good latin locution, or are there better ways to say this ? Thanks. --[[Specialis:Conlationes/82.237.174.28|82.237.174.28]] 10:31, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:''Virtute, non ortu''&thinsp;? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:29, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::If we're talking about birth as in lineage, and not birth as in physical biological childbearing, maybe ''virtute, nec generi''&thinsp;? (I rather like ''nec'' to emphasize the difference) --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 18:24, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::: I'm for ''ortus''. But it all depends on co(n)text. Given a sentence such as "The Book of the Three Virtues depicts a city of noble women who claim their nobility not by birth but by virtue", I'd translate ''Liber Trium Virtutum urbem depingit nobilium feminarum, quae nobilitatem '''non ortu sed virtute''' sibi vindicant''. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 22:01, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== in ''Interrete'' ==
Sunt in multis paginis verba "in ''Interrete"'' scripta. Sitne "in ''Interreti"'' quia ''[[Interrete]]'' est verbum neutrum? Etiam sit automaton corrigere hanc error? --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 18:17, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:Alius, qui plura quam ego sciat, amplius meliusque explicare possit, sed ut breviter dicam, non nullorum tertiae declinationis verborum, ut puta "mare" et "rete" (ergo "interrete" quoque) ablativus casu ''-e'' formatur. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 18:31, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::Allen & Greenough nos monent (#68, a): "Neuters in '''-e, al, ar,''' have '''-ī''' in the ablative singular, '''-ium''' in the genitive plural, and '''-ia''' in the nominative and acccusative plural, as '''animăl, animālī, -ia, -ium.'''" Etiam (#76): "The ablative in '''-ī''' is found exclusively . . . [in] neuters in '''-e, al, ar,''' except '''baccar, rēte,''' and sometimes '''mare.'''" Gildersleeve autem idioma nos offert (#385, n.1) "'''terrā marīque''' 'on land and sea'." [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 19:51, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::: Quod ad ''rete'' attinet, constat ablativum ''reti'' multo rariorem esse quam ''rete'' (Plaut. ''Rud.'' 913 ''in rete''; Varro, ''Rust.'' 3.5 ''obiecto rete'', 3.9 ''intento supra rete''; Plin. ''Nat''.11.81.4 ''a scutulato rete''). [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 21:36, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::Oh my goodness, I just realised I what wrote up there. I meant "non nullorum tertiae declinationis verborum, ''quorum nominativi casu -e terminentur''..." D'oh! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 22:22, 18 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::: Quo ''in Interreti'' inveniamus? [http://www.vocealta.info/ Voce Alta] et [http://users.skynet.be/Melissalatina/archivum/111/lex1.htm Melissa] (vide paginam nostram [[Melissa]]) (in Interreti ''et'' in Interrete)! [http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/leonina/leoXXXVI.pdf Epistula Leonina] et [http://latinumpodcast.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html Latinum Podcast] et [http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/listaarticulos?tipo_busqueda=EJEMPLAR&revista_busqueda=1609&clave_busqueda=288974 Vox Latina] vol 46. Quo autem ''in Interrete'' inveniamus? Certe non in fontibus aequivalentibus. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 01:44, 19 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::: Dixi antiquos ablativo ''rete'' potius quam ''reti'' usos esse. Certam normam non habuisse videntur. Ego constructionem ''in interreti'' non repudio, sed si ''in interrete'' scriptum esse videam, corrigere non audeam. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] 06:19, 19 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Ah, nunc intellego quod dicis. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 13:19, 19 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== Language support group for Latin ==
The Wikimedia Foundation has brought together a new team of developers who are dedicated to language support. This team is to support all the languages and consequently it is not realistic to expect that the team members can provide proper support for your language. It is for this reason that we are looking for volunteers who will make up a [[:translatewiki:language support team|language support team]]. 

This language support team will be asked to provide us with information about their language. Such information may need to be provided either to us or on a website that we will indicate to you. Another activity will be to test software that will likely have an effect on the running of the MediaWiki software. We are looking for people who clearly identify their ability. Formal knowledge is definitely appreciated.

As much of the activity will be concentrated on [[:translatewiki:Main Page|translatewiki.net]], it will be a plus when team members know how to localise at translatewiki.net. <br>
Thanks, [[Usor:Gmeijssen|Gmeijssen]] 07:39, 20 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== Anglice: ''domino'' (ludus) ==
Quid est verbum Latinum? Et quid est forma pluralis? Webster's Collegiate Dictionary nobis dicit fontem verbi Anglici esse formulam ritualem Latinam ''benedicamus Domino.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 16:23, 22 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:Secundum [http://eweb.furman.edu/~dmorgan/lexicon/silva.htm Morgan]:
::.game dominoes / ludus domini [Pal. Lat.]; ludus ocellatorum [Soc. Lat.; Suet.] (HELF.)
:[[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 16:42, 22 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::Gratias tibi agimus, amice! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 17:10, 22 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== Global account ==
Good morning everybody. I discovered to hav a ''global account'' in Wikipedia Latin, tha connect me as my nick in other Wikipedia. Sorry, I don't know how I made, but I don't want to have ''global account'', can I take off? Is it possible? Thank you for the help [[Usor:Rex Momo|Rex Momo]] 06:56, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:I looked at the documentation and I don't think it's possible to change from a global account to a non-global one. But you don't have to do anything here in Latin if you don't want to. It doesn't hurt to have a global account -- if you ever ''do'' want to use one of the other versions (including Meta, Commons, Wikisource, and so on too), you don't need another username and password for them. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 15:27, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:PS: the connection happens whenever you come into a new Wikipedia even to read an article, even if you don't edit anything. I'm connected to several dozen versions because I've gone in to look at particular things; I may never go back to those Wikipedias, but if I ever did, I could be recognized under my actual name. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 19:24, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== Yet another request for a kind programmer ==
Commentarius [[Turris Khalifa]] needs a functioning <nowiki>{{Infobox building}}</nowiki>—which would greatly enhance an article that (according to the leading lights of Mediawiki) is one of the 1000 most important topics for any self-respecting encyclopedia to have. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 12:05, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:And the <nowiki>{{Capsa coloniae}}</nowiki> isn't printing entirely correctly; see the example in [[Damascus]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 11:52, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:: The <nowiki>{{Capsa coloniae}}</nowiki> should work in [[Damascus]] now. The problem was that <nowiki>{{Location map Syria}}</nowiki> wasn't defined. Andrew Dalby, however, had created <nowiki>{{Charta locatrix Syriae}}</nowiki> back in 2008, so I just redirected to that. As for infobox building... didn't we have a vocal contingent of infobox disparagers? I'm hesitant to introduce another. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 03:09, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::I guess that means partly me :) Well, speaking for myself (a) it's fine, I can see the value of infoboxes for technical details of buildings etc. (b) if I were you I'd ask Iacobus how many Vicipaedia articles he plans to use this box in ... but that's just me, and (c) your time is yours, Robert! Go for it! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:35, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)<br>
Problems remain in the <nowiki>{{Capsa coloniae}}</nowiki> as seen in [[Damascus]]: the urban landmarks (Lapides Urbis Damasci) are printing twice, and "nickname" needs to be Latinized (Cassell's suggests ''nomen per ludibrium datum,'' though that's rather cumbersome). [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:39, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:And now in [[Mamma]] (1000 paginae!) and other anatomical articles to come, we need localization of <nowiki>{{Infobox Anatomy}}</nowiki>. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:02, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>{{Infobox Anatomy}}</nowiki> is now redirected to <nowiki>{{Capsa anatomiae}}</nowiki>. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 00:21, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::And the <nowiki>{{Capsa hominis}}</nowiki> doesn't seem to be working quite right in [[Ferdinandus Cortesius]] (1000 paginae!). [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 15:09, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::: Can you tell me what isn't working? I don't see anything obvious, other than the names needing translating. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 00:06, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::::Exactly. Suggestions: Nationality, (???); Other names, Alia nomina; Occupation: Negotium; Known for: Fons famae? Fons gloriae? ; Signature: Nomen subscriptum. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 01:50, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Done!--[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 02:44, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::I don't like to be the ghost at the feast, but I think we agreed ''not'' to use Capsa hominis, and Robert's suggestion (which seemed a good idea) was to redirect it to "Data hominis". See [[Disputatio Formulae:Data hominis|Disputatio Formulae:Capsa hominis]]. In my opinion nationality and occupation would look babyish on Cortes (or anyone of his period), and fons famae is the sort of thing a proper enyclopedia will deal with in proper sentences with attention to point of view. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:21, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
OK, [[Damascus]] is now working: the problem was that the skyline image hadn't been moved to commons. Also, I used ''agnomina'' for nickname(s). I'll take a look at the other capsae. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 23:56, 18 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:Agnomen seems exactly right. But obviously we won't give a Latin agnomen unless the city really has one (Noli fingere), and why we should give an agnomen in any other language on a Latin page I'm not sure. Rome, Constantinople and Jerusalem, to name three, have certainly had Latin nicknames in their time, so this will be used at least occasionally! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:21, 19 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
* A few (just a few!) parts of the <nowiki>{{Capsa coloniae}}</nowiki> in [[Lacupolis]] aren't printing right. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:13, 20 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
* The <nowiki>{{Infobox sport}}</nowiki> isn't printing in [[Pilamalleus]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:57, 20 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
* The <nowiki>{{Infobox lake}}</nowiki> isn't printing in [[Lacus Victoria]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:56, 20 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
* The <nowiki>{{Formula:Infobox dam}}</nowiki> isn't printing in [[Moles Trium Angustiarum]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 15:13, 11 Martii 2012 (UTC)
* The <nowiki>{{Formula:Cladogram}}</nowiki> isn't printing in [[Dikarya]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 15:13, 11 Martii 2012 (UTC)

== Lusitania / Portugalia / Portugallia ==

Est commentatio [[Portugallia]], Categoria "Lusitania" et Categoria "Historia Portugaliae" (sic!) - Quaedam repurgatio, ut appellatio uniformis fiat, necesse esse videtur.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 15:53, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:Mea sententia, quamcumque appellationem eligimus, nomen commentationis de [[lingua Lusitana]] quoque mutandum est (aut non, Potugalliam si "Lusitaniam" appellamus), ut ambo congruant. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 17:05, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::Usores Portugalenses (sive Lusitani!) suaserunt nomen civitatis hodiernae "Portugallia" esse. Id nomen in nummis et in documentis officialibus reperitur; "Lusitania" est regio antiqua limitibus valde differentibus, et provincia Romana. Credo eos recte suasisse; sed hi usores nunc absunt! Pagina igitur mota est sed usque adhuc nemo categorias movit. Si omnes consentimus, movi possunt, fortasse adiuvante UVbot.
::De nomine linguae abnuo ... Nomina linguarum et civitatum congruere haud necesse est; haec lingua (quam philologi saepe "Lusitana" nuncupantur) etiam in Brasilia, Angola, etc. etc. adhibetur. Suadeo nomina linguarum et civitatum separatim, secundum fontes, a nobis statuenda. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 20:03, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::Quin igitur in commentatione de hac lingua nomini "Lusitana" hos addas fontes ... hoc tempore – haec est res quae superam annotatiunculam meam concivit – declaratum est fontem desiderari. Constat profecto linguas secundum fontes, neque solum originis civitatem, nominandas! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 21:03, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::Optime: de nomine linguae fontes peto.
:::::Oops, intellexeram te scire quales erant hi fontes, quibus usores Portugallenses usi erant. Aliter ipse quaesivissem! Novissime quasi proprius servulus es meus, paginas movens, de [[mentor]]ibus scribens, fontes inveniens ... :) [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 23:30, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::At ego sum qui dixi "philologi saepe "Lusitana" nuncupantur": mihi igitur pro certo oportebat demonstrare! Nunc in ea pagina fontes citavi (sed quo nomine ''saepius'' philologi utuntur, haud scio). [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:09, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC) 
::::De nomine civitatis (et categoriarum) an quis apud nos a "Portugallia" dissentit? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 21:17, 24 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::De nomine civitatis ac categoriarum assentio. Adiectivi „Portugallensis“ usus autem ambiguus est: sive ad civitatem (cf. „rex portugallensis“ et „regnum Portugallense“) sive ad urbem [[Portus Cale|Portum Cale]] spectat (dioecesis Portugallensis = Diocese de Porto). Etiam „Lusitanus“ et „Lusitanicus“ adhuc in usu sunt: „Universitas Catholica Lusitana“; species Portugalliae a [[Carolus Linnaeus|Linnaeo]] descriptae (vide: [http://briefeankonrad.tripod.com/Lebenssinn/index.blog?start=1180129979]) „Lusitanicae“ nominantur.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 16:58, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::Recte dicis, et ob hanc rationem usque adhuc verbum "Lusitanus" etc. apud nos usitatur; sed in contextu officiali verbum "Portugallensis" etc. latius reperitur. Igitur categorias de rebus Portugallensibus nunc tandem movere propono. Si paginam et categoriam "dioecesis Portugallensis" creabimus, sensum specialem habebunt. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 21:50, 5 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

== Formula Insulae Graeciae / auxilium peto ==
Vox ad adiutores in formulis creandis peritos: Quid falsi feci, ubi in formula Insulae Graeciae lineam "spissitudo" rescripsi (ut scilicet spissitudo ex divisione areae per numerum incolarum efficeretur)?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 16:54, 30 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
: Rectificavi. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 17:51, 30 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
::Gratias tibi ago!--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] 17:55, 30 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)

== For programmers: a curious error message ==
In commentario de [[Luna (satelles)|Luna]], hunc nuntium videmus: "Cite error: <nowiki><ref> tags exist for a group named "nb", but no corresponding <references group="nb"/></nowiki> tag was found." [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 14:14, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:Fixed. It seems weird to have both a "notae" and a "nota bene" section, though. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 15:03, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::Macte! Now we have a nonprinting box in [[Pediludium|Pediludio]], commentario in alia ex 1000 paginis. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 18:27, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::well, yes, sure, because ''we'' don't have the dazzling variety of Infoboxes, Templates, and other ancillae that English WP has created. Do we actually ''desire'' an infobox for sports, and would we use it elsewhere? Or could the relevant information go gracefully into the text? This is actually an easy infobox, from the looks of it, so it's not like we ''couldn't'' create it, but do we want to? Are infoboxes generally a Good Thing? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 19:53, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::::I'd say yes, for two reasons: graphic design and familiar summarization. There are, however, those who disagree. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 21:15, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::: We recently had a discussion (without reaching a conclusion, I'd say) here: [[Disputatio Formulae:Capsa hominis#About this template]]. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 22:38, 7 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::I think the discussion you've linked brought up some useful issues. If a general comment is wanted, my comment is, I am for the best encyclopaedia with the least effort applied in the most productive way, because we are very few (though increasing!) Since it is far quicker for me to write text than to design or localize a box, I create boxes only when I know they will be useful on many pages: I mean, pages that I intend to write or that I know others are about to write. 
:::::Luckily, some people around here differ from me (a) because they prefer designing to writing and (b) because they are better at it than I am. If ''they'' want to create boxes, I am very happy (and so is Iacobus, I know)!
:::::But I still come back to the point about "least effort applied in the most productive way". It is a waste of time to design boxes to go on one page (because the time can be better spent) and an utter waste of time to design boxes for the vague future (because we can't predict in detail what Vicipaedians will want or need, and because of "template-fatigue" -- i.e. boxes designed now will always unpredictably need redesigning in the future).
:::::Now, take the three kinds of boxes that appear on a good-to-middling en:wiki page.
::::::(a) Navboxes. Very easy to make (start with {{fn|Nav}}) and useful as soon as there is a group of pages to link together. Like categories, navboxes help people navigate around the site and bring more people to each page. Better than categories, they can contain redlinks and therefore indicate what pages in a set still need to be written. Good use of little effort.
::::::(b) Portalboxes. A subset of (a), differing in that they tend to focus on a portal page or pages. [[User:Utilo]] is currently making some boxes of this kind in the area of Greek history &c. A good use of effort if someone is actively working, has written the portal page, and intends to go on working in the area -- as Utilo quite evidently does!
::::::(c) Infoboxes. Useful if there actually is, or is about to be, a group of pages on which similar very specific notable and uncontroversial information can be grouped -- e.g. places, villages, countries, satellites, asteroids, stars; elements, compounds; plants, animals; etc. That's not an exhaustive list. Potentially useful when applied to a group of suitable pages, but time-consuming. Since they offer snap information, they entail making sure the information remains good and is from a reliable source. They require someone to be watching the page, ensuring that random edits don't make the information in text and infobox drift apart. I'd say it's best not to put an infobox on a page one isn't watching. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 10:15, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Most of the taxoboxes I've imported are set in concrete and aren't going to be changing anytime soon; I've tended not to import taxoboxes (or even articles!) for groupings of taxa that, by common agreement, are quite uncertain and have been announced to be under taxonomic review. In the process, I've occasionally found and corrected errors in English taxoboxes, including one that, by mixing up a couple of letters, had assigned a genus of plants to a family of fishes! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 19:38, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC) 
::::::::I believe you ... Yes, I recall being unenthusiastic about the automatic taxoboxes (and I couldn't grasp how they worked) but I warmly agree that taxoboxes are among the most practical, useful and informative of all. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 21:09, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::I might have known this was an on-going discussion! I am perfectly happy to port templates from :en; I am ''not'' good at graphic design, but can easily enough make boxes that look like they do in :en. The immediate question, then, is whether [[Ludus|Ludi]] are similar enough to merit a table of basic facts. In English the "infobox sport" lists: the governing body (applicable to most major professional and/or Olympic sports), names of the game, when and where it was first played, whether it is a contact sport, whether both men and women play, the size of the team, whether it is an Olympic sport, and so on. There are about 200 pages in EnWP that use this template. If we're going to use it anywhere near that often, it may be worth having; this would mean going through our games-and-sports pages and putting it in and, as Andrew says, maintaining the pages. (There are at least 9 in the 1000 Pages that are sports, depending on what you count.) I'm not sure I have a considered judgement yet on the global question of the desirability of infoboxes and I defer to the wisdom of the elders (in Wikitime, that is). [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 13:16, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Regarding infoboxes, there is a proposal to host notable and uncontroversial data in a common repository (data.wikimedia.org) so that this data can then be presented (in a localized format) on infoboxes across all wikipedia language editions, if desired (this is somewhat similar to what commons does for images - commons.wikimedia.org is a repository for images that can, if desired, be presented on pages on any Wikimedia project). This is not going to happen within the next few weeks, but [[meta:Wikimedia Deutschland]] has already hired developers to implement this proposal. You can read more about this proposal here: [[meta:WikiData WMDE]] (second phase). If this project succeeds, we might be able to add infoboxes to more articles, with less effort on our shoulders for collecting and validating data. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 21:41, 8 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::That's all new to me, and quite exciting. I suppose this is analogous to the way Robert has worked it with the asteroid boxes.
:::::::The possibility of including data automatically from a central and reliable source would definitely warm me to infoboxes, and I can imagine people on many other smaller wikis saying the same thing. We have at present no means for updating, e.g., the city infoboxes with new population figures, names of mayors, etc. When someone anonymous comes and updates these details for us, we have to wonder each time whether it's a dedicated local enthusiast or a vandal. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 10:15, 9 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

== Programmatores! Ecce "Cite encyclopedia" ==
Formula <nowiki>{{Cite encyclopedia . . . .}}</nowiki> emendatione eget. Exempla in commentario de [[Religio Islamica|Religione Islamica]] (uno ex 1000 paginis) inveniuntur. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 13:40, 9 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:OK, I'll have a go at that one. I localised some "Cite" templates a while ago, so, with luck, I can remember what I did. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:55, 9 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::So far as I can see, there's now no problem with {{fn|Cite encyclopedia}}. If there is a problem with it on any other page, please let me know. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 10:30, 2 Martii 2012 (UTC)

== Why ==
Why can't we categorize Spanish words along with Greek (etc.) words? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 17:24, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:See [[:Categoria:Verba Hispanica]]. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 17:39, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::But you just deleted <nowiki>[[Categoria:Verba Hispanica]]</nowiki> from the article about [[Agitatio Australis El Niño / La Niña|El Niño]] (una ex mille paginis gravissimis). [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 17:44, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::Didn't you look at the category? Please look at it now. The Spanish word concerned is "Niño", and you will see that it is categorised. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 17:50, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::::From the redirect page, not from the article. Wikipedia categorizes it (as "Spanish loanwords") from the article, at [[:en:El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] 18:26, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Don't mention it, it's a pleasure. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 18:33, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::The only reason a redirect should be placed in a category is if the redirect is another word entirely. For instance, [[coming out]] redirects to [[vestiario exire]], so [[coming out]] is placed in [[:Categoria:Locutiones Anglicae]]. So I agree with Iacobus, there's no reason for the page itself not to be in the category. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 20:36, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::: The topic of the article [[Agitatio Australis El Niño / La Niña]] is not a Spanish word, but a meteorological phenomenon, and the article rightfully does not start like
:::::::: '''Agitatio Australis El Niño / La Niña''' est verbum Hispanicum. …
::::::: Therefore, the article [[Agitatio Australis El Niño / La Niña]] should, in my view, not be placed in [[:Categoria:Verba Hispanica]], just as we do not place the articles [[Bos taurus]] and [[Confoederatio Helvetica]] in [[:Categoria:Verba Latina]]. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 20:49, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::::[Edit conflict:] Sorry if I didn't explain properly. The reason seemed obvious to me, but perhaps that's just because I'm a pernickety cataloguer! The aim is to be helpful to the reader. The word in question occurs late in a long and complicated pagename ([[Agitatio Australis El Niño / La Niña]]), so someone looking through the list of "Verba Hispanica" and finding, under "N", the title "Agitatio Australis ..." might reasonably wonder (a) why under "N"? and (b) how is "agitatio" a Spanish word?
::::::::Looking at it root-and-branch, I think the pagename is more complicated than it needs to be. I have always heard this phenomenon called "El Niño", and I don't see why we don't call it simply that. If we change the pagename to "El Niño" then it would become perfectly reasonable to have this category on the page itself, and not on a redirect: filing under "N" would be OK and normal if the only preceding element is a definite article. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 21:02, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Now that I have read UV's comment above, I understand his point that we perhaps should ''not'' categorise foreign words in pagenames ''unless the page is about the word'' (have I summarised correctly, UV?) At present, yes, I aim to add this kind of category in cases where we use a foreign word as a pagename, on the grounds that (a) the lead paragraph will normally say something about our use of the word, and (b) it may be useful to us to know which foreign words, in which languages, we have used as pagenames. Whether this ''is'' really useful I'm honestly not certain, and I would be glad to have other opinions. For the existing cases see the subcategories of [[:Categoria:Verba lingua digesta]]. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 21:20, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: Looking at [[:Categoria:Verba lingua digesta]], I grasp the possible usefulness of categorizing articles according to the language of the lemma (except [[:Categoria:Verba Latina]], because the vast majority of our lemmata are in Latin). Still, I am not completely convinced. What is the reason for using non-Latin lemmata at all? If we just use non-Latin lemmata only in those cases where we do not have an attested Latin word, isn't [[:Categoria:Verba lingua digesta]] in fact a maintenance category, distantly related to {{fn|Fontes desiderati}}, for articles where we have not yet found an attested Latin name (and in some cases we are pretty sure we will never find one)? Are there any cases at all where we would prefer to use a non-Latin lemma even if we are able to identify an attested Latin lemma? --[[Usor:UV|UV]] 21:39, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::That's a good question. I think there are probably none (unless for some unusual reason the foreign word is of itself notable). And, yes, I agree, I have thought of this as largely a maintenance category, though it might offer some usefulness for readers with knowledge of a particular language. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 21:49, 11 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::Well, this brings to mind [[Yr Hen Ogledd]], a non-Latin lemma for which I'd argue against any Latin translation even if we found one. It's a Welsh expression meaning "the Old North," which is used to describe an area of the British isles at a certain time in history (if I understand it correctly), because that's the way Welsh bards would refer to it (without the "Hen," ''Old'', of course, since they were talking about more or less current events which happened, from their perspective, in the north). So, IMO, the page is rightly filed in [[:Categoria:Verba Cambrica]], but not because a Latin attestation needs to or should be found. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 03:23, 12 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::As for an example of why [[:Categoria:Verba Latina]] is relevant, see e.g. [[Peccavi]]. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] 03:26, 12 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

== MediaWiki 1.19 ==
(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) The Wikimedia Foundation is planning to upgrade MediaWiki (the software powering this wiki) to its latest version this month. You can help to test it before it is enabled, to avoid disruption and breakage. More information is available [[:mw:MediaWiki 1.19/Deployment announcement|in the full announcement]]. Thank you for your understanding.

[[:m:user:guillom|Guillaume Paumier]], via the [[:m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery system]] <small>([[:m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|wrong page? You can fix it.]])</small>. 15:08, 12 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 0154 -->

== 70,000 ==
Hodie numerum paginarum 70,000 Vicipaedia nostra attingit. Illam paginam [[Usor:Schulz-Hameln]] incepit, titulo [[Amabilius Pélissier]]. Gaudeamus ... [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 21:25, 14 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:Euge! Papax! Valde gaudeo. Non tam multas menses abhinc, modo 50,000 paginas habebamus. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 21:45, 14 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

== Names for cities ==
Some cities have Latin names used by the Catholic Church to refer to the Dioceses. Should we these cities to that name if they have one?[[Usor:Aulus Sergius Sulla|Aulus Sergius Sulla]] 15:12, 16 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, Catholic usage is a good source for modern Latin. We would usually accept the name used in church sources, unless an older (maybe classical) name also exists. And we always want to cite a source for the name we are moving to.
:With place-names it's easier to find an adjective (like "[[Disputatio:Roffa (Novum Eboracum)|Roffensis]]") in Catholic sources than a noun: so, if that's where we start from, we have to be sure what the noun would be before we move the page.
:You'll often find there has been discussion about various Latin names on talk pages. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:21, 16 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

== Map pin problem ==
Can anyone understand and correct this? I have made templates {{fn|Monumenta mediae Romae}} and {{fn|Monumenta Romae antiquae}}. They include a map with a location pin. I copied the original templates from another wiki (English I think) but I am using a different map from the one used on that other wiki. OK then, here's the problem. Even when I use the same coordinates to place the pin, the pin appears in a different place. As for example on [[Templum Apollinis in Palatio]] and [[Bibliotheca Apollinis Palatini]] -- these two things were in the same place, so I just copied the infobox, but the pin has moved. How does this happen?

I guess that any correction to this will mean I will have to change all the coordinates, but I can face it: better now than later. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:47, 20 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

:I don't pretend to understand it myself. If you look at the [[:en:Template:Ancient monuments in Rome|equivalent page on en]], they set the default label to 0.5,0.5, which places the pin inexplicably to the left of and lower than the center. So there's something going on with x and y and scale, but it seems to be systemic. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] 02:45, 21 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::It looks to me like the x and y co-ordinates are the position of the ''label,'' not of the pin. You can see this if you experiment with longer and shorter labels: the first letter will always be in the same place, and the blue dot will always be lined up with the center of the label. Things get strange if the label is long enough to wrap onto a second line -- I don't immediately see what happens in that case. But in the case of your two examples, the label starts at 25% of the way toward the right (x = 0.25) and 86% of the way down from the top (y = 0.86), where you placed it, and since the two labels are different lengths, their centers and hence the associated map pins are in different places. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 17:14, 21 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, I get it. You're absolutely right, as shown by the fact that if the "text-align" within the map label parameters is changed to "left" and the line-break is removed, the coordinates will henceforth say where the pin comes (as you would rather expect), and the text will start immediately after it. OK. So I do need to correct each instance (there are not too many) to get the coordinates right and also to specify whether the text should be to left or to right of the pin. I have seen other location maps that do this, so it may just possibly be within my powers. Thank you very much!
:::Or, of course, since the object usually corresponds with the pagename and is always named at the top of the infobox, I could omit the text on the map, and just correct the x coordinates ... That's the lazy way out :) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:01, 24 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
::::Actually that ''is'' the way I'd do it, because the map is pretty small and the label covers up a lot of it. But aesthetic judgement is not my strong point! [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] 14:26, 24 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Yes, and that's what I've just done now. The map is faint and far from ideal but, being borrowed from Platner & Ashby, it's more accurate than the one they are using on en:wiki. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:57, 24 Februarii 2012 (UTC)

== [[Latifundium]] ==
If anyone would like to work on this article, there is a Google "translation" from English currently at [[Latifundium]]. Any help in either improving it, or replacing it with something that makes sense, would be welcome! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:53, 26 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
:Allow me :) Gratias ago.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 03:44, 26 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== hi ==
{| class="center" style="border:2px double; color:#009900; background-color:#FFFFCC;"
|-
| style="color:red;" | Please help: replace this red text with a translation of the English message below. Thank you!
|-
| style="color:black;" | '''<big>[[:en:Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA|@MonmouthpediA]]</big> announces [[:en:Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA/Charles Rolls Challenge/The Challenge|the <big>Charles Rolls Challenge</big>]]'''<br />
This is a multilingual collaboration to create a wiki-town. All Wikipedians can take part, in any Wikipedia language. The challenge was announced on 1 March (Prizegiving webstreamed on 21st April).<br />
'''[[:en:Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA/Charles_Rolls_Challenge/Points| Sign up now!]]'''<br />
<small>"Can you imagine a Wiki Project that involves 1,000 [[:en:QRpedia|QRpedia]] codes and free WiFi?"</small>
|} About 15 articles so far in Welsh, could we have entrants using Latin? (The idea for this comes from Andrew Dalby) [[Usor:Victuallers|Victuallers]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Victuallers|disputatio]]) 20:11, 2 Martii 2012 (UTC)

== How to translate compound nouns? ==

I need a general method for translating compound nouns where there is a head noun plus a disambiguating noun form. Some examples:
* Adding machine. I think this can be translated using the genitive of a gerund: ''machina addendi'', machine of adding.
:: I'm afraid that there isn't any general method. In some cases, morphological derivation by means of ''-trum'' (''calculatrum'') or ''-torium'' (''calculatorium''), added to a verb stem (''calcula-''), will do the job. In fact, ''-torium'' involves a complex adjectival suffix, consisting of the agent suffix ''-tor'' to which the adjectival suffix ''-ius,-ia,-ium'' is added ('doable by the agent'); thus, ''machina calculatoria'' is a machine that does what a calculator is supposed to do. ''Machina calculatrix'' might be a more poetic option, in principle again. ¶ But is an adding machine a different machine? If so, all of the above devices might be utilised, in principle: ''additrum'', ''additorium'', ''machina additoria'', ''machina additrix''. Notice that I'm here speaking of the language system's virtual possibilities; their actualisation depends on future sociological conditions such as collective ''goût'' (imagining that Latin is going to have a future). [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 20:02, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:::But adding machines can ''subtract,'' too! So looking to ''addere'' for the qualifying concept may not be general enough, despite the English. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 17:47, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:::: This is my understanding, too. The wiki article on "adding machine" links to German "Rechenmaschine" and Swedish "räknemaskin". [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 19:14, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)
* Ball machine (a machine which provides balls). Here the disambiguating noun is a concrete noun. Could be a concrete noun of purpose.
:: Here, I think, we need a gerundive construction (dativus finalis): ''machina pilis praebendis'' or ''machina pilis suppeditandis''. By the way, do you mean this kind of [http://www.nettiapaja.net/tag/pallokone ball machine]? :–) [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 20:13, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::: LOL! That is one easily amused dog! --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 22:42, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:: . . . or maybe the title of the Vicipaedia article could be ''machina pilaria'', defined as "est machina pilis in variis ludis suppeditandis ..." [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 23:26, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)
* Distance running (running for the purpose of distance). The head noun is a gerund, while the disambiguating noun is an abstract noun giving the goal or purpose.
:: Maybe ''cursus spatiorum longorum''. Or is ''distance running'' different from ''long-distance running''? [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 23:26, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::: I think technically long-distance running is a subset of distance running -- long-distance being classified as over a mile. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 15:44, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)
* Speed walking (walking in a speedy manner, speedily). The noun is abstract giving the manner.
:: ''Speed walking'' and ''power walking'', maybe ''ambulatio efficax''. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 23:26, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)
* Pan frying (frying by means of a pan). The head noun is a gerund, and the disambiguating noun is a concrete noun giving the instrument or means.
:: Maybe ''frixura patinaria'' or ''frixura sartaginea''. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 23:26, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)
* Cat box (a box for use by cats, ''not'' a box of cats!). Another concrete noun, but this time giving a benefitor. Other examples are cat flap, cat door, cat food, cat dish, cat toy, cat bed, cat collar, pretty much anything with cats in it.
:: I created "[[Felium aditus]]" (got it from the Latin Harry Potter translation) a while ago for "cat flap"... but I'm sure Neander could come up with something better. :) [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 21:50, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::: I vote for Needham! :-) [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 23:26, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::::Why not use a dative for ''cat,''&thinsp; ut in locutione ''certamen temporis singulari'' 'individual time trial' ("competition of time for an individual") in [[birotatio]]ne videmus? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 17:45, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::::: But do you find such a construction type in your grammar? To me at least, "certamen temporis singulari" looks like being defective. I'd say "certamen temporis singulari institutum" in which "singulari" is the dependent of ''institutum''. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 19:08, 10 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::::::The phrase was recommended by a veteran classics professor. Maybe something like ''institutum'' is understood? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:45, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe said professor needs to catch up with his reading, or maybe I do. I don't think I often encounter in Latin, poetry or prose, a phrase concluding with a hanging dative or ablative in that way. Incidentally, it is possibly an Anglo-Latin error to assume that, because the Latin grammar-books in English say that the dative and ablative equate to "to, for, by, with, from", one can use a pure dative/ablative in any of those senses, wherever in the text one fancies doing it, and a reader will somehow understand. Or am I being unfair? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 12:40, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
--[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 15:36, 9 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:Commenting on the original question: if there were general methods in such cases, Google translator would generally succeed in translating between languages. As we know, it doesn't. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 06:30, 13 Martii 2012 (UTC)

== Unneeded duplication of links? ==
Once a redlink has turned blue, should we delete the foreign-language name for it that had been given parenthetically as a guide? For example, in commentario [[Provincia Lupiensis]] indicem legimus inter quem
:'''[[Lupiae]]''' ([[Lingua Italiana|Italiane]]: ''[[:it:Lecce|Lecce]]'')<br>
but now, when we go to commentarium [[Lupiae]], we see that the lemma is
:'''Lupiae''' . . . ([[Lingua Italica|Italice]] ''[[:it:Lecce|Lecce]]'').<br>
Once an article has been created having a lemma with the name in the original language given in a parenthesis, any parentheses containing that name that were associated with a redlink have become redundant, since anyone wanting to know the original name can now click the bluelink. Should they stand? or should they be deleted? ¶ A related issue is whether links should be given to other wikis, as the link here is: <nowiki>[[:it:Lecce|Lecce]]</nowiki>. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:45, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:I am in no doubt that the foreign-language translations given in ''lists'' of names are only useful until we have articles about those places. Once we have, those translations in lists should be deleted. We agreed this with Nuada long ago, but I guess no one has told Sacreum. If you want to do some tidying there, and explain the rule on Sacreum's userpage, that would be great! (I'm away from my desk at the moment, just logged in momentarily). As to the links to the "home" wiki (e.g. immediately following the lemma and attached to the native name) I would say it is not necessary (because we have the interwiki links anyway) but not really a problem. What's your view? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:21, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::Also some biological articles (e.g. [[Erebia pluto]]) contain the English (and only English) name in a parenthesis, [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 15:28, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:::Not any more it doesn't! :) [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:14, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:::: Great! That was a really good <u>beginning</u>! ''':–)''' [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 13:46, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::though the same info can be obtained by clicking on the interwiki link. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 15:28, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::::I think those [English "common names" of species] should be deleted (unless it is a popular name currently used in the local language of the country where the animal is native -- and that language might sometimes be English). We should not privilege English. The official language of zoological and botanical names is Latin, and that's really good for us! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 10:01, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:::::When necessary or useful, we privilege English because it's effectively the world's universal natural language, and it's likely to remain so for at least a few more decades. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:14, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::::::I don't know who are "we" in your sentence! All I say is, not I: to me, Latin is the world's universal natural language :) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:32, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC) 
::: It's also often the case that biographical articles link to the person's native-language wiki in the "vulgo ..." parenthesis. Seems odd to ever link to foreign-language wikis, really, unless there's a redlink. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 17:01, 16 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::::I agree, it's not necessary. That's what the interwiki links are for. OK, then, for the sake of readability in Latin, I'd incline to conclude: remove all interwiki links in the text when editing a page.<ref>Except that when we have a list of names within an article, and these names are redlinks, it is temporarily very useful to add to these redlink names a link to an article in another language. This helps a future editor to be certain which place or which person is meant.</ref> If there is a special reason to retain such a link, it's better to have it in a footnote (which can explain the reason) than in the main text.
::::Also, when editing, I think we should aim to remove any unnecessary English (or other) translations. We are writing Latin here (once we conclude this discussion!) Of course there may sometimes be good reason to include a foreign word or a foreign quotation, and that's perfectly fine, especially if we are discussing a foreign literature or culture. [Foreign includes English, ancient Greek, Sanskrit, Sindarin ...] [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 10:01, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::::<references />
:::::::I agree. I'd like to add one point, though. I think that whenever there's a red link in an article, if the writer feels a reader might not know what's being talked about, saying "(Anglice <nowiki>[[:en:link|link]]</nowiki>)" (or Francogallice, Graece ...) can be very useful. I'm only talking about terms that might not be clear to the reader otherwise. To give a quick example, Morgan's translation for "bead" is "globulus perforatus" — without context, it's not particularly clear we're talking about beads, so it seems a temporary interwiki link placed next to the red link could be justified. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 15:37, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Unanimitatem sententiae habere videmur! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 15:43, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Ita! Euge! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 18:26, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)

== Contribuenda ==
Oops. I just created the article [[Exoplaneta]], not suspecting that we already had [[Extrasolaris planeta]], instead of an article showing the more usual word order, ''[[Planeta extrasolaris]],'' a term that had (and at this moment has) no redirect. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:14, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:For the record: it has turned blue within the past half-hour! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:50, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, that's because I took your hint :) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:28, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC) 
The previously existing article, though textually longer & bluer, is out of date. What to do? Would someone like to merge the two texts? In [[Exoplaneta]], observe the long lists of redlinks! Where have the astronomically inclined Latinists gone? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:14, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, I just noticed that. I sometimes do such things too, and then quietly curse (in Latin of course, and very politely). OK, I'll merge the two articles. I've just got back to Vicipaedia after a few days' absence ... I was looking for something to do. Happy to go into planetary orbit for a while.
:As to the long list of vide-etiams, it's worth remembering that we agreed (somewhere not far above, not long ago) that Vide-etiams are a temporary thing, which are likely to be deleted eventually. It's entirely up to you, but making up titles for unwritten articles ''may'' be less productive (and, I'd guess, more frustrating sometimes) than translating text. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:28, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::The duplication (triplication?) of effort recorded here (partly) reflects the fact that the title of the first-written article displayed noncanonical word order: confirmation of the worth of noster Neander's adminition that ''titles'' of articles should follow canonical word order! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:50, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:::Well, if anyone wants to do a serious check on that matter, and reconsider the word order of long-existing titles, that's an open task. I think, in truth, you just have to put this down to inadvertence (as I do when I make the same mistake). The article had been there a long time and it had correct interwiki links. Anyway, I'll work on the merge. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:28, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::::I've just checked, and it prolly isn't all that hard to do if we know what we're doing (which this keyboard doesn't): start with (more or less) the first paragraph from [[Exoplaneta]], then keep the body of [[Extrasolaris planeta]], and then add everything below the "Vide etiam" of [[Exoplaneta]], retaining but hiding with "<nowiki><!-- . . . --></nowiki>" as many of the redlinks as you like. Good that you're back, since the next ten days will be hectic over here. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:42, 17 Martii 2012 (UTC)

== Forma capsae "Data nationis" ==
Programmers, how can the width of the box "Data nationis" be adjusted? In [[Kiribati]], for example, it wants to be narrower. Or is a newer version of the box available? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:17, 19 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:The "nummus" field has a style that prevents it from wrapping. Because Kiribati uses two different currencies, this field is particularly long here, and that's what's governing the width. I'm not sure ''why'' this field has this style, so I'm hesitant to change it without understanding the reasoning behind it, but that would solve the problem here and presumably most places, letting the box arrange itself to fit its contents. The "titulus ducis" and "nomen ducis" fields have the same style; as those are usually fairly short anyway (a couple of words, right?), the style doesn't make as much difference there but could perhaps also be removed. If on the other hand it's important not to let currency names wrap, then a work-around for Kiribati specifically would be to put a <nowiki><br/></nowiki> between the two names, putting them onto two lines -- I previewed this and it does produce a narrower box. I'm happy to change the formula, if there's no objection from the geographers or the template wizards. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 20:17, 19 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:: Just go ahead! (Still hoping for the success of the Wikidata project, see above [[#For programmers: a curious error message]] and [[meta:Wikidata#Status and timeline]]). Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 22:03, 19 Martii 2012 (UTC)
::: Done -- see how it looks. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 20:17, 20 Martii 2012 (UTC)

== ''Ostendans historiae''&thinsp;? ==
In comnmentario de [[Triangulum|triangulo]], quid significat locutio ''Ostendans historiae''&thinsp;? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 11:52, 27 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:Videtur significare ''ostendans historiam'' vel etiam ''ut de historia scias'' vel aliquid talem. Modo hic inter paginas mathematicas talem locutionem video: possumus corrigere, aut supprimere. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 13:09, 27 Martii 2012 (UTC)
:: Verbum ostendendi (et ostentandi) habet [[connotatio]]nem superbiandi. Itaque non est verbum iustum. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 10:09, 6 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::: Verba nunc in pagina melius sonant -- bene est. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 12:09, 6 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

== Title? ==
I need the proper term for "Surveyor of the King's Works" (i.e. royal architect) in England. I have found "exactor operum regalium" for Charlemagne's architect, "solutor/magister operum regis" for later France, and -- just once -- "clericus operum regis" for England. But that would be "clerk of the King's Works", and maybe there's another term which I would have found more than once if I had thought of it. Can anyone help? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:02, 6 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:Probably there is no proper Latin title. The office was founded 1578 but already beforehand "Surveyors of the King's Work" have been in place for parts of the royal estate. [[Elizabetha I (regina Angliae)|Elizabetha I]] for example awarded a related patent roll in Latin (calendar of [[:en:patent rolls|patent rolls]] 5 Eliz I, March 23rd 1559) to a certain Lewis Stockett (Ludovicus Stocker) and appointed him as ''Mayster Masonne operum Nostrorum''. Stemming probably from the French ''Maître'' I suggest that '''magister''' is a suitable selection. --[[Usor:El Suizo|El Suizo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:El Suizo|disputatio]]) 14:06, 12 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::Thank you, that's very helpful. I'll take your advice. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:09, 12 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

== Infobox Cloud ==
Vide [[Cumulonimbus]]. Programmatores? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:29, 8 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

== Formula: <nowiki>{{Hemisphaeria}}</nowiki> ==
Vide [[Hemisphaerium Australe]], [[Hemisphaerium Occidentale]], [[Hemisphaerium Orientale]]. Programmatores? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 17:04, 8 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:Formulam creavi: {{fn|Hemisphaeria}}. --[[Usor:Aylin|Aylin]] 18:40, 8 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::Vuhu! Macte! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 18:55, 8 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

== Fixing the Sea of Japan ==
Oops. We seem to have created [[Mare Iaponiae]] not having noticed that [[Mare Iaponicum]] already existed. The better-attested title may indeed be ''Mare Iaponicum,'' but the newly created article has overwhelmingly more text, making the original article a mere shadow of it. Can [[Mare Iaponicum]] be deleted? The new article could then take its name, as per its revised lemma. Administrators will presumably know how to handle the merging and preserve any appropriate history? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:06, 9 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:If [[Mare Iaponicum]] is deleted the history is lost. So it shouldn't be done that way. The proper way to do this is for you as author to copy all the new text that you wish to keep into the existing page [[Mare Iaponicum]], saying in the summary that you are doing so ("replacing existing stub with text from [[Mare Iaponiae]]", or words to that effect). Then your new page [[Mare Iaponiae]] can be reduced to a redirect.
:If you have problems doing that, let me know, but it's better for you to do it really. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:16, 9 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::Done! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:31, 9 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::That's great. It's fortunate you noticed so quickly. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:36, 9 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::::[[Ruber|Rubros]] in commentario de [[Oceanus Pacificus|Oceano Pacifico]] quam celerrime [[caeruleus|caeruleificare]] conamur nexus, ut commentarius loco commentarii de [[Oceanus Arcticus|Oceano Arctico]] pagina mensis sit. Fortasse aliquis animadvertit? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:54, 9 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::::Ita, vidi. Opus magistrale facis! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:32, 9 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::::Macte! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 15:21, 13 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

== De informatione ==

Salvete, amici usores! Nomen mihi est Rodericus, ac hodie hic scribo quod scripsi paginam de grege musico ([[potato]]), sed nescio si in hac pagina sit nonnullam "infobox" ut poteram complementare paginam informatione adhibita de grege, ut in Hispanica aut Anglica Vicipaedia. Estne ullam "infobox" de gregibus musicis in hac latina vicipaedia? Quomodo possim creare "infobox" ut alii usores poterent eam usare in eorum paginis?

== Iroquois Confederacy ==

I noticed that we don't have a page for them, but the only question is how to translate [[Usor:Aulus Sergius Sulla|Aulus Sergius Sulla]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Aulus Sergius Sulla|disputatio]]) 13:01, 15 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
=== Iroquois ===
Perhaps Iroquois, Iroquois, Iroquoi, ect.? [[Usor:Aulus Sergius Sulla|Aulus Sergius Sulla]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Aulus Sergius Sulla|disputatio]]) 13:01, 15 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:In [http://www.archive.org/stream/synopsishistoria00wern/synopsishistoria00wern_djvu.txt Synopsi historiae Societatis Iesu] inveniuntur: Iroquenses, Iroquaei, plerumque autem Iroquesi. Descriptio in [http://digproj.libraries.uc.edu:8180/luna/servlet/detail/JCB~1~1~74~230163:P--Ioannes-de-Brebeuf-et-P--Gabriel?sort=Date%2CArtist%2COwner%2CMotto# hac imagine] "pro Christo discerpti ab Iroquesiis" habet.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 15:14, 15 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::Should it be sing or plural? Or an adjective? [[Usor:Aulus Sergius Sulla|Aulus Sergius Sulla]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Aulus Sergius Sulla|disputatio]]) 01:17, 23 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::It could easily be genitive pural ("Foedus Iroquaeorum") or singular in agreement with the noun ("Confoederatio Iroquensis") -- I am just taking examples here but you see the range of choice. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 07:33, 23 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::::So our choices are Iroquensis, Iroquaeus, Iroquesus, Iroquesius or Iroquois for nom sing. The middle 3 are probably our best bet. We could also go with Iroquoesus/ius or Iroquoisus/ius. Anyone else? [[Usor:Aulus Sergius Sulla|Aulus Sergius Sulla]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Aulus Sergius Sulla|disputatio]]) 00:29, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::::Mos Vicipaedianus est formas anteponere confirmatas (cum adsunt). Si iudicium nostri Utilonis est rectum ("plerumque autem Iroquesi"), lemma erit ''Iroquesi.'' Ergo commentarius incipiet: "'''Iroquesi,''' vel raro '''Iroquenses''' et '''Iroquaei,''' sunt. . . ." (cum aut sine ''raro'' aut alio adverbio). [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 00:59, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

=== Confederacy ===
Unio? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 13:34, 15 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:''Foedus quinque (sex) nationum''&thinsp;? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:43, 15 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::Perhaps Confoedus? [[Usor:Aulus Sergius Sulla|Aulus Sergius Sulla]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Aulus Sergius Sulla|disputatio]]) 00:30, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::Foedus might not be good, look at [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/foedus#Adjective]
::::Foedus, -eris n. and foedus 3 are two different words!--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 12:49, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

== Nubius sum ==
Suntne formae inflectae redirigunt ad titulos nominativos sine connexionibus pipatis (''piped links'')? [[Usor:Metaknowledge|Metaknowledge]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Metaknowledge|disputatio]]) 00:54, 16 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:Oportet nexibus pipatis uti. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:37, 16 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::''Nexus pipati'' Anglice sunt 'chirped links'. Fortasse melius: ''nexus tubati''&thinsp;? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 12:21, 18 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::Tartarus sanguinarius! Illud me irritat magnopere, nam solutiones technicales diligo. Eheu! [[Usor:Metaknowledge|Metaknowledge]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Metaknowledge|disputatio]]) 03:49, 18 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::::Solutio est {{fn|N}} ... sed facilius esse mihi videtur nexibus tubatis uti. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 02:54, 19 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::::Ita, ita, ego nuper apud Vicipaediam (anno fere 2006) ingressus easdem res, quas supra Metaknowledge, dixi. UV (si recte memini) me postulante formulam {{fn|N}} creavit. Sed ego postea non usus sum, quia re vera facilius est nexibus seu pipatis seu tubatis uti! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:25, 19 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::Et dum de talibus disputamus, ego velim omnes verbi quaesiti formas invenire -- ex. gr., si "feles" in capsa scribo, paginas videre volo ubi "feles," "felis," "felem," "felibus" scripta sunt. Est eadem res, ut mihi videtur. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 12:14, 18 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::::Stella typographica est noster amicus! Pete ''fel*'' (capsam Quaerere feriens) et inveni! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 12:21, 18 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::::Id nescivi! Gratias ago, mi Iacobe! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 12:41, 18 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::::::Macte! Si nomen substantivum volo, illa stella paene semper adiuvat. Sed si quis verbum temporale, ut ''ferre,'' quaerit (id quod, confiteor, non saepius accidit), ''fer*'' formas ''tulit'' et ''latum'' non invenit.
::::::Valde amo nomen "nexus qui pipiat" vel "nexus avianus"! :-) [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 13:03, 18 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

== Ph? ==
Is it right to use ph instead of f? I always thought it should be f. Can someone answer this for me? [[Usor:Aulus Sergius Sulla|Aulus Sergius Sulla]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Aulus Sergius Sulla|disputatio]]) 00:16, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:Er what is the context/situation?--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 01:10, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::Usually in Greek loanwords (like, say, [[philosophia]]) Latin retains the ''ph'' (and pronounces it as p<sup>h</sup>), though some modern Romance languages prefer to spell with ''f'' and all of them pronounce the words with ''f.'' Do you have a different kind of word in mind? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 12:19, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::ph should be used of course. ([http://catholic.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?philosophia philosophia],physicum, etc )as with many Greek words that can be found in latin. This is latin not romance languages. Besides many here would rather use the classical forms rather than the newer/medieval latin forms. No other kind unless the f was in the original latin word(facere,etc).--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 12:57, 24 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::::Thanks. This helped a lot. Greek loans were what I was thinking of. [[Usor:Aulus Sergius Sulla|Aulus Sergius Sulla]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Aulus Sergius Sulla|disputatio]]) 10:35, 27 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::::Libenter. Utinam fruaris hic.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 23:08, 27 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

== Handedness ==
Vicipaedia will need terms & articles for ''handedness'' ([[chiralitas]]? [[lateralitas]]?) and the left and right forms thereof. For ''left-handed,'' Cassell's says to use ''qui manu sinistra pro dextra utitur'' (as it now appears in [[Modus horologicus]]), but that's hardly an appropriate lemma. Suggestions? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:14, 28 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:''[[:en:Laterality|Lateralitas]]'' videtur omne ad corpus pertinere, neque solum ad manus, idque, nexibus intervici inspectis (vel enim Francogallice, nexu perperam posito), omnibus valet linguis. Quam ob rem ''chiralitatem'' ego praeferam pro ''handedness''. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 05:30, 30 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::Handedness may be a poor choice as basic term -- as we know, the matter doesn't apply solely to hands. If I'm right (I mean, correct!) here, [[lateralitas]] could after all be the better term for usual use. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:59, 30 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::[[Lateralitas]] for ''laterality'', [[chiralitas]] for handedness. No? Both articles ([[:en:Laterality]] and [[:en:Handedness]] respectively) exist on :en:. Even if we don't create the two articles, which would be fine by me, having a name for both concepts could still come in handy; and even though they're both Neolatin, they work quite well (we're not talking about ''handeditas'' or something). [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 22:22, 30 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes, that seems reasonable. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 00:54, 1 Maii 2012 (UTC)

== Besoin d'aide pour traduction français / latin d'une inscription du xviii eme siècle ==

Bonjour quelqu'un pourrait-il corriger la traduction latine du texte français ici présente :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_expiatoire_de_Lorient

Merci ! (désolé pour la signature)
:J'ai jeté un coup d'oeil à la page en question, mais je ne comprends pas qu'est-ce qui a besoin d'être corrigé. Le texte latin sous "Description," selon la référence, provient du monument lui-même : il faudrait donc le laisser tel quel. À part de ça, je ne vois rien d'écrit en latin ... [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 05:11, 30 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

En fait le seul texte disponible sur le net est en français, il me semble donc que la traduction latine est ici une tentative contemporaine. J'ai de vieux restes en latin mais ne maîtrise pas suffisamment pour m'aventurer dans une correction. Il faudrait, après correction, mentionner que la traduction est d'aujourd'hui. (désolé pour la signature)

:Mattie, c'est vers la fin de la page, sous le titre "description" -- il y a une cartouche dite "transcription des textes," qui me fait penser, à moi, que les trois versions sont sur le monument. Mais dans cette version je vois quelques fautes de grammaire latin, ce qui aurait été bien étrange en 1711. L'article citée d' Ouest France dit "à l'époque on peut y lire en français, en latin, et en bréton" avec le même texte français que la page de Wikipédia, mais il ne dit pas que ces textes restent sur le monument maintenant.
:Après avoir fait ce dont j'aurai besoin pour mes classes du matin, je ferai de mon mieux; ou peut-être quelqu'un(e) d'autre voudrait bien assister? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 12:18, 30 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
::C'est fait; veuillez bien lire et corriger --- actum est; quaeso, omnes, legite et corrigite. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 13:12, 30 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)
:::Ah, d'accord, je n'avais pas compris que c'était une traduction moderne. La note n'y était pas. Ça prête encore un peu à confusion, m'semble, de donner un texte latin qui n'est pas sur le monument, mais bon. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 22:15, 30 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

Merci pour votre aide, c'est parfait ! (désolé pour la signature)

== Vicecomitatus Scotiae ==
S.v.p., o amici, nolite removere paginas de [[Formula:Comitatus Scotiae|Vicecomitatibus Scotiae]] quas nuper ad nomina Latina movi. Fontes nominum adhuc non subieci, sed cras faciam :) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 18:06, 30 Aprilis 2012 (UTC)

== Ludus electronicus ==
Incipere velim paginam de ludo computatrali nec non de ludo electronico, quas mihi videntur abesse quamquam est <nowiki>[[Categoria:Ludi computatrales]]</nowiki>. In [[Ludus#Species ludi]] recensendo, vidi species "Ludus electronicus" et "Ludi computatrales" divisas, quamquam sub "Ludus Electronicus" paginae sunt tres quae in Categoria:Ludi computatrales sunt. Nonne ludus computatralis species ludi electronici? Et quid de Anglico "video game" (sc. videoludum, or videoludus)? Sic [[:en:Videogame]], "''A video game is an electronic game''", et [[:en:Electronic game]]: "''The most common form of electronic game today is the video game, and for this reason the terms are often mistakenly used synonymously. Other common forms of electronic game include such non-exclusively-visual products as handheld electronic games''" [...]. Ergo dicere possumus ludum electronicum genus esse quod species comprehendat varias, in quibus ludus computatralis et ludus consolae lusoriae, qui sunt "videoludi"? Contra [[:it:Gioco elettronico#Videogiochi e giochi elettronici]], quod putat ludum electronicum et "videoludum" idem non esse ''non'' quia genus et species sunt, ''sed'' quia res diversae: ludus electronicus componitur ab origine una cum ''hardware'', "videoludum" vero est ''software'' a posteriori computatori additum. S. v. p. sententiam vestram ostendite. :-) --[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Poecus|disputatio]]) 10:33, 1 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:Poecus, nisi aliquis non concurrat, iam amabo te fac istam rem paginam "Ludus Electronicus" aut lemma quod tibi videtur recte sit. Posterior emendare facilis est nam incipere durus. Certe variae genera sunt ex software, computatrales, handheld/pugilus etc. Nonnes divisas rectas creas? --[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 08:30, 4 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== HMS, SMS, SS, USS, &c. ==
Aliquis commentarium [[HMS Victory]] hodie creavit. Quomodo tales contractiones hic scribendae sunt? Inter contractiones generatim adhibitas sunt '''H.M.S.''' (His/Her Majesty's Ship), '''S.M.S.''' (Seiner Majestät Schiff), '''S.M.F.''' (Seiner Majestät Feuerschiff), '''S.M.H.''' (Seiner Majestät Hilfsschiff), '''S.M.U.''' (Seiner Majestät Unterseeboot), '''S.M.W.''' (Seiner Majestät Werkstattschiff), '''S.S.''' (Steamship), et '''U.S.S.''' (United States Ship). Nexus rubri ad tres alias contractiones ducentes—[[HMS Beagle|HMS ''Beagle'']], [[HMS Challenger|HMS ''Challenger'']], [[USS Tuscarora|USS ''Tuscarora]]—in commentario de [[Oceanus Pacificus|Oceano Pacifico]] inveniuntur. Should they be used at all? If they are, note that they should be set roman, while the name of the ship should be set in italics. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 15:34, 1 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:Fontes historici veteriores has abbreviationes nesciunt. Quando legimus ephemeridem Pepysii et narrationes explorationum Lusitanarum nomina navium sine titulis reperimus, si recte memini. Igitur, si volumus, licet titulos abbreviatos omittere. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 20:03, 1 Maii 2012 (UTC)

== Neologismi ==

Quid cogitative de hoc? http://www.maurouberti.it/latino/documenti/testi/angelino/neologismi.html Nexus hic Italice est, nescio ut (Italice: come) comprehendere possint id qui Italici non sunt. valete!--[[Specialis:Conlationes/78.12.58.16|78.12.58.16]] 16:05, 3 Maii 2012 (UTC) P.S. Qui potest, respondeat Italice, gratiae.
:Certe italice est. Nam de quibus loquitur, sentio. Non potest fieri quin neologimos inferre. Sed quam possibile, classice utamur.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 23:44, 3 Maii 2012 (UTC)
::Etiam exoptat auctor Latinam linguam communem fieri Europaeis, neologismis compluribus additis. Praebentur neologismi complures, quorum multos etiam in Vicipaedia nostra invenimus, scilicet [[televisio]], [[electromagnetismus]], [[clusura tractilis]], [[liber nubeculatus]], alios minime in iis "territatores" (versus [[Tromocrates]] vel ''terroristae''), "primanus" (versus ''optimus pedilusor'', vide ad exemplum [[Kaká]], [[Fabius Cannavaro]]). Fictio novorum verborum, humili sententia mea, passim necessaria cum de rebus hodiernis tractetur, quam maximum tamen verbis Latinis propriis (classicisque) utamur. Hoc, ut opinor, Vicipaedianum ''[[Vicipaedia:Noli fingere]]'' significare voluit. // ''L'autore si augura anche che la lingua latina diventi comune agli europei, aggiungendo molti neologismi. Sono mostrati tantissimi neologismi, dei quali troviamo molti anche in Vicipaedia, come [[televisio]], [[electromagnetismus]], [[clusura tractilis]], [[liber nubeculatus]], altri invece no tra cui "territatores" (al posto di [[Tromocrates]] o ''terroristae''), "primanus" (al posto di ''optimus pedilusor'', vedi [[Kaká]], [[Fabius Cannavaro]]). La creazione di nuove parole, a mio modesto parere, è necessaria qua e là quando si tratta di argomenti odierni, tuttavia cerchiamo di usare per quanto possibile espressioni latine proprie (e classiche). Questo credo sia il senso del vicipaediano ''[[Vicipaedia:Noli fingere|Noli fingere]]''.'' --[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Poecus|disputatio]]) 06:35, 4 Maii 2012 (UTC)

Certe! Gratias ago, maxime quia mihi scripsisti Italice quoque! Differentiam magnum non video intra "approccio" (Italice) nexus huius et Vicipaediae huius. Ego quoque malo tromocrates quam territatores, sed primanum puto rendere bene ideam. De usibus classicis, puto sensus verborum mutavisse in tempore et verba sicut "saltare" fortasse non rendunt (nescio an hoc verbum italicum latine exsistat!!!) optime verbum "danzare" vel "ballare". Credo Latinam linguam restauratam ut communis lingua non poterit aequalis esse antiquae. Mutamenta opus est si Linguam vivam et COLLOQUIALEM facere volumus. Pax vobis!--[[Specialis:Conlationes/78.12.51.48|78.12.51.48]] 09:15, 7 Maii 2012 (UTC)

:Nescio autem an re vera velimus ''linguam vivam'' facere. Etiam ille [[Erasmus]] Latina utebatur modo [[Cicero]]nis, necne? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 12:09, 7 Maii 2012 (UTC)

== Litoria (frog) ==
Hello, I'm doing a job for Greek wikipedia, and I don't know what's the pronunciation of the frog genus [[:en:Litoria|Litoria]], and it's important to know the accentuation there, I don't know if it's litoˈria - litoría or liˈtoria - litória, I also want to know if it's related to Litus: [http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/litus] [http://wordinfo.info/unit/1200/s:a%20suffix], well the most important think is to know the pronunciation or accentuation of Litoria--[[Specialis:Conlationes/187.178.7.170|187.178.7.170]] 11:56, 4 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:The likeliest, by far, is ''litória.'' The phonetics of Latin don't allow ''lítoria.'' It could be ''litoría'' if it were derived from a Greek word ''litoreia'' (just as Latin ''Alexandría,'' the name of several cities, corresponds with Αλεξάνδρεια). On the etymology, you'd want to ask Tschudi, who may have made the word up in 1838. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 12:11, 4 Maii 2012 (UTC)

== De capsa linguae ==
Its current use is cumbersome (because we have to translate each line's label from English), and its output is inadequate. Compare the family tree it produces (ex commentario [[Lingua Emaeana]]):
:[[Linguae Austronesiae|Lingua Austronesia]] e familia [[Linguae Malayo-Polynesiae|Malayo-Polynesia]] et ramo [[Linguae Polynesiae|Polynesio]]
with the information given in the (English) original:
:|familycolor=[[Linguae Austronesiae|Lingua Austronesia]]
:|fam2=[[Linguae Malayo-Polynesiae|Malayo-Polynesia]]
:|fam3=[[Linguae Oceanicae|Oceanica]]
:|fam4=[[Linguae Polynesiae|Polynesia]]
:|fam5=[[Linguae Futunicae|Futunica]]
:|fam6=Emaeana
Three levels instead of five! Could our kind programmers make it possible simply to use the coding in en, with the output labels altered appropriately? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:09, 5 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:I understand what you mean about "three levels," and I think that's straightforward. --AEM
::Indeed, it was straightforward. We may now use as many as 15 levels, just like English. I tweaked [[Lingua Emaeana]] by way of demonstration; feel free to correct as appropriate. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 20:06, 5 Maii 2012 (UTC)

:As for English, do you mean you want to be able to write "speakers=123" and get the same result as if you'd written "fabulantes=123"? (and of course similarly for all the other template parameters) I can guess how that might be implemented, if I've correctly understood what you want. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 18:56, 5 Maii 2012 (UTC)
::I've set it up so that if the template sees "fabulantes" it uses that (and "fabulantes2" as well), and if it doesn't see that but does see "speakers" it uses that. The Latin name is the first choice, which seems right since this is ''Latin'' VP, but the English name also works. I just did this ''one'' parameter, to see if I could do it, and so that you see if this is really what you want; now that I've got the idea, I can convert the other parameters similarly once we agree on how it's supposed to work.
::Templates are not, after all, as scary as some of the help text and cautionary messages in English WP make them out to be! [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 20:27, 5 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:::I just want to add that I abstained from transferring the possibility of tabulated hierarchical classification ''for a reason'': the reason is that these tiny levels of classification privilege one particular "genetic" interpretation of linguistic development over others. It is the interpretation applied in ''Ethnologue'' and on the sil.org website, which is en:wiki's almost universal source for this information.
:::It works well in language families where languages, once spread, tend to develop in relative isolation -- and Austronesian is a good example. How well it works on the American continent I don't quite know, but I'm aware of some disputes over detailed hierarchical structures there. It works very badly in Europe and across large areas of the Old World, because there is too much contamination (from a racist's point of view!) so any minute hierarchical structure will be uncertain and accompanied by numerous arguments, concealed by the infobox if the infobox privileges one single interpretation.
:::So if the hierarchical structure is suited to infoboxes in Austronesian languages, fine, I'm happy that it is facilitated. Let's not make impossible the narrative structure that is at present visible in most of our Old World language infoboxes, because, in that region, that's what we need.
:::By the way, I didn't devise the infoboxes from scratch or choose the labels for the parameters :) I just went with what we already had, to save time -- I hate doing this stuff really -- and am very happy that the naming of parameters is now being improved! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:15, 8 Maii 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm an Indo-Europeanist myself (insofar as I count as a historical linguist), and the family-tree model is still alive and well here, if not undisputed. But, no worries, we absolutely ''can'' still use the "familia" parameter with its narrative history: indeed, if there's both a "famila=(narrative stuff)" and a "fam1=top, fam2=next, fam3=...," the single-parameter, text-not-chart form will be used instead of the other. We can go either way depending on what works for a given language or a given editor.
::::So, Iacobe, is "speakers" correctly done? If so, I'll fix the rest of the parameters so they, too, can use either English or Latin names internally. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 20:45, 8 Maii 2012 (UTC)
::::::Oh, yes, in a broad-brush way the family tree model works beautifully. But the multiple intermediate nodes may not be as notable and reliable as the ''Ethnologue'' site would lead the unwary to believe.
::::::... anyway, being able to do it either way is perfect, thanks! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:26, 9 Maii 2012 (UTC)

== Book creator ==

Is there any way to enable for Vicipaedia the [[:en:Help:Books|Book Creator]] tool that's so nifty over in English? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 18:36, 7 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:Until now I had not noticed that this usful tool is missing on Vicipaedia! Yes, this should be possible, but we'll need the help of the developers for it: They'll have to activate the MediaWiki extension "collection" on Vicipaedia. I don't know yet where/how to request the activation, but I'll try to find out. --[[Usor:Aylin|Aylin]] 16:50, 11 Maii 2012 (UTC)

== Populismus? ==
How would you call right wing populism in Latin (cf. [[Index factionum Graeciae]])? Populismus dexter (radicalis)?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 14:01, 8 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:But does your table need such a non-neutral term as "populism"? <small>IMHO</small>, "populism" doesn't belong to the normal terminology of political science for characterising political ideologies. Rather, it's a fighting word, the real contents of which tend to be rather tenuous. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 14:44, 8 Maii 2012 (UTC)
::Abhinc annos centum in Civitatibus Foederatis, multi cives factioni ''Populist Party'' appellatae suffragati sunt. Quia nomen recte ex Latino ''populo'' deductum est, fortasse nomen ''Factio Populi'' erit acceptum. Cassell's suggests translating ''conservative'' (singular) as ''qui nihil in republica immutari vult''—quite a mouthful where English has but one word! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 16:16, 8 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:::Ανεξάρτητοι is „independent“, so I tranlated the party’s name „Hellenes Liberi“. „Graeci Liberi“ or „Graeci Liberi ac Soluti“ could serve as well. My question is about the ideology: The German version has „Rechtspopulismus“ (which is right-wing-populism). And in this case, Neander's answer is very true, indeed! I was just reproducing the German page ... - One should better find out, what kind of party these Ανεξάρτητοι Έλληνες really are. Thank you!--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 16:38, 8 Maii 2012 (UTC)

== Abolishing Victionarium & Egger? ==
Donatello, what's so great about Ebbe Vilborg's ''Norstedts svensk-latinska ordbok'' (2009) that you're replacing references to Victionarium and to Egger with it? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 16:16, 8 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:I don't know the context of this question. If the general implication is that it's better to add references than to replace one reference with another, I'm with you, Iacobe.
:Victionarium is in a special position, because it's a wiki and therefore not a reliable source. In particular, I have the impression that Victionarium sometimes takes information from not-yet-verified guesses in Vicipaedia -- resulting in circular references. So it's not appropriate to cite Victionarium in footnotes as if it's a source. However, as a "sister project", we certainly do allow links to it. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:49, 10 Maii 2012 (UTC)
::Please be a bit tolerant with Donatello. He is a bit new. We were all newbies once.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 12:21, 10 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:::Hello folks!
:::Oh, I didn't notice this. Please forgive me for delaying. I will chech ''taberna'' more often now.
:::I do not really trust ''Victionarium''. I consider it's better with a more relyable source. But if I'm wrong, I promise I will not replace the sources from ''Victionarium''. I've used ''Victionarium'' a few times, so I'm familiar with it, but not completely.
:::This ''Norstedt's'' lexicon is quite good! Fantastic book. Very easy to read and understand, and fun to, and has very much words and phrases.
:::Cable-TV - ''imagines televisificae per caplum emissae''.
:::[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 22:55, 11 Maii 2012 (UTC).
::::You are right not to rely on Victionarium, but links to it are OK because it is a Wikimedia project. You may be a bit new, as Jondel says, but you are doing some good work, Donatello! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:38, 12 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:::::The question remains: why is Vilborg to be preferred to Egger, L&S, etc.? Vilborg was cited in defense of the replacement of the classical ''hodiernus'' with the medieval ''modernus.'' Why does Vilborg recommend Late Latin instead Classical Latin? Pedagogy since the Renaissance has almost universally recommended the opposite, pruning, where possible, the innovations of later ages. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:03, 12 Maii 2012 (UTC)
::::::Thanks Andrew!
::::::Right, about 'Egger' and 'L&S'. Unfortunately I do not remember these sources nor their articles. But if I find these sources when I edit articles, I will not replace them, as long it's not necesserely. They are relyable?
::::::[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 16:48, 14 Maii 2012 (UTC).

== Cur "Ager Merulensis"? ==
Regula est "noli fingere". - Cur nomen paginae est [[Ager Merulensis]], si sunt nomina attestata? - Vide disputationem ad vocem.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 14:36, 14 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:De nomine nescimus. Quidam 131.175.57.10, usor sine nomine, die 27 Iunii 2006‎ commentarium sic nominatum creavit. Vide etiam disputationem paginae. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:46, 14 Maii 2012 (UTC)

::In lexico Vilborgi, editione secunda, hic stat:
::'''Kosóvia ''f'' (''adj.'' Kosoviens|is -e); ant. Dardánia ''f'' (''adj.'' Darcánicus)'''
::Compendium ''ant.'' stat pro ''antik motsvarighet'' (Suetica), quod Anglice ''ancient equivalent'' est.
::[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 21:28, 15 Maii 2012 (UTC).
:::Gratias pro hac attestatione ac forma adiectiva!--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 10:18, 16 Maii 2012 (UTC)

== [[Formula:Citation/core]] ==
Aliqua delevi quia volui removere, non e parametris sed e paginis nostris, URL duplicatum nudum et numeros quosdam officiales hominibus haud utiles. Si male egi, s.v.p., revertite emendationes meas. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 07:20, 20 Maii 2012 (UTC)

== What's folklore? ==
In an earlier discussion somewhere, it was suggested that folklore is ''scientia popularis,'' and we even have a baby [[:Categoria:Scientia popularis|catalogue]] to that effect, but further cogitation suggests that ''that'' term should be reserved for [[:en:Popular science|popular science]], "sometimes called literature of science, [the] interpretation of science intended for a general audience." (Vide etiam ''[[:en:Popular Science|Popular Science]].'') So that might leave us with ''doctrina popularis,'' or ''eruditio popularis,'' or perhaps even ''res folcloricae'' or some other adaptation of the English word. Do we have pertinent attestations? Most modern languages have apparently borrowed the English, respelled according to their own alphabets. Additionally, we'll need a term for ''folkoristics,'' the academic study of folklore. For the word ''lore'' plain & simple, Cassell's offers only ''eruditio'' and ''doctrina,'' and I've used the latter for ''nautical lore'' ([[:Categoria:Doctrina nautica|doctrina nautica]]), instances of which are so few they could easily be changed. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:58, 22 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:The article [[:de:Folklore]] in the German Wikipedia tells us that "Die Bezeichnung wurde 1846 von William John Thoms (1803 – 1885) für den Begriff „Volkskundliche Altertümer“ (popular antiquities) geprägt" (The word was coined in 1846 by William John Thoms to express the term "popular antiquities") - maybe we could use "antiquitates populares"?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 15:43, 22 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:: Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis has folklore = ''mores gentilicii'' or ''laographia''. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 14:27, 24 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:::Classically, ''mores gentilicii'' would mean 'wonts of a particular gens'; fortasse melius ''mores gentici'' 'wonts of a particular nation'? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 15:31, 24 Maii 2012 (UTC)
::::We did somewhere fix on "laographia" long enough for me (I think it was me) to create [[:Categoria:Laographi]] for Folklorists; but, again, there are so few of them as yet that it would be easy to change them. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:47, 24 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Est etiam categoria "Scientia popularis", quae eadem valere videtur.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 21:18, 24 Maii 2012 (UTC)

== Physica ==
Unfortunately I cannot find the word 'wormhole' in Latin anywhere. There isn't an article about it here too. Maybe I'll start a wormhole article a little bit, if somebody doesn't get first.

Anybody knows what it's called? ''Foramen verm...'', something like that probably? I know that 'black hole' is ''foramen nigrum'' and ''gurges ater''.
<br/>
Salutatibus [[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 23:20, 27 Maii 2012 (UTC).
:Salve.You don't have to create a word immediately, anyway there is plenty of time to get the right term. In the mean time, you can do something like this 'Wormhole(Anglice)' or Wormhole est verbum Anglice....I do that a lot of times. An article would be a great addition!-----[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 23:42, 27 Maii 2012 (UTC)
::Vide [[Iter transtemporale#De foramine vermis|hunc locum]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 01:53, 28 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:::Macte, Iacobus!--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 03:43, 28 Maii 2012 (UTC)

::::A, gratiae tibi, Iacobus. Ille vero verbum est. Et gratiae tibi, Jondel, pro consilio.
::::[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 14:58, 28 Maii 2012 (UTC).
:::::Libenter.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 23:46, 28 Maii 2012 (UTC)

== Incompletely functioning table ==
Would some kind programmer want to fix the table in [[Parallelus 5 septentrionalis]]. Getting the format right is important because eventually Vicipaedia will have 178 such articles, one for each of the 180 degrees of latitude (two may seem to be missing because at the extremes, 90 degrees north is the [[Polus Septentrionalis]] and 90 degrees south is the [[Polus Australis]], and redirects will take readers there). [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:15, 29 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:I don't see what needs fixing. As far as I can see, the table is just like the one in English. It's wider in our page because there's nothing to constrain it -- English has a map and a box that take up some space at the right margin, but we don't. Put some random illustration on the page (and preview it rather than saving it) and you'll see what I mean. All those name-and-flag-of-country formulae ''inside'' the table are missing, but that's a different problem from the layout of the table. Am I missing something? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 19:08, 7 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::As to the little flags, I know I've said something like this before and I don't want to be boring, but I don't think proper grown-up encyclopedias wave little flags all the time: those formulae in the second column should be replaced with simple links to the territories concerned. Quicker and lower-maintenance than formulae. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 07:35, 8 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== Australasia ==
It's called like that in several languages, such as English, Spanish and Italian, and similar in other languages. But what in Latin? Unfortunately, I cannot find it anywhere.
[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 15:00, 29 Maii 2012 (UTC).
:I'd use the term "Australasia". Look at [[:en:Australasia]]: "The term was coined by Charles de Brosses in ''Histoire des navigations aux terres australes'' (1756). He derived it from the Latin for "south of Asia" and differentiated the area from Polynesia (to the east) and the southeast Pacific (Magellanica). It is also distinct from Micronesia (to the northeast)."--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 16:07, 29 Maii 2012 (UTC)
::''Australasia'' is a well-established term, already found in forty-one articles in Vicipaedia, some of them with links to [[Australasia]], an article that hasn't yet been written (but maybe soon will be?). [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 16:16, 29 Maii 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, it is an international term, based on Latin, with a ready-made Latin form. If it just so happens that it hasn't been used in Latin except here, we can do no better than to borrow it into our Latin usage in this form. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:43, 2 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== Update on IPv6 ==
[[Fasciculus:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg|80px|right]]
(Apologies if this message isn't in your language. Please consider translating it, as well as '''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/IPv6 initiative/2012 IPv6 Day announcement|the full version of this announcement on Meta]]''') 

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning to do limited testing of IPv6 on June 2-3. If there are not too many problems, we may fully enable IPv6 on [http://www.worldipv6day.org/ World IPv6 day] (June 6), and keep it enabled.

What this means for your project:
* At least on June 2-3, 2012, you may see a small number of edits from IPv6 addresses, which are in the form "<code>2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334</code>". See e.g. [[w:en:IPv6 address]]. These addresses should behave like any other IP address: You can leave messages on their talk pages; you can track their contributions; you can block them. (See [[m:Special:MyLanguage/IPv6 initiative/2012 IPv6 Day announcement|the full version of this announcement]] for notes on range blocks.)
* In the mid term, some user scripts and tools will need to be adapted for IPv6. 
* We suspect that IPv6 usage is going to be very low initially, meaning that abuse should be manageable, and we will assist in the monitoring of the situation.

Read [[m:Special:MyLanguage/IPv6 initiative/2012 IPv6 Day announcement|the full version of this announcement]] on how to test the behavior of IPv6 with various tools and how to leave bug reports, and to find a fuller analysis of the implications of the IPv6 migration. --[[m:User:Eloquence|Erik Möller, VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation]] 01:10, 2 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

<small>Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)</small><!-- EdwardsBot 0201 -->

== Anglicum ''costume'' ==
Pro verbo Anglico ''[[:en:clothing|clothes]],'' commentarium [[Vestimenta]] habemus, sed quid pro verbo Anglico ''[[:en:costume|costume]]'' (verbo magni momenti in [[opera]] aliisque [[ludus scaenicus|ludis scaenicis]], et saepe in [[ritus|ritibus]] [[religio]]sis et profanis)? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:41, 3 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:Quae tibi videntur verbae "habitus", "cultus"(ex Turenberg), et "synthesis"(whitaker)?--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 23:23, 4 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== Mandatum "audire" ==
In commentario [[opera]], una ex [[Usor:Amahoney/1000 Paginae epitome|mille paginis maximi momenti]], mandatum "audire" (Anglice 'listen') deficit. O programmatores benefici, venite auxilio nobis! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 11:34, 4 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:Formula exstat, et est exemplum in pagina [[Musica classica]] -- vide supra in Taberna. (Iam [[Lutetia]]e sum, sine tempore ad paginam ameliorandam, sed exemplo dato credo te bene posse. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 16:10, 4 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::Nunc (quia apud me reveni) paginam [[Opera|de Operis]] correxi. Non licet nominibus anglicis partum formulae uti: non ''"title"'' sed ''"titulus,"'' et similiter; si alias partes, ut ''"style,"'' in formula mittes, non recte exemplum musicum monstrabit. Formula [[Formula:Audire/doc|paginam documentationis]] habet, quamquam minimam, ubi leguntur nomina partum. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 15:38, 7 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== 2011 Picture of the Year competition ==

<small>[[:commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Translations/mk|{{#language:mk}}]] • [[:commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Translations/no|{{#language:no}}]] • [[:commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Translations/pl|{{#language:pl}}]]</small> 

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the ''2011 Picture of the Year competition'' is now open. We are interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the ''Picture of the Year 2011''. Any user registered at Commons or a Wikimedia wiki SUL-related to Commons [//toolserver.org/~pathoschild/accounteligibility/?user=&wiki=&event=24 with more than 75 edits before 1 April 2012 (UTC)] is welcome to vote and, of course everyone is welcome to view!

Detailed information about the contest can be found [[:commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Introduction|at the introductory page]].

About 600 of the best of Wikimedia Common's photos, animations, movies and graphics were chosen &ndash;by the international Wikimedia Commons community&ndash; out of 12 million files during ''2011'' and are now called ''Featured Pictures''.

From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons ''Features Pictures'' of all flavors. 

For your convenience, we have sorted the images [[:commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Galleries|into topic categories]]. 

We regret that you receive this message in English; we intended to use banners to notify you in your native language but there was both, human and technical resistance.

See you on Commons!
--[[:commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2011/Committee|Picture of the Year 2011 Committee]] 18:27, 5 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

<small>Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)</small>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0205 -->

== Lutetiensis ~ Parisiensis ==
Attestatione [[nomen proprium|nominis proprii]] absente, quid nobis est potius? ''Lutetiensis'' aut ''Parisiensis''&thinsp;? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 18:28, 8 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:Attestatione absente, utor ego nomine adiectivo "Lutetiensis". [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 18:32, 8 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::Google, cum "Lutetiensis" quaeritur, 4 410 attestationes indicat, cum "Parisiensis", 709 000 ! - Ut in multis aliis locis decernendum est, utrum melius nomen antiquum (Lutetia / Lutetiensis) an nomen recentius (Parisii / Parisiensis) adhibeatur. Nescio, si ulla continuatio urbis appellationisque antiquae fuerit. Sin aliter, nomen recentius pro urbe hodierna mihi eligendum videtur, nomen antiquum pro urbe antiqua.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 21:27, 8 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::Universitas, ob originem mediaevalem, nomen "Parisiensis" semper habet.
:::Si de substantivis quaerimus, videmus nomen "Parisius" (indecl.) temporibus mediaevalibus potius adhibitum, "Lutetia" et antiquis et recentioribus. Inter locativis, reperimus eisdem temporibus "Parisiis" et "Lutetiae" in titulis librorum. Nos in Vicipaedia, sicut ipsi Lutetienses et Parisii, libertatem habemus! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:26, 9 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::::Nunc vide lemma commentarii [[Opera Lutetiensis]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 19:23, 9 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Macte, Iacobe! [[Palatium Garnier]] una cum vicinis anno [[2011]] visitavi. Est aedificium magnificum vel (si ita loqui licet) phantasticum. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 20:49, 9 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== Categoriae that want merging ==
[[:Categoria:Termini operatici]] and [[:Categoria:Terminologia operatica]] need merging, sed quae est melior? The form closer to that found in other wikis is the latter. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 19:23, 9 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:Since you created both, you had better decide which one you really really want :) Then, all you have to do is to re-categorize the pages from the other one into the one you want to keep. Tell me when you've done that and I'll delete it. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:05, 10 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== De nova stipula ==
Salve. Quid melius esset, est habere stipula personis ficticiis, scitis qui exempli gratia [[Marius (persona ficticia)|Super Mario]], [[Frodo Baggins]] et [[Naruto]]. Puto melius esset. Re vera, sunt plurissimae personae ficticiae, ita non cur? Credo alterae vicipaediae tales habent.

[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 00:07, 10 Iunii 2012 (UTC).

: Ecce: {{fn|Pers-fict-stipula}}. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 21:15, 10 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

::Magnae gratiae, UV.
::[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 19:41, 11 Iunii 2012 (UTC).

== Bakar mockery / [[Derisio Buccaris]] ==

The ancient Latin designation for ''Bakar'' seems to have been ''Volcera'' (-ae, ''f.'') (more rarely ''Velcera''); see [http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakar_(grad) here] and [http://www.tz-bakar.hr/history/21-2365.aspx here]. So the right title would be '''Derisio Volcerensis''' or '''Derisio apud''' -- or '''ante''' -- '''Volceram''' – not '''Derisio Buccaris''', since ''Buccari'' is the Italian designation. Therefore I think we should move the page. Any thoughts, Vicipaediani? [[Usor:Alessandro Gelsumini|Alexander Gelsumis]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Alessandro Gelsumini|disputatio]]) 09:30, 10 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== Quid est ''lieutenant commander'' Latine? ==
Infiliciter, difficiliter invenire est. Alteris linguis notis ita hic appellatur: Hispanice ''[http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capit%C3%A1n_de_Corbeta capitán de corbeta]'', Italiane ''[http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitano_di_corvetta capitano di corvetta]'', Francogallice ''[http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitaine_de_corvette capitaine de corvette]'' et Theodisce ''[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korvettenkapit%C3%A4n Korvettenkapitän]''. Aliquid qui potest? [[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 22:51, 11 Iunii 2012 (UTC).

In aetate Romana copiarum militarium praefectos ''legatos'' appellaverunt. --[[Usor:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|Martinus Poeta Juvenis]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|disputatio]]) 06:55, 12 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:Vide [[Disputatio:Ultimi Philippinarum]] - ibi sunt nonnullae latinae versiones nominorum militarium.--[[User:Xaverius|<span style="color:blue;">Xave</span>]][[:eu:Lankide:Xaverius|<span style="color:green;">ri</span>]][[:eu:Lankide_eztabaida:Xaverius|<span style="color:red;">us</span>]] 09:25, 12 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:(Et fortasse hic etiam sint nomina militaria ab pagina 629 [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=itk2AAAAMAAJ&dq=mosquetorum&hl=es&pg=PA629#v=onepage&q=index%20verborum%20nauticorum&f=false])--[[User:Xaverius|<span style="color:blue;">Xave</span>]][[:eu:Lankide:Xaverius|<span style="color:green;">ri</span>]][[:eu:Lankide_eztabaida:Xaverius|<span style="color:red;">us</span>]] 09:30, 12 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== Musical indeclinables ==
Should they be left alone? E.g., ''compositio Mozart'' 'a Mozart composition'. The more natural-looking ''compositio Mozartiana'' would imply 'a composition in the style of Mozart', not necessarily a piece by Mozart himself; indeed, Tchaikovsky composed such a piece: ''[[:en:Orchestral Suite No. 4 ''Mozartiana'' (Tchaikovsky)|Mozartiana]].'' Item: ''adiunctor Lied bene notus'' 'a well-known Lied accompanist'. Adjectival suffixes can presumably be added when available and not too outlandish; e.g., ''grex iazzicus'' 'jazz band', not ''grex iaz.'' Thoughts? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 20:23, 12 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:There are several options, I guess. (a) Sometimes it works to include a forename and decline it (ita: ''Wolfgangi Mozart''). (b) Sometimes one allows oneself to decline the name for oblique cases, in the course of nice flowing text, even when the nominative is not Latinized (ita: ''Mozarti''). (c) But if some form of "Mozartianus -a -um" exists anywhere reliable (and in this case you point out that it does) I don't see why we shouldn't adopt it. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:46, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::As if in confirmation of this advice, one just now notices that Tacitus has ''classis Othoniana'' (Agricola, 7), which the Loeb editors translate as 'Otho's sailors'. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 16:00, 14 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::How about the example with ''Lied''&thinsp;? Should we use the German plural, ''Lieder,'' as English sometimes does? And would ''adiunctor Lied(er)'' be intelligible to Cicero as 'Lied accompanist', a musician who accompanies Lieder (ecce pluralis)? or should we make it clumsier but more obvious by adding a Latin word, to produce, e.g., ''adiunctor carminum Lied(er)''&thinsp;? Its analog would sound hickish in English: 'an accompanist of Lied songs'. The reason we should probably use ''Lied'' is that it's the near-universally accepted name of a musical genre; see the interwiki links in [[:en:Lied]]. Curiously, the current German word for it is actually ''Kunstlied''—but that, in turn, isn't at all identical with English ''[[:en:art song|art song]].'' These concepts can be slippery! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 11:00, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::Hmm, the English "Lied accompanist" is not exactly clear to hicks (of which I would until fairly recently have been one). If you don't know that Lied is a technical term with a foreign pronunciation, you might well try to parse it as a form of the verb "lie" (or even, assuming a misprint, "tie"!) Since "Lied" may never have been borrowed into Latin text before, we need to be as clear as we can. I wonder whether "<nowiki>adiunctor carminum (''[[Lied]]er'')</nowiki>", giving the result "adiunctor carminum (''[[Lied]]er'')", would work? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:55, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::::To be precise, it'd have to be "adiunctor carminum (Anglice: ''Lieder'')," and that's going to raise eyebrows in some quarters. It can't be "adiunctor carminum (Theodisce: ''Lieder'')" if we're just referring to 'sophisticated romantic songs with words in German composed from the mid-nineteenth century to the early twentieth'. Maybe we should avoid the term altogether! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 12:13, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Iacobe, where have you got the term ''adiunctor'' from? I'd use ''succentor'' / ''succentrix''. ¶ In my opinion, ''Lied'' is a technical term that is in use virtually everywhere. Though etymologically German, it's simply an international term that scarcely needs language identification. "Lied accompanist" might be translated in many ways: ''succentor Lied'', ''succentor carminis Lied'', ''succentor carminum (Lied)'', . . . It's very much a matter of stylistic choices and strategies of information dosage. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 12:56, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::The problem with ''Lied'' that you're ignoring is that in German it means something like 'any song, from any era, with words in any language', but in ''English and most other languages'' it means something more like 'a sophisticated romantic song with words in German composed from the mid-nineteenth century to the early twentieth'—for which sense the Germans apparently say ''Kunstlied.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:17, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::::::::According to L&S, ''succentor'' is rather late classical, attested by Augustine & Isidore. It's not in Ainsworth's and Cassell's. Would its underlying sense, 'undersinger', easily carry over to pianos and such? Since ''canere'' = 'sing or play (an instrument)', one assumes so, but the question does come to mind. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:26, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: ''Succentor'' doesn't refer to singing alone but also to playing an instrument (not unlike the verb ''canere''). A telling example is ''tibia succentiva'' (Varro ''rust.'' 1.2.15). [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 13:47, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::::::''Adiunctor'' would be an expected formation from ''[[adiunctio]]'' (q.v. for the source and other possibilities). ¶ On the Lied-accompanist question above: the tentative construction in that article, based on the discussion above, is: "adiunctor [[carmen|carminum]] [[genus musicum|generis]] [[Lied]]er bene notus." ¶ Concentrating for a while on musical topics shows that the vocabulary is a mess, with options from venerably classical and amazingly modern sources. For example, for 'string quartet', Cassell's nudges us toward ''concentus quattuor fidium,'' but Morgan invites the more modern phrases ''quadricinium fidium'' and ''quadricinium nervorum.'' What are the most recent Latin texts about modern music? Are there perhaps nineteenth-century Latin dissertations in German universities? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:17, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::::::: This doesn't answer to your questions but . . . If you look at Cassell's (s.v. ''adiunctio'' and ''adiunctor''), you'll find nothing that supports "adiunctio" as a musical term. Instead, ''succentor'' is an ancient musical term. Cassell's doesn't mention it, not even ''succentivus'', though it occurs in Varro ( ''rust.'' 1.2.15 ''tibia succentiva''). Interestingly enough, in [[Georgius Henricus von Wright]], I'm using ''adiunctio'' as a translation of ''Anschluss'' (cf. Cassell's on ''adiunctor''). [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 13:43, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, I noticed what Cassell's says s.v. ''adiunctio'' &c., but in the English section it specifically says an accompaniment "in music" is ''adiunctio,'' with the example ''adiunctio fidium voci.'' Also, it gives a useful idiom, exemplified as ''ad tibiam canere'' 'to sing to a flute accompaniment'. ¶ For ''Anschluss,'' would ''coniunctio'' do as well? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:02, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::OK, I've added ''succentor'' into the text at [[Adiunctio]]. Feel free to have a go at improving the idioms! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:08, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::: Good! What I'm worried about is terminological precision. The virtue of ''adiungere'', ''adiunctio, adiunctor'' consists in all-purposiveness, but all-purposiveness is also its problem. You can form an ''adiunctio'' of virtually everything. It's a word that inherently resists terminological specialisation. I must confess that I still prefer ''succentor, succentivus, succentus'' (the latter meaning 'accompaniment'), because they have a precise semantic field, but I'll not press these preferences of mine any further. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 14:53, 13 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== Est 'androidis' Latine? ==
Verbum Anglicum [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(robot) ''android''] sit 'androidis' Latine? In alteris linguis similis Anglica, ut ''androide'' Hispanice et Italiane. Vide libenter commentationem Anglicam. [[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 02:04, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC).
:Verbum ab ἀνδρός et εἶδος [http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/andro%C3%AFde defluere] [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/android videtur] (et enim verbum Graecum hodiernum "ανδροειδές" [http://www.wordreference.com/engr/android est]). Non is sum, qui Graeca Latine optime converterem, sed mihi videtur quidem verbum Latinum "androïdis" esse. Manedum tamen, ut aliquis haec affirmet ... [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 15:34, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::Apud [[:en:Ericoid]] legimus:
:::when Linnaeus named an organism, using a specific epithet that described it as being like some particular thing, he commonly did so by appending the suffix "'''''&mdash;&omicron;&epsilon;&iota;&delta;&eta;&sigmaf;'''''". That was a contraction of "'''''&mdash;&omicron; + &epsilon;&iota;&delta;&omicron;&sigmaf;'''''", denoting a likeness of form. In its Latinised form it became: "''&mdash;oides''".<ref name="isbn0-398-06179-3">{{cite book |author=Jaeger, Edmund Carroll |title=A source-book of biological names and terms |publisher=Thomas |location=Springfield, Ill |year=1959 |pages= |isbn=0-398-06179-3 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}</ref> An example is the entry 9413 ''Stilbe ericoides'' according to Wappler's ''Index Plantarum'' to Linnaeus' "''Species Plantarum''".<ref>Linnaeus, Index Plantarum quae continentur in Linnaeani Systematis. Printed Christian Friedrich Wappler, Vienna 1785</ref> Further derivations emerged at need or convenience, such as "''&mdash;oidea''".
::Ergo, ut videtur, habemus vocabulum ''androides'' (pl. ''androidea''). [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 15:55, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::::Macte, Iacobe! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 19:18, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Ita quidem, sed pl. ''androidea'' neutrius generis est. Pluralis masculini ''androides'' est. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 20:33, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::::::Nomina omnium (ut videtur) [[superfamilia]]rum [[animal]]ium sunt pluralia neutrius generis; e.g., [[:en:Conoidea|Conoidea]], [[:en:Curculionoidea|Curculionoidea]], [[:en:Cypraeoidea|Cypraeoidea]], [[:en:Muricoidea|Muricoidea]], [[:en:Tephritoidea|Tephritoidea]], &c. Vide etiam subordinem [[:en:Pterodactyloidea|Pterodactyloidea]], classem [[Asteroidea]], et subclassem [[:Ammonoidea|Ammonoidea]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 21:04, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
<references />

Si "androides" est masculinum declinatio sit declination verbi "asteroides": [[Usor:Fabullus/Declinatio Latina nominum Graecorum]] --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Alex1011|disputatio]]) 21:13, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
: Ita. Androides, quia mas quidam mechanicus putatur esse, in plurali ''androides'' declinatur. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 22:03, 17 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
Iam res facta.:[[Androides]].--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 00:32, 4 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

== Featured articles ? ==
Salve (errores erunt ! Eas corrigere potestis, gratissimus ero), 

volim solum scire an hic sint signa similia ac "Featured article" in en.wikipedia (exempli gratia). Quaesivi, non inveni. 

Gratias vobis ago, 
[[Usor:Fsojic|Fsojic]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Fsojic|disputatio]]) 21:39, 18 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:Corrigentes consiliorum meorum(Latina mea faltae multa etiam sunt. Quamquam velim suadere infra.... --[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 03:56, 19 Iunii 2012 (UTC)):
:::Salve (errores <s>erunt</s>sunt ! <u>Amabo vos</u> /Si vobis placeat<s>Eas</s> corrige<s>re potes</s>tis,<u>et </u> gratissimus <u>ero</u>, <s>ego sim </s>), 
:::<s>volim</s><u>Velim</u> solum scire an hic sint <s>signa</s><u>res</u> similia ac "Featured article" in en.wikipedia (exempli<s>a</s> gratia). Quaesivi, non <u>sed inveni</u><s>vi</s>. 
:::Gratias vobis ago, ( secundos correctiones feci --[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 00:15, 20 Iunii 2012 (UTC) )
::Responsum do: re vera de[[Vicipaedia:Pagina mensis|paginis mensium]] quaeris. [[Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis|Selegimus]] has paginas ad praefixandum in [[Pagina prima|paginam primam]] nostram, et potes ad "featured articles" Anglicos assimilare. Eodem modo stellis aureis coronantur. Mense Iunio 2012, sicut ad pedem paginae disputationis vides, selegimus "[[Elizabeth II (regina Britanniarum)|Elizabeth II]]", paginam haud optimam (die 1 Iunii 2012) sed utilem ad lectores novos attractandos.
::Anglice (si tibi utile sit): You are talking about our "pages of the month". We [[Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis|choose one]] each month to highlight on the Home page, and, yes, you can liken them to English "featured articles". We give them gold stars in the same way. This month (June 2012) we chose "[[Elizabeth II (regina Britanniarum)|Elizabeth II]]", which (on 1st June) wasn't of the normal high standard, but was useful for attracting new readers. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:56, 19 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::Useful reminder :) Please go to [[Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis#Iulius 2012]] and comment on our choice for next month!
:::Lectoribus omnibus: ite ad [[Disputatio Vicipaediae:Pagina mensis#Iulius 2012]] -- amabo vos -- et de pagina mensis Iulii disputate! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:17, 19 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::::Gratias vobis ago. Si rogationes de erroribus meis corrigendis habeo (in nuntio meo primo exempli(a ??? credebam genitivum necesse esse) gratia), ubi me praeferre debeo ? Quia omnes disputationes impedimenta plere nolo ! 
::::Andrew Alby, Anglice scribere necesse esse non credo : latinam linguam plerumque intellego, tametsi bene loqui non possum. [[Usor:Fsojic|Fsojic ~ Errores meos corrigatis]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Fsojic|disputatio]]) 10:47, 19 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Ita, Fsojic, iam video te bene Latine intellegere. Semper potes hic quaerere, aut, si paginam emendas, dubia tua in disputationem eiusdem paginae indicare. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:16, 19 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
Ad Fsojic.(Secundos correctiones feci adhunc) Me paenitet et clare erravi.
De verbo ''ero''':Non agnovi futurm indicativum de ''esse". Me paenitet Possui ''et '', ut duos sensos clarandum disparet.
De ''exempli : Erravi. Me paenitet. Genitivo optimus est ut indicat norma.
De "inveni": Erravi. Non agnovi perfectum de invenire. "inveni" optimus est.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 00:15, 20 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== Iroquois, again ==
I'm working on the page at my [[Usor:Aulus Sergius Sulla/Sandbox|sandbox]], but I'm not sure how to translate the tribes. Is there a precedent for this sort of thing? For instance should it be Seneca, undeclinable, Senecae,-arum or Seneci, -orum. I'm lost! [[Usor:Aulus Sergius Sulla|Aulus Sergius Sulla]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Aulus Sergius Sulla|disputatio]]) 00:05, 20 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:Sorry no one replied. As you know, our usual rule is not to make things up. So if no Latin form for ''Seneca'' (in this sense!) can be found, the term would be Seneca (indecl.). To help the sentence along you could sometimes say "populus/gens/tribus Seneca", or "homines/viri Seneca", and decline the attached word while leaving Seneca undeclined. Does that help? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:51, 22 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::What about Latinizing the etnthonym? eg Seneca (english) = Onondowahgah (Seneca)= Onondovagi (Latin). &mdash; [[Usor:Aulus Sergius Sulla|A. Sergius Sulla]] | [[Disputatio Usoris:Aulus Sergius Sulla|Dice mihi]] 21:28, 27 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::Our rule is to accept a Latinized ethnonym if someone reliable has done so before us, but not to make one up. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:30, 28 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== Forum ==
Salve, 

nescio an hic locus aptus ei rogando sit, sed rogo... Cognoscete situm optimum ut Latine loquar ? [http://chat.yle.fi/latini/ Nuntiorum Latinorum forum] noscebam, tametsi numquam isset et particeps esset, sed clausus videtur...

Ceterum, quis ad me colloquendum per ''[[email]]'' ''[[chat]]''ve (commentationes creandae !) inclinatus est ? 

Gratias vobis ago,
[[Usor:Fsojic|Fsojic ~ Errores meos corrigatis]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Fsojic|disputatio]]) 12:28, 20 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:Fora sunt varia in interreti nunc. Alia est www.latindiscussion. Alia in Facebook(Latina gaudeamus, latina loquenda). Nam ibi talis profundam (Philosopia, etc) loquntur. Conatus sum loqui de pellicula sed non illes amabant tunc. Forsan amplior fabulari conandum mihi est in illa latindiscussion aut Nuntiorum.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 23:53, 20 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== -facio? ==
1. Estne -''facio'' suffixum ad producendum? Ex quibus generis? Ecce: 

* ''liquefacio'' = ''liquo'' (V) + -''facio'' aut ''liquidus'' (ADJ) + -''facio''?
* ''arefacio'' = ''areo'' (V) + -''facio'' aut ''arens'' (ADJ) + -''facio''?
* ''candefacio'' = ''candeo'' (V) + -''facio'' aut ''candidus'' (ADJ) + -''facio''?

2. Etiam, estne suffixum ex nomine (N) ad verbum (V) quod ex aliquo ad aliquod facere significat? Exempli gratia, verbum sit quod ex aliquo ad [[sal]]em significat ''salefacio''? Ut fortasse dicam: "In solutione acido, [[lixivium|hydroxidum natrii]] (NaOH) ad [[Natrii chloridum|chloridum natrii]] (NaCl) aquosum salefacit." Idem, verbum sit quod ex aliquo ad chloridum significat ''chlorid(e/i)facio''? Ut fortasse dicam: "In acido hydrochlorico (HCl), hydroxidum natrii (NaOH) chloridefacit (et calefacit!)" 

Fortasse illae sunt verba ridicula. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 17:20, 20 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

: Plurima verba figuram ("pattern") '''X-facio''' habentia sunt ex verbis intransitivis in ''-eo'' terminantibus, quae statum quendam significant (sicut ''areo'' 'I am dry' [stirps: ''are-''], ut ex exemplis tuis patet): ''cale-, cande-, ferve-, langue-, made-, nigre-, pate-, tumefacio'' etc.; aut ex verbis in ''-esco'' terminantibus (sicut assue-, mansue-, obsole-, pinguefacio). Haec regula generalis est. ¶ Quod at alteram quaestionem attinet, '''N-V<sub>fac</sub>''' (i.e. verbum faciendi nomine praefixum) poscit, ut '''V<sub>fac</sub>''' formam ''-fico'' habeat, sicut ''aedifico'' 'aedem efficio' (intr.), 'aliquid in aedem reddo' (transit.); ''velifico'', ''versifico'' etc etc. Quod ad "salefacio" attinet, non mihi videtur recte compositum esse. Si regulas grammaticas respiciamus, ''salifico'' 'aliquid in salem, statum salis reddere' mihi videtur cum regulis morphologicis congruere, quamquam verbum (hucusque) nusquam attestatum esse videtur. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 20:21, 20 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

:: Macte, Neander, -fico est suffixum quod quaerebam. Gratias tibi ago. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 01:22, 21 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== ''festival, holiday, religious holiday'' ==
We need terms for all three, the first two to be independent articles, and the third to be a section of the second. Cassell's says ''feriae, -arum'' = 'festivals, holidays', and the adjective ''festus'' gives us ''dies festus.'' From that adjective we have ''festum, -i,'' 'feast'. For 'festival', a plurality of wikis use the English/French word, from ''festivus'' 'festive', but the world already has a holiday specifically named [[Festivus]]. What to do? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 12:59, 22 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:We seem to be using "feriae" as a general term: see e.g. [[Feriae Romanae]] (which were religious and [often] fun). [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:55, 22 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, and we have [[Feriae Captain Cook (Kauai)]], which yours truly contributed (having observed its inaugural manifestation in person), and a few other such items, but we need articles to distinguish between these lemmata & concepts:
:::A '''[[:en:festival|festival]]''' or '''gala''' is an event, usually and ordinarily staged by a local community, which centers on and celebrates some unique aspect of that community.
:::A '''[[:en:holiday|holiday]]''' is a day designated as having special significance for which individuals, a government, or a religious group have deemed that observance is warranted.
::The English wiki's definition of ''festival'' isn't wholly adequate, in that it doesn't acknowledge some highly important (for ''most'' people perhaps the ''most'' important!) kinds of festivals–[[:en:music festival|music festivals]] (e.g., [[:en:Woodstock|Woodstock]]) and cultural festivals (e.g., [[:en:Smithsonian Folklife Festival|Smithsonian Folklife Festival]]). What to do? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 19:22, 22 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:::Would the ''Romans'' have distinguished local-community festivals (e.g. the anniversary of a major battle), one-off celebrations (e.g. Woodstock, or the rally when one's team wins a title), and holidays? Would the ''Renaissance humanists'' have done so? And would there be different terms for the ''holiday'' (e.g. US Independence Day, on 4 July) and the ''ritual celebration'' performed then (e.g. cookout, band concert, fireworks)? I think those are regularly conflated in (colloquial, American) English, which isn't to say they're actually the same thing. Perhaps the main distinction is between ''recurring'' celebrations (local, national, religious, whatever) and ''non-recurring'' ones, and the idea of a specific ''day'' on which there is a recurring celebration is less basic? If so, then perhaps only one article, ''feriae,'' with discussion of frequency (annual, every 4 years, occasional), type of community (national, religious, and so on), type of observation (serious or party, family or peer group, what kind of music), and whatever else seems to distinguish the Ludi Megalenses, Christmas, the Olympic opening ceremony, the rally in the streets of Boston when the Celtics have just won another NBA title (no, wait, not ''this'' year), Woodstock, and the rest one from another. Even though many of us are Anglophone we don't have to follow the ontology of the English WP here in the Res Publica Litterarum Latinarum, do we? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 16:35, 23 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== ''chemical precursor'' ==
A ''chemical precursor'' is participant which gets used up in a chemical reaction. It is generally not a ''reactant'' or ''reagent'', which are terms reserved more for analysis of a substance rather than production. What would be a good translation? I rejected ''praecursor'' as meaning ''omen'' or ''warning'', and I also rejected ''praenuntiator/-trum'' (from Traupman) for the same reason. I thought maybe ''molecula contribuens'', since it is a molecule which contributes itself to the reaction? Such a term would have to eliminate enzymes and substrates, since they facilitate the reaction, but do not get used in the reaction. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 18:37, 22 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
:That might work. Do we have any attestations in Latin works on chemistry? A ''praecursor,'' as its constituent parts indicate, is fundamentally a 'forerunner'; its technical military sense is 'vanguard' and sometimes 'spy' or 'scout'. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 19:01, 22 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::The fact that every romance language plus russian and german calls it precursor essentially proves that the latin chemical term was praecursor.--[[Specialis:Conlationes/118.160.25.129|118.160.25.129]] 05:53, 23 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== polyhistor aut polymathes ==
Apud nos, polymathes saepius quam polyhistor adhibetur, ad hominem in permultis subiectis eruditum vocandum. Sed idem dicuntne haec nomina? Nescio egomet, sed confer id quod apud Wikpedia en [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath ] dicunt: polyhistorem latine idem ac polymathes Graece dicere. Quid scribendum apud nos? Sciuntne?--[[Specialis:Conlationes/118.160.25.129|118.160.25.129]] 06:00, 23 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

== Ubi possum opera Emanuelis Swedenborgis Latine libere adipisci? ==
Salvete! Egeo operum theologi Emanuelis Swedenborgis, sed non Anglice. Quis mihi poterit indicare ubi in Interretiale omnia opera haec Latine sint?
Gratias!
: [http://www.heavenlydoctrines.org/ In hoc situ] et Anglice et Latine legere potes. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 01:38, 24 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

Gratias ago tibi, Mattie

== Actor/Actress ==
Hello. I've seen the word ''histrio'' in several articles here in the Latin Wikipedia. What is the difference between ''histrio'' and ''actor/actrix''? Is ''histrio'' also for both men and women?

[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 22:21, 24 Iunii 2012 (UTC).
:Wonderful question! ''Histrio'' is the classical word for an actor in the theater -- we see it in Livy book 7 and he tells us it's a loan-word from Etruscan. It can apply to either men or women nowadays. As for ''actor,'' that's the general agent noun from ''ago'' so basically just means "doer." Because we say "Marcus partem Iulii Caesaris agit," though (for "Marcus plays the role of Caesar"), there's no reason ''actor'' couldn't mean "doer (of a theatrical role)" -- it's the noun that goes with the normal verb. But I don't think that's the normal Latin way to refer to an actor: the Romans would normally have used ''histrio,'' so that's what we use here. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 17:23, 25 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
::This info is useful for me too. Specially in learning to use the dictionary.(Lewis :athirdway.com)--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 23:39, 25 Iunii 2012 (UTC)

:::Ah, thank you very much Amahoney! Good explanation. This is useful indeed.
:::[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 14:43, 26 Iunii 2012 (UTC).

== At the conventum aperire page ==
Could some one attach the ne in the sentence "Tesserea tuae oblitus esne"? to the first word? It would be good to tack-on the 'ne' interogative marker to the 1st word.

In pagina "Conventum aperire" amabote, transfer "ne" ex ultimo verbo ad primum verbum "Tessereae". Optimus sit si affigatur "ne" verbum symbolum quaesitionis post ad primum verbum. Gratias ago in anticipatione.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 06:56, 29 Iunii 2012 (UTC)
: Secundum Allen Greenbough: "A question of simple fact, requiring the answer yes or no, is formed by adding the enclitic -ne to the emphatic word:—tūne id veritus es (Q. Fr. 1.3.1) , did you fear that?
:hīcine vir usquam nisi in patriā moriētur (Mil. 104) , shall this man die anywhere but in his native land?
:is tibi mortemne vidētur aut dolōrem timēre (Tusc. 5.88) , does he seem to you to fear death or pain?" 
:Are you suggesting to move "esne" to the beginning of the sentence, because adding ne to Tesserae would seem to be ask: "is it your password that you forgot?", also putting "esne" at the beginning would be saying "it was you that forgot the password?" which doesn't have the right emphasis either.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Rafaelgarcia|disputatio]]) 15:17, 3 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::One might write ''Oblitusne est tesserae tuae?'' or perhaps ''Num tesserae tuae oblitus es?'' I'm not sure -ne always attaches to the first word, though. For example in the first ''Philippic'' (sect. 14) Cicero has "de reliquis rei publicae malis licetne dicere?" ("Is it OK to talk about the republic's ''other'' problems?"), rather than "licetne de reliquis r.p. malis dicere?" or "de reliquisne r.p. malis licet dicere?" So I'm not sure we need to change anything. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 17:55, 3 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Raphael and A. Mahoney for your involvement. I hope I see more of your involment Rafael here.
I would like to suggest as A. Mahoney proposes "Oblitusne...?" if it is not a big issue. Although if you strongly feel that it should be as it already is then ok. Please don't get the impression that I am saying that the latin is wrong. Please consider a few things however.

* Would the majority of the readers be experts in latin?(What are one of the 1st things learned about *making interrogatives?)
* What impression will this have on the general public about the latin of wikipedia (quamquam latina tua rectissima sit)? If something in a system (electronics, programming, and latin) will cause doubts or problems, it would be good to anticipate and avoid.) 
* Which is more frequent, ne at the first word or not.
* Does it really have to be tacked-on the last word?

About 'ne':
I agree. 'ne' doesn't have to be attached to the first word but the first word in a clause, Also it is more frequent to attach it to the first word. We are trying to emulate classical aren't we?

This is copied from athirdway.com (Lewis and Short dictionary): It simply inquires, without implying either that a negative or an affirmative reply is expected (cf. num, nonne), and emphasizes the word to which it is joined; which is always, in classic Latin, the first word of the clause (ante- class. after other words: sine dote uxoremne? Plaut. Trin. 2, 2, 94; 1, 2, 141; id. As. 5, 2, 78; id. Mil. 3, 1, 92).
--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 03:33, 6 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:Jondel, I don't think you're saying the existing phrase is ''wrong'' -- I realize you're talking about style, not grammar. We've proposed several different ways to write this question, and we want to decide which one is clearest, which sounds better, and which is most nearly "ordinary" or "typical" Latin. Mea sententia, this is actually useful and important, not to mention fascinating! 
:Here's what Devine and Stephens have to say (''Latin Word Order,'' Oxford: 2006, p. 235-237). First of all, they point out that "the interrogative particle [-ne] is enclitic" (p. 235), which implies (though they don't say it explicitly) that its normal position is second in the clause, attached to the first word, by Wackernagel's Law. More important, they say that "the constituent that is the focus of interrogation is raised" (p. 235) and thus comes ''first'' in the sentence. But "constituents can be topicalized to the left of the interrogative focus" (p. 237) if they are ''more'' emphatic or important than the question-word; this is what's going on in the example I quoted from the first ''Philippic.'' They give half a dozen other examples, all from Cicero. To summarize, our question could go any of several ways:

* Tesserae tuae oblitus esne? -- That password! Did you forget it? (strong focus on ''tesserae tuae,'' as the main topic of the sentence)
* Tesseraene tuae oblitus es? -- Is it the ''password'' you forgot? rather than, say, your username or how to work your keyboard? (focus on ''tesserae tuae'' as the word actually being questioned)
* Oblitusne es tesserae tuae? -- Is it ''forgetting'' that you did to your password? (focus on the action of forgetting, rather than on the password itself)
* Esne tesserae tuae oblitus? -- Are you ''now'' unaware of your password? (focus on the main verb)
* Tune tesserae tuae oblitus es? -- Is it ''you'' that forgot the password? as opposed to, say, your ''nomenclator'' who's supposed to remind you?
* Tuaene tesserae oblitus es? -- Is it ''your'' password you forgot? as opposed to mine or someone else's?
* Num tesserae tuae oblitus es? -- You haven't forgotten your password, have you? (sounds a bit more polite than the others)
* Nonne tesserae tuae oblitus es? -- You've gone and forgotten your password, haven't you? (might be almost a bit scolding)

:All of these are grammatically correct Latin. I think "oblitusne..." may be the simplest in this context, but if there is a particular nuance we want to bring out, we should do so. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 20:49, 6 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::A splendid set of examples. Amazing what you can do with Latin -- no wonder we like it. I sometimes hanker after old-fashioned politeness and I quite like the one beginning with "Num ..." but I would also be happy with "Oblitusne es ...", which is, I think, the simplest way of saying just what we mean. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:37, 9 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::Yay for topic markers :D I agree with Andrew, "Num ..." (ironically enough) is my favourite. It sounds polite and impersonal, which I think is what we're going for with this kind of text. I don't object to "Oblitusne ...", though! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 15:29, 9 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Amahoney for your extensive samples, and Andrew and Mattie for insights. I really would like to paste this at a non-existing discussion page since I tend to forgot and may raise the same issue again after perhaps a year. I would recommend simplicity and standardicity. --[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 01:17, 11 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

== What should it be? ==
Greetings.

What name is the best/fittest in Latin for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mausoleum_of_Mausolus Mausoleum at Halicarnassus] (if there already isn't a name)? ''Mausoleum Halicarnassense'' as it's said in the article ''[[Septem miracula mundi]]'' (Seven Wonders of the Ancient World) or ''Mausoleum Halicarnassi''?

And about ''[[Septem miracula mundi]]'': It's called here ''Septem miracula mundi''. If it is a name, shouldn't it be ''Septem Miracula Mundi'', like [[Via Lactea]]?

What do you think/know?

[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 20:02, 1 Iulii 2012 (UTC).
:One could argue that this building should simply be called [[Mausoleum]]. Other later structures, whose builders copied the name, should have descriptive/disambiguating words added. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 20:24, 1 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::I agree with you, unless there is an established Latin appellation. [[:de:Mausoleum von Halikarnassos]] offers the following names (of which I would like to know the sources): ὁ Τάφος τοῦ Μαυσσώλου; τὸ Μαυσσώλειον Ἁλικαρνασσεύς, τὸ Μαυσ(σ)ωλ(λ)εῖον τοῦ Ἁλικαρνασσοῦ; lat. sepulcrum Mausoli Halicarnasense, Mausoleum Halicarnasense.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 21:11, 1 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::Apud Vitruvium et Plinium sepulcrum Mausoli simpliciter "Mausoleum" vocatur.
* Vitruvius 2,8,11: ''per mediam autem altitudinis curvaturam praecinctionemque platea ampla latitudine facta, in qua media '''Mausoleum''' ita egregiis operibus est factum, ut in septem spectaculis nominetur''.
* Plinius maior 36,30: ( ...) ''pariter caelavere '''Mausoleum'''. sepulchrum hoc est ab uxore Artemisia factum Mausolo, Cariae regulo, ( ... ). opus id ut esset inter septem miracula, hi maxime fecere artifices''.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 21:28, 1 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

== New formula? ==
Poking around Vicipaedia, I often come across Latin translations of things that shouldn't be translated. For instance, ''[[McDonald's]]'' reads,
:''Anno 1986 London Greenpeace, grex oecologisticus Londiniensis, libellum edidit in societatem popinariam cui erat titulus "Quod non decet apud McDonald's: quaecumque nolunt ut sciatis".''
It seems the reader needs to know the actual English title of the pamphlet. Same goes with citations, I think: unless a source for the Latin translation exists, the quote in its original language should be provided. If you all agree with me on this, could some kind programmer make a formula so we can note in articles that we want these things in their original language? "Versio originalis desiderata" or something like that. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 01:09, 3 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::I agree. With citations in the "Bibliographia" -- even more than elsewhere -- we need to provide:
::# the author's name as it would appear on the book or in catalogues (if necessary adding a piped link to our version of the author's name, but never obscuring the original/official/normal form of the name)
::# the real title of the book, article, periodical, newspaper that we are citing
::When books/articles/newspapers etc. are mentioned in text, yes, again, we must have the original title. This is more important than our attempted translations, which are sometimes faulty, because we all make mistakes, and sometimes correct but weak, because it's really difficult to translate a good, crisp, epigrammatic title into another language.
::Up to now, if I have come across glaring problems in an article -- e.g. lists of someone's publications translated into Latin when we really need the original titles -- I have marked the section with {{fn|Pars vicificanda}}. And then occasionally come back and done the work myself, and occasionally not :) But I agree that a specific formula would be a good idea. Two possible models for format come to mind. One is {{fn|Convertimus}}, which creates a footnote; the other is {{fn|Verba verificanda}}, which underlines the dubious text and adds a superscript note. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:45, 3 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Something like {{fn|Verba verificanda}} is what I had in mind, too :) [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 14:51, 3 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::::::OK, basing myself off of {{fn|Verba verificanda}}, I made two formulas: one for titles ({{fn|Titulus originalis}}) and one for any other kind of text (i.e. quotations) ({{fn|Versio originalis}}). You can see them in use at [[Usor:Mattie/Formulae]]. Tell me what you think (and don't be afraid to tweak them)! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 15:13, 3 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::Yes, references must give the names of authors and publications exactly as they were printed (or, in the case of websites, put online). That doesn't mean, however, that we can't provide links from those names to Latin versions that serve as titles of Vicipaedia articles. We've traditionally been Latinizing the ''places'' of publication, using the locative (e.g., ''Novi Eboraci,'' not ''New York''). When ''quoting'' somebody but Latinizing the words of the quotation, we give the original in a footnote. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 11:29, 3 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm with you about the linking, and also about Latinizing the place of publication. I learned that rule from the libraries I worked in, in whose catalogues the place of publication was Anglicized (thus "Moscow", not "Moskva", etc.). [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:46, 3 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Though there's no harm in also translating a title, surely? I agree that we need to give the original, but if I'm writing ''here'' about (e.g.) ''Père Goriot,'' I could imagine a reader who knows Latin and not French and would be helped by seeing 'h.e. "Pater Goriot"' next to that title. Of course bibliographies need to have the title and author as they are in the book -- how else would a reader find the book? -- but I don't see any problem with offering Latin alongside the original language within the running text. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 18:02, 3 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::::::No harm at all. It can be done in bibliographies too, adding a translation in square brackets after the original title. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 19:09, 3 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
Your {{fn|Titulus originalis}} seems to work fine, O kind programmer! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:56, 4 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:Thank you! :) Did you see what happened over at [[Principium rationis sufficientis]]? (Hint: it's in the three last July-3rd edits.) Success! [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 16:32, 4 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::Hmm, must have been a good idea then ... [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:58, 5 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
I was away and haven't looked at {{fn|Versio originalis}} till now. It's fine except that I wonder whether "versio" is the mot juste, since it implies a "turning" i.e. a conversion or translation. We want the unturned, unconverted original. So maybe "textus originalis desideratus"? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:25, 9 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:Good point. :) Will fix. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 13:49, 9 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:Though on a second thought, can't a text have an 'original turning'? Ou est-ce de l'interférence du français (la "tournure" d'une phrase, etc.)? [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 13:51, 9 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, I see what you mean. And it's true that "version" can have the adjective "original" applied to it in English and French for example ... I don't feel strongly. Maybe others will comment. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 14:26, 9 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::Me neither. My only concern with 'textus' is that one's first impression could be that it means something's misquoted and we want the correct quote. The formula isn't supposed to have anything to do with the ''content'' of the quote, just the fact that the quote in its original language should be given (in the references or wherever works) if we want it to be useful. But maybe I'm reading too much into it, and 'textus' is actually quite clear. Let's wait and see what the others think, as you said. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 15:19, 9 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::::A supposed Latin ''originalis'' would seem not to be classical. For the early Renaissance English adjective ''original,'' White's suggests ''pristinus'' & ''priscus''; Cassell's suggests ''primus'' & ''principalis,'' and "sometimes ''antiquus, pristinus, priscus'' (= ancient)"; and Ainsworth doesn't seem to have anything. So for 'original text', perhaps ''verba prima''&thinsp;? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 12:15, 15 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Sure, that works. So now we have {{fn|Verba prima}} and {{fn|Titulus primus}}. [[Usor:Mattie|Mattie]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mattie|disputatio]]) 16:29, 15 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

== Adrabigania? ==
Attestationem „prae-vicipaedianam“ pro [[Adrabigania]] invenire nequeo. Etiam auctores hodierni (ut puta [http://www.radiobremen.de/nachrichten/latein/wochenrueckblick/latein/nachrichten652.html Nuntii Latini Septimanales 1.6.2012]) nomine antiquo utuntur. - Quid de sequentibus nominibus:
Res publica Atropatene – Atropatene (regio historica) – Atropatene occidentalis (provincia Iraniae) – Atropatene orientalis (provincia Iraniae) - Lingua Atropatenica - Categoria: Atropatene?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 13:10, 9 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:Si nemo contra dicit, mox [[Adrabigania]]m ad "Atropatene (res publica)" movebo, [[Atropatene]] ad "Atropatene (regio historica)".--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 12:10, 10 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::Consentio ego! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:31, 10 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
Ut [[Cultura Adrabiganiae]] et [[Historia Adrabiganiae]] etiam [[Geographia Adrabiganiae]] est ex commentatione "[[Atropatene (res publica)]]" nullis discriminibus duplicta et ergo delenda.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 15:03, 10 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

== Tunicula venum datur ==
Ecce [http://shop.wikimedia.org/products/wikipedia-globe-shirts wikipedia-globe-shirts] ubi nomen "Vicipaedia" et inveniri potest.--[[Specialis:Conlationes/66.171.178.34|66.171.178.34]] 06:30, 15 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

== [[Vicipaedia:De categoriis#De variis categoriarum generibus]] ==
Videte s.v.p. id quod sub hoc capitulo nuper scribere incepi et emendate aut disputate! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:19, 15 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

== Church of Scientology ==
Salvete populi. Demiro si hoc nomen Anglicum Latine sit 'Ecclesia Scientologiae'. Est verbum scientologia? Alioquin creemus. Quid scitis?

Salutatibus [[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 00:47, 17 Iulii 2012 (UTC).

== Help decide about more than $10 million of Wikimedia donations in the coming year ==
[[Fasciculus:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg|80px|right]]
''(Apologies if this message isn't in your language. Please consider translating it)''

Hi,

As many of you are aware, the Wikimedia Board of Trustees recently initiated important changes in the way that money is being distributed within the Wikimedia movement. As part of this, a new community-led "[[m:Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC|Funds Dissemination Committee]]" (FDC) is currently being set up. Already in 2012-13, its recommendations will guide the decisions about the distribution of over 10 million US dollars among the Foundation, chapters and other [[m:Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Eligible_fund-seeking_entities|eligible entities]].

Now, seven capable, knowledgeable and trustworthy community members are sought to volunteer on the initial Funds Dissemination Committee. It is expected to take up its work in September. In addition, a community member is sought to be the [[m:Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#FDC_Ombudsperson|Ombudsperson]] for the FDC process. If you are interested in joining the committee, read the [[m:Funds Dissemination Committee/Call for Volunteers|call for volunteers]]. Nominations are planned to close on August 15.

--[[m:User:ASengupta_(WMF)|Anasuya Sengupta]], Director of Global Learning and Grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation 20:13, 19 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

<small>Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)</small>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0223 -->

== "omnia bene exstat" ==
Mi, quaeso, dicatis, quali generi Latinitatis ista sententia "omnia bene exstat" attribuatur. "Omnia" nonne numerum pluralem exprimit? - [[Usor:Bavarese|Bavarese]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Bavarese|disputatio]]) 09:42, 20 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:Generi Latinitatis corrigendae! Sed non dicis ubi haec verba repperisti. Si apud nos in pagina encyclopaedica, tibi oportet corrigere, Bavarese. Si in pagina disputationis, oportet scriptori veniam dare! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 10:27, 20 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::Ubi ista reppererim, quaeris? Mirarer, si ego solus in praeferentiis meis legerem: ''Status rationis globalis: Omnia bene exstat!'' Vestra sunt haec verba! Quae - venia scilicet data - quomodo corrigam non video. - [[Usor:Bavarese|Bavarese]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Bavarese|disputatio]]) 20:43, 21 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::"Vestra" enim me comprehendit, sed non te, Bavarese? Quomodo id accidit? Tu enim editor Vicipaedianus es, sicut ego; scimus autem neque ego neque tu quomodo ea verba corrigere possumus. Sine dubio amicus aliquis nobis adiuvare potest :) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 20:57, 21 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::::haec talia non sunt verba Vicipaediae, sed ex wikimedia translatewiki (sic antea appellatur). Usores vicipaediani non possunt haec verba corrigere apud vicipaediam sed possunt spud translatewiki. Possunt, quamquam melius hoc non agatur, quoque magistratus si repperiunt locum apud vicipaediam ubi local translation override datur corrigere, sed nuga correcta tunc sola hic corrigiatur.--[[Specialis:Conlationes/62.212.113.40|62.212.113.40]] 06:40, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::::ita. Usores non possunt haec ipsi corrigere, soli magistratus, nisi ad wikimedia translatewiki laborent. Me paenitet hoc erratum me factum fuisse. Correxi hic ad "omnia bene exstant" . Spero hoc faciendo ut omnes satis faciam.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Rafaelgarcia|disputatio]]) 15:44, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Mihi quidem satis fecisti. Gratias agens [[Usor:Bavarese|Bavarese]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Bavarese|disputatio]]) 18:32, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Mihi quidem ''omnia bene stant'' melius sonat (et etiam melius ''omnia bene se habent''). [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 18:58, 22 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::: Quod conventum apud TranslateWiki habeo, vultisne me enuntiatum corrigere? Iam illud de "tessera" correxi, ut supra diximus. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 19:10, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

== Nomen ==
Haec mihi modo apparuerunt in Vicipaedia versanti:
"Error factus est in aperiendo conventum
Nominem usoris ratum non designavisti."
Nonne "nomen" generis neutri est? [[Usor:MARCVS|MARCVS]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:MARCVS|disputatio]]) 04:39, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:Olim scivi quomodo tales sententias corrigere possim, sed aut oblitus sum aut omnia interdum mutantur; systema translatewiki tironibus haud idoneum est. Fortasse Rafael corrigere potest? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:38, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
Secundum libros grammaticos autem gerundivum est hic adhibendum, cum praepositio adsit, nec gerundium; non ergo "in aperiendo conventum" dicatur. Hoc tamen minus illo mendum videtur esse, si re vera sit. [[Usor:MARCVS|MARCVS]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:MARCVS|disputatio]]) 10:22, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
: ''Nominem'' → ''Nomen'' rectificavi hic: [[translatewiki:MediaWiki:Noname/la]]. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 21:00, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
Optime. [[Usor:MARCVS|MARCVS]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:MARCVS|disputatio]]) 23:56, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

At post nonnullos dies adhuc "nominem" apparet... [[Usor:MARCVS|MARCVS]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:MARCVS|disputatio]]) 04:21, 31 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
: Apparently we need to wait a few days more … --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 19:12, 31 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:: Ut videtur, mutationes e TranslateWiki iam apud nos venerunt. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 13:54, 1 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

At ego etiam nunc "nominem" video. [[Usor:MARCVS|MARCVS]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:MARCVS|disputatio]]) 04:18, 7 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
: Et in altero loco "nominem" inveni et rectificavi. Nunc "nomen" video. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 14:17, 7 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

== Latinitas ==
An quis adiuvare potest? Lege, si vis, [http://archive.org/stream/eindonauesching00germgoog#page/n62/mode/2up epistulam 148], pp. 32-33, et dic mihi:
# verbum "lavaret" necesse est in "lavarem" mutare? "''I would wash seven times in Jordan if I can [in that way] be cured of the sickness of Naaman''"
# verbum "incunbit" (sic) in "incutit", sive "incurrit", sive aliud quid, mutare? "''the fear of warlike Arabia strikes the holy city every day''"
Hoc mihi necesse est pro commentatione [[Ad gerenda regis negotia]]. Gratias ago! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:56, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:Fortasse: ''civitati incumbit'' 'hangs over the city'. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 17:01, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::Consentio de verbo "lavaret" quod subiectum nullum habet: debet "lavarem" esse, ut mihi videtur. Et emendatio Iacobi certe recta est. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 17:35, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::Ita, ita, incumbit! Gratias ago ambobus. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 18:15, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::::Perhaps we can construe it without altering the grammar thus: 'If *I* [rex Jerosolimitanus] can be cleansed of Naaman's sickness, *he* [rex Franciae] should wash seven times in Jordan'. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 18:20, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Nice try, but I don't think I agree,
::::::(a) because the Biblical parallel would go for a burton: it was Naaman leprosus who was told by Elisha to wash seven times in Jordan; the king of Jerusalem is now leprosus; so he himself will be the one to wash in Jordan if he can find an Elisha to prescribe the cure
::::::(b) because the letter is addressed to the king of France, who is therefore second person (note the verbs later in the text), not third. Hmm. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 19:24, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::::::<small> I see now, thanks to you and Neander, how it really is. This time no one is going to wash seven times in Jordan. After all, if that works every time, why hadn't he simply done it already? Curing a leprosus always needs a prophet, whose prescribed cure will be ad hominem and unpredictable; but in these (12th century) times no prophet is to be found. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:08, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC) </small>
Num textus editionis sine scrupulo mutandus sit, haec me dubitatio paullulum carpit. Itaque meum addo trinummum. Quid, si hoc modo interpretari conemur: ''Si purgari possum a morbo Naaman(,) in Iordane lavaret septies, sed in nostris temporibus nullum invenio qui purgari me debeat Eliseum'' ('If I could be cured of the sickness of Naaman — he would have had to wash seven times in Jordan — but in our times I can find no Elisha who should prescribe the cure'). Hoc facile concedo, quod sententia (talis qualem intellegi volo) soloecismo quodam (aut levi anacolutho) deformata est, sed quid aliud ab homine aegrotanti speremus? Haec sunt quae in nomine criticae conservativae offerre volui. Credat qui velit. :-) [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 23:42, 24 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:Credo. Iacobus igitur recte monuit, sed subiectum verbi "lavaret" nondum identificavit: subiectus est Naaman. Nisi fallor, anteriores hanc epistulam vertentes "sine scrupulo" verbum mutaverunt (e.g. Bernard Hamilton, ''If I could be cured of the disease of Naaman, I would wash seven times in Jordan''); ego secutus sum, sed inconsulte.
:Gratias ago et tibi et Iacobo. Intellego nunc. Rex se in Iordane lavandum non exspectat: id iam facere potuerat! Prophetam desiderat, divini afflatús munitum, qui curam ''ad hominem'' praescriberet, sicut Eliseus pro Naaman; sed in istis temporibus nullus propheta repertus est.
:Haec epistula responsum desideratum non nactus est. E Francia illo tempore nemo venit nisi [[Guido de Leziniaco]], cui [[Sibylla (regina Hierosolymitana)|Sibylla]] nupsit; sed is regnum gerere aegre potuit. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:51, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::Vel fortasse etiam ''Si purgari possum a morbo! Naaman in Iordane lavaret septies, sed. . . .'' 'If I could be cured of my sickness! Naaman had to wash seven times in Jordan, but. . . .' ? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:41, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::Fortasse ita melius! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:21, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::::Sadly though, it'd have to be in medieval or unlearned grammar, since, IIRC, the verb of an optative sentence should classically be subjunctive (''Si purgari possim''), and the expected beginning might be ''utinam,'' not ''si'' (though Gildersleeve says ''o si'' does classically occur), so Neander's construction still seems to be the best. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 15:34, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::::Maybe [[Balduinus IV (rex Hierosolymitanus)|Balduinus IV]] didn't pay enough attention to his tutor [[Willelmus Tyrensis]]. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 17:44, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

== ''Orsus'' vs. ''ortus'' ==
Conceptually in some contexts, these terms—from ''ordiri'' 'begin (a web), commence' and ''oriri'' 'rise, arise, spring from, originate', respectively—may not be readily separable, but several dozen instances of ''orsus'' have forcibly come into view, and all of them seemed better given as ''ortus.'' Supporting this change is sometimes the presence of elementary errors of grammar and spelling. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:41, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

== Epistulae encyclicae ==
Someone, perhaps confounding the ''titles'' usually given to encyclicals with their ''first words,'' has been uncapitalizing the titles but leaving the lemmata capitalized, thereby creating inconsistencies. (So now we have, for example, the article [[Mater et magistra]], whose lemma is '''Mater et Magistra.''') In contrast, when giving titles to encyclicals, the custom in Vicilandia seems to be to capitalize the major first words. Compare [[:ca:Mater et Magistra]], [[:cs:Mater et Magistra]], [[:de:Mater et Magistra]], [[:en:Mater et Magistra]], [[:fr:Mater et Magistra]], [[:id:Mater et Magistra]], [[:it:Mater et Magistra]], [[:nl:Mater et Magistra]], [[:pt:Mater et Magistra]], [[:ru:Mater et Magistra]], [[:sl:Mater et Magistra]], [[:sv:Mater et Magistra]] with [[:es:Mater et magistra]] (but in some other articles on encyclicals, the Spanish wiki does capitalize the major words) and [[:pl:Mater et magistra]]. Should anything be done about this? Capitalizationem nil moror, but two principles have strong arguments on their side: (1) titles should be identical with lemmata, and (2) if a phrase is to be used as a lemma, it should be placed inside double quotation marks, as in [[Ut queant laxis]], whose lemma is "'''Ut queant laxis,"''' or italicized, as in ''[[Humanae vitae]].'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 15:20, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::<small>It is perhaps conceivable that the frequency of capitalization with this particular title "Mater et Magistra" is because Someone (not on Vicipaedia) has assumed that these are titles of the Virgin Mary. In fact they aren't: it is not Mary who wields the magistral ferule, in the imagery of this title, but the Ecclesia Catholica. (No surprise there.) So no special reason to capitalize. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 17:51, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC) </small>
:Someone is [[Usor:Maiella]], I think. Maiella is doing well, but would do better to change the lemmata as well as moving the titles. <s>Will you encourage Maiella to do that, or shall I?</s> Yes, (1) "Titles should agree with lemmata", but, just as important, (1a) "both should accord with our style". In the case of incipits of papal documents, whether we count them as titles or as words in a sentence doesn't matter: there is no reason to capitalize beyond the first word (unless proper names or divine names) in either case. 
:I agree about the double quotes. I do that myself, unless occasionally I forget :)
:Capitalization is inconsistent in Wikilandia (as you observe). Let's just be consistent about our own if we can ... [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:30, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::OK, I've written to Maiella and I have made the desired change in the first sentence of [[Mater et magistra]] as example. Have I done well?
::There are other changes to make on that page, incidentally, but I deliberately haven't made them today, dealing only with the immediate surroundings of the lemma, to show what might be done in each case.
::One query, Iacobe. You see, I also "confound the ''titles'' usually given to encyclicals with their ''first words''". They are the same, aren't they? That is certainly the case with "Mater et magistra", as can be seen from [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater_lt.html this link], and it is also the case with the 12th century Papal letters that I have sometimes written about. Their incipits are their usual titles.
::Which now makes me wonder whether the Pope himself devises the resonant phrase that always begins the first sentence of an encyclical, or whether Someone at the Vatican does it for him ... Almost worth becoming a Christian to get that job :) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 16:12, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::: Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the ''Mater et Magistra'' vs ''Mater et magistra'' problem has been created by the fact that different languages have different orthographical norms. While ''Mater et Magistra'' may appear to some people as a natural way of writing titles, there may be others who think of ''Mater et magistra'' in the same way. Maiella, I take it, made those changes because s/he speaks a Romance language. I, for one, would have made the same changes, too, were it not for the fact that I happen to know the "custom of Vicilandia" according to which the Anglonormative way is supposed to be our way as well. (By the way, I've got the impression that not even Anglophones are entirely unanimous in this.) Sorry, if my words hurt someone's feelings! I wish that I knew how to adjudicate between different orthographical Weltanschauungen. But wouldn't it be simplest, in the case at hand, to stick to the ''Mater et magistra'' way of writing the lemmata and titles, when they're quoting the first words of encyclicals? [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 20:19, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::::But the pope's own website gives the encyclical a title in a distinctive typography! We seem to want to ignore the distinction between ''running text'' and ''display type,'' a distinction characteristic of Western typography for many hundreds of years. In [[Mater et magistra]], the ''first words'' of a passage set in running text are being taken for the ''title'' of the whole text and then set as though there were no such thing as display type. The pope's own preference for setting that title, at least in the version found on the internet, is ''MATER ET MAGISTRA,'' all caps, italicized. Even in manuscripts, we shouldn't be surprised to see elements of display creeping into running text; something like "'''M'''<small>ATER</small> et <small>MAGISTRA</small>" wouldn't be impossible. ¶ Another place where Vicipaedians are using the style of running text in a place where we expect display type is the ''Vide etiam'' section of articles on myriads of Italian hamlets, where commas and periods no longer found in contexts that invite display style mark the ends of lines (e.g., in [[Ripaltum]]), but that's another story. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 22:01, 25 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::::I think Neander's right. His suggestion corresponds to our long-established practice on book titles (it's set out in the slightly rambling discussion at [[Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 13#Capitals]]): we treat book titles that are in English to frequent capital letters, as en:wiki also does; we capitalize nouns in German titles, as other wikis also do; we capitalize only the first word and proper nouns in book titles that are in other languages -- which includes Latin. We have already followed this practice with lots of Papal documents: I think Maiella has found some old articles that were never constrained to the eventual rule. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 00:05, 26 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

=== Display and those Italian towns ===
On those Italian towns, I wonder whether you'd agree with me that one way to develop stubs of that kind towards ''bonitas'' will be to expand some of the lists into text. There is, as yet, too much display and too little for the Latinist to read in those pages. Oddly enough, turning certain short lists into text would re-employ the punctuation to a better end :) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:08, 26 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:True, but who expects to see running text under a "Vide etiam" heading? That's one place where experience teaches us that lists displayed vertically are welcome. Another curiosity there, in addition to the punctuation, is that some of the listed items are duplications. For example, we have an article that begins thus: "'''[[Petra Albingaunum]]''' . . . est [[Urbes Italiae|Urbs]] [[Italia]]e . . . in [[Provincia Italiae|Provincia]] [[Provincia Savonensis|Savonensi]]." Nunc vide "Vide etiam":
::<big>'''Vide etiam'''</big>
::* [[Liguria]],
::* [[Provincia Savonensis]],
::* [[Savo (Italia)|Savo]] (urbs),
::* [[Urbes Italiae]].
:Two of those links appear in the definition and therefore don't need to be given again. And then we have those decorative crowns for municipalities & cities—adorned with leaves (of two different species!) for provinces!—and colorful ribbons for military manliness:
<gallery>
Fasciculus:Corona di comune.svg|''[[Municipium Italiae]]''
Fasciculus:Corona di città.svg|''[[Urbs Italiae]]''
Fasciculus:Italian Province (Crown).svg|''[[Provincia Italiae]]''
Fasciculus:Valor militare gold medal BAR.svg|''[[Provincia nomisma aurea militaris virtutis causa tributum]]''
</gallery>
:These images function much like the national flags with which many wikipedians decorate people's names, except they're many times as large and get their own section. O fortunatam pulchritudinis ostentationem! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 10:57, 26 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, well, as to Vide etiams, we've agreed in another discussion recently (I think) that good articles ideally won't need them, because all such links will be present in a good and complete text. No doubt, then, eventually the Vide etiams in these particular articles can be eliminated. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:39, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

== De lapidibus Latina ==
Salvete populi.

Aliquis qui sciat quid interest inter 'lapis' et 'saxum'? Aut fortasse rationem habere cum tempore?

[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 17:43, 26 Iulii 2012 (UTC).
:Saxum est rock, lapis autem est stone. Saxum invenitur extra domum, lapis autem in domo vel in persona. Lapis materia constructionis quae ex saxo extrahitur est et quoque appellatur saxum parvum elaboratum in ornamentum personale. Saxum rude, deforme et magnum plerumque habetur, lapis autem elaboratus et bellus.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Rafaelgarcia|disputatio]]) 16:29, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

::Video. :) Gratias tibi Rafael. [[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 01:57, 29 Iulii 2012 (UTC).

== De mille illis paginis ==
Propositum est per mensem Augusti ''[[Vicipaedia:1000 paginae|Mille Paginas]]'' elaborare, ut [[:meta:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles|notam meliorem inter Vicipaedias]] habeamus. Omnes qui vellent hunc ludum ludere quam libentissime accipientur. Vide [[Vicipaedia:1000 paginae#Mense Augusto 2012|paginam nostram]] ad certamen inter Vicipaedias dedicatam. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 19:46, 26 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:[[Esperantica]] superanda est! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 19:56, 26 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::Ludo. Iam in mentem habeo [[Saladinus|Saladinum]] ad 30,000 augere. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:39, 27 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:Consentio atque ludam. Diu paginam Latinam non scripsi, quod desidero. Cogito paginam de [[Cuprum|Cupro]] augere. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 19:41, 28 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

== The amazing Eleazar García Sánchez ==
Admirabilis Eleazar García Sánchez ut videtur est [[praefectus|praefectus urbium]] trium in [[civitas|civitatibus]] tribus sitarum: [[Pasuca Sotoensis|Pasuca Sotoensi]] in [[Hidalgum|Hidalgo]], [[Sanctus Iacobus Queretarensis|Sancto Iacobo Queretarensi]] in [[Queretarum|Queretaro]], atque [[Toluca Lerdoensis|Toluca Lerdoensi]] in [[Civitas Mexici|Civitate Mexici]]. Quomodo fieri potest? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 12:00, 28 Iulii 2012 (UTC)

== Bull in a china shop ==
I tried to amend the horrific Latinity in [[Formula:Olympiaebox]] but now it seems that I've done more harm than good. Could a friendly soul take an expert's look at my editing history, please! My first edit may tell what my initial purpose was, as far as Latinity goes. Sorry for the mess! [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 22:25, 29 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:What you've done is change the names of some of the parameters to the Formula, for example from "Hymnus Olimpyae" to "Hymnus Olympicus" (obviously better!). The only problem with that is that the existing pages that use this template have to know the rules have changed: where they have "Hymnus Olimpyae = whatever" they must now instead have "Hymnus '''Olympicus''' = whatever" and so on. It looks like you changed six of the parameters (I would have made "Inagurabatur pro" into "Inaugurator" too), so those six need to be changed in all the pages that use the template. There are about 54 of them, more than I'd want to do by hand -- I'd use a program. I'm happy to run a program over these, but I can't do so until I'm in the office on Tuesday (better internet 'n' stuff there than at home); if someone else has a bot handy and wants to tidy this up, go for it. I'd say we should keep the change and fix the referring pages -- your parameter names are a definite improvement (though most of what you've changed is strictly internal rather than visible on the pages). 
:A rough rule of thumb: the words in triple braces, <nowiki>{{{like this}}}</nowiki>, are magic -- those are the the parameter names that you write in before the equals sign when you're using the template. Changing those entails changing pages that use the template. Changing the ''output'' of the template is innocuous and will generally do good and bring honor and glory upon the editor.
:Again, this is an improvement and an easy fix with a program, which I will run on Tuesday if no one better qualified gets there first. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 23:04, 29 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::The Latinitas surrounding our pages about Olympics has indeed been horrific, and some of it still is. I'm lazier about changing the Latinitas inside formulae (a) because it doesn't show up on the normal reading page and (b) for the reason that you have observed and A. Mahoney explains! But there's no doubt that it all really does have to be put right ''in the end''. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:53, 30 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::: The world of ''formulae'' is something I've never taken any interest in. Therefore, what happened was sort of expectable. I'm abashed at my precipitance. Lots of thanks to A.Mahoney for offering help! I really hope it'll be as easy a fix as you're saying! [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 11:12, 30 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
:::: Yes, it was pretty easy :-) -- as long as I was in there, I Latinized the other parameters as well. Have a look, and let me know if there's anything missing. I'll be in class for the next 4 hours (brutal summer schedule!) but will be back once my students have had their fill of [[Horatius|Horace]] and [[Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis|Juvenal]]! [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 12:41, 31 Iulii 2012 (UTC)
::::: I'm relieved at hearing that it was easy, at least pretty easy ... :-) I took a look at the new version of the formula. It was fine. Thank you! A couple of triple braced words were still in the old shape, viz. "<nowiki>{{{Dedicationis Caeremonia}}}</nowiki> → <nowiki>{{{Caerimonia initialis}}}</nowiki>" and "<nowiki>{{{Claudis Caeremonia}}}</nowiki> → <nowiki>{{{Caerimonia finalis}}}</nowiki>". Besides, I'm not sure why the original author wanted <nowiki>{{{Nomine}}}</nowiki>, which looks like ablative though he might well have taken it as a good-looking nominative, I don't know. But these are not very important things, still less pressing. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 15:31, 1 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:::::: Oops, missed that "nomine"! I've fixed it and changed the two caerimoniae -- see how this looks! [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 17:14, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

== Prefix ==
Good day.

I wonder what the prefix ''com-'' and ''ob-'' mean. It's just these two I do not really know. They're seen in verbs and words such as ''com-mutare'' and ''ob-scurus''.

[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 23:07, 1 Augusti 2012 (UTC).
:com -together with. Ob- because of.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 23:41, 1 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:: Note that ''com-'' (and its sandhi variants ''con-'' and ''col-'') is related to the preposition ''cum,'' and ''ob'' is related to the preposition ''ob'' -- like most verb prefixes, in fact. So you can often guess the meaning of a verb if you think about the related preposition: ''com-mutare'' = ''change together,'' for example when two things change into each other, or change places, like commutative operations in math (2 + 3 = 3 + 2: changing places doesn't affect the result). I admit that ''ob'' is a bit trickier here; as a verb prefix it usually has the sense of "against, up to" rather than the "because" sense. Thus ''ob-fero'' (usually ''of-fero'') is ''carry up to, bring to, put in front of,'' hence "offer." (I'm not sure that "obscurus" has the prefix, by the way.) [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 17:23, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::: I thought that sometimes ''com-'' also can mean ''thoroughly'' or ''completely'', as in ''converberare'', to beat soundly, ''consumere'', to use up completely, ''converrere'', to brush thoroughly. Also ''conicere'', to throw "thoroughly", meaning really really hard. But yes, mostly it means ''together''. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 22:48, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::::Wouldn't that be "per-"?--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 01:20, 3 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

:::::The prefix ''per-'' has the same meaning as the separate word ''per'', that will say 'through'. Or am I a little bit wrong?
:::::[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 13:57, 5 Augusti 2012 (UTC).
::::::I might be wrong but for me ''per-'' would mean 'thoroughly' or 'very' while ''per'' would be 'through' or 'by'.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 02:56, 6 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, Jondel, I agree, as in "perficere", "permutare". There are also some cases where the meaning of the prefix "per-" is ''through''. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:41, 6 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

Secundum Lewis and Short, ''cum-'' (''co-'') in compounds means either a bringing together of several things (''colloqui'') or the completeness or perfecting of an act (''commendere''). ''Per-'' in compounds is usually an intensifier, and means thoroughly, perfectly, completely, very (''perfacilis''), or a completing of an action (''perorare''). So there is some overlap in meaning, as usual. ''Ob-'' means direction towards something (''oppetere''), existence at or before something (can't think of an example), or against something (''obicere'') --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 15:13, 15 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

== Imperfectum et perfectum ==

Quosdam peto lingua Latina satis excultos quibus imperfecti perfectique discrimina non solum praeceptis a me quoque notis, sed etiam exemplis explicabuntur. Haec enim verborum tempora nunquam consequenter adhibui. --[[Usor:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|Martinus Poeta Juvenis]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|disputatio]]) 11:47, 2 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:Conabor explicare. Omnia tempora e basi praesenti facta signifant actionem continuantem; omnia tempora e basi perfecta, actionem iam factam. Modo indicativo, tempora imperfecta et perfecta sunt praeterita tempora, sed imperfectum significat actionem quae continuabat, vel quae saepius adhibebatur; perfectum nullam significationem specialem habet praeter tempus. Imperfectum ergo quasi abscedentiam picturae dat, perfectum narrat.
:Exemplum: "Ibam forte Via Sacra" (Hor. Sat. 1.9.1) -- dum Horatius ibat (continuo), aliquis advenit (et Horatius tempore praesenti utitur). Aliud: "Regii quidem iuvenes interdum otium conviviis comisationibusque inter se terebant. ... Incidit de uxoribus mentio." (Liv. 1.57) Imperfectum "terebant" nobis monstrat id quod accidit cum aulaeum tollitur, ut ita dicam, et perfectum (vel praesens) "incidit" primam fabulae actionem dat. Aliud: "[Helvetii] angustos se fines habere arbitrabantur.... Constituerunt ea quae ad proficiscendum pertinerent comparare." (Caes. BG 1.2-3). "Arbitrabantur" est temporis imperfecti quod hoc ''semper'' faciebant Helvetii; "constituerunt" est temporis perfecti quod hoc ''nunc'' faciunt.
:Modo coniunctivo, in enuntiatis suppositis, temporibus praesenti imperfectoque utimur si actio quam verbum subiunctivum denotat eodem tempore est atque actio princepes, vel postea; temporibus perfecto plusquamperfectoque si actio subiunctiva actionem principem anteit. Hoc est, tempora e basi praesenti actiones designant quae non iam finiverunt; tempora e basi perfecta actiones perfectas designant.
:Exempla: "Accusatio crimen desiderat, rem ut definiat, hominem notet, argumento probet, teste confirmet." (Cic. Cael. 6). Quod definitio, notatio, probatio, confirmatio post crimen venient, necesse est tempore e basi praesenti; quod verbum enuntiati principis est temporis praesentis (sequentia prima), verbum enuntiati suppositi quoque est temporis praesentis. Si Cicero de praeterito loqueretur, necesse esset tempore imperfecto: "Accusatio crimen (heri) desideravit, rem ut definiret, hominem notaret, argumento probaret, teste confirmaret." -- hoc est, "definiret" et alia sunt temporis imperfecti quod hoc est tempus secondarium e basi praesenti. Vel: "Multa quoque et bella passus, dum conderet urbem" (Verg. Aen. 1.5): Aeneas multa passus est, tunc, postea, urbem condidit; tempus imperfectum (e basi praesenti) quod actio non iam accidit. Vel: "His Caesar ita respondit: eo sibi minus dubitationis dari, quod eas res quas legati Helvetii commemorassent memoria teneret." (Caes. BG 1.14) -- Oratione recta, Caesar dixit "Eo mihi minus dubitationis dor, quod eas res quas legati Helvetii commemoraverunt memoria teneo." Res in memoria habet dum loquitur -- haec actio continuat -- ergo necesse est tempore e basi praesenti: "teneo" est temporis praesentis modi indicativi in oratione recta, "teneret" est temporis imperfecti modi coniunctivi in oratio obliqua. Legati Helvetii de eis rebus locuti sunt ''ante'' quam Caesar nunc loquitur -- haec actio perfectum est -- ergo necesse est tempore e basi perfecta: "commemoraverunt" est temporis perfecti modi indicativi in OR, "commemorassent" est temporis plusquamperfecti modi conunictivi in OO.
:Exempla suntne utilia? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 19:48, 5 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::Nil aliud, quam gratias, tibi possum agere. (Lingua enim meorum haec non distincta sunt) --[[Usor:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|Martinus Poeta Juvenis]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|disputatio]]) 18:17, 6 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

== Clay ==

Hello. To create an article about clay here, would we call it ''argilla'' (which is clay for making ceramik) or ''lutum'' (which is clay on the ground)? And just as you know, the word ''[[argilla]]'' redirects to the article ''[[opus fictile]]'', which is 'pottery' in English.

[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 00:27, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC).
:If you want to make an article about clay for ceramics, just remove the #REDIRECT and fill out the page. Just click on the blue word "argilla" word at the top of the opus fictile page to return.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 00:43, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:I think I would like to write article (Argilla).--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 02:41, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:Done. Feel free to correct/add.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 07:37, 8 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

::Good! :) So we can remove the 'redirects'? Alas I didn't know that.
::[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 00:04, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC).
::: If they aren't 'merges' I think they can be removed, specially if they deserve to be articles in their own right.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 01:12, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
It's a neat trick, as Jondel explains, and it's easy to do when you know how! Yes, do it, whenever a redirect really needs to be a separate encyclopedia article. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:16, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

== Trademark ==
Amici auxilium peto: ''trademark'' [[Latine]]? Paginam '[[Nivea (signum mercis)]]' creavi. Dear Friends, how can I translate 'trademark'? I used ''signum mercis'', what do you think about it? --[[Specialis:Conlationes/46.14.254.242|46.14.254.242]] 16:10, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:Mihi bene sonat. :) Sed pro dolor nescio quid Latine appellatur.
:[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 16:20, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC).

Categoriam iam habuimus "Signum Mercatorium", sed male appellatum (oportet enim ad formam pluralem mutare) et sine nexus intervicios. Mea culpa :( Sed de nomine vide [[Disputatio Categoriae:Signum Mercatorium]]. Ibi Rafael citationes utiles praebuit. Quid igitur de "Signo mercatorio" dicite? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 16:32, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:Nexus intervicios addui, omnes e commentatione Anglica de Nivea.
:[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 16:43, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC).
: Categoriam movi ad [[:Categoria:Signa mercatoria]]. Fontes sunt hic: [[Disputatio Categoriae:Signa mercatoria]]. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 17:23, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::Cicero has ''signa et notae locorum,'' implying a difference between the words, but what is it? The examples listed in Cassell's suggest, at least to this reader, that ''nota'' would be better for a sign in the sense of a brand or trademark, whereas ''signum'' would be better for a sign in the sense of a standard or banner: the former seems more like a design; the latter, something on which the design is displayed. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 18:07, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:::In other words, we might look at an advertisement (signum) and see in it a trademark (nota). Could others check examples in other dictionaries and thereby help determine how native speakers distinguished between these words? In case this helps: our article on postage stamps is found at [[Nota postalica]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 18:44, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

=== Except in emergencies, let twenty-four hours lapse? ===
As a rule and a courtesy, it might be better to wait at least twenty-four hours, instead of an hour and thirteen minutes, to reraise an issue and effect a change of this magnitude. Less than two hours later than the first post, I happened to have some spare time, so I brought into the argument a point that hadn't been considered—but even that was too late! Typically, my schedule would have delayed the continuation of this argument for more than sixteen hours, not just two. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 18:44, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:I don't think there's any problem, is there? The name I gave to the category long ago was technically wrong, although we had discussed the terminology. So, as soon as I noticed that, it made sense for UV to put it right. That doesn't preclude a further change. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 18:52, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:: Sorry for being too quick. Nevertheless, it is not too late to move the category (currently containing 26 members) again and I will be happy to do so if a better name is found. Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 19:15, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::: your answer suggest me me a different question, is it possible to change a category name without having to change one by one all the pages linked to the same category? I've always believed it was impossible.--[[Usor:Helveticus montanus|Helveticus montanus]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Helveticus montanus|disputatio]]) 19:57, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:::: The contents of a category (= which subcategories and which pages are contained within a category) can only be moved to a different category by changing these contents. This usually needs to be done individually. The exception is when the category is specified within a template. Example: Around 15 of the 25 pages in [[:Categoria:Signa mercatoria]] use the template {{fn|Signum mercatorium}} that puts these pages into the category. Here, all that needed to be done was to change the template, and a few minutes later all those around 15 pages appeared in the new category. The other 10 pages directly specified the category name and thus had to be changed individually (I used [[User:UVbot]] for that purpose).
:::: If you wish to have a category renamed and if the matter (obvious cases such as typos aside) has been discussed, you can use [[Vicipaedia:Automata/Category move requests]] and I will instruct UVbot to perform the rename. (Did that answer your question or did I misunderstand you?) Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 23:35, 9 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:::::It's lucky that UVbot is so obedient! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:39, 10 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

== Lingerie ==
''[[:en:Lingerie]]'' [[Latine]]? Verbum addere debeo in pagina [[Calida (societas)]]--[[Specialis:Conlationes/46.14.254.242|46.14.254.242]] 10:49, 10 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
: ''Interula'' (''muliebris, nocturna'' ...) plus minus idem valere videtur ac 'lingerie'. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 12:08, 10 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

== Nomina Romana ==
Salve. Scitis si sunt nomina Romana quae in declinatione quarta stant? [[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 13:06, 10 Augusti 2012 (UTC).
:Credo aliqua existere, non autem nomina hominum: Sacriportus, -us, m (urbs Latii); Saliatus, -us m (magistratus quem agit Salius, sacerdos Martis); Idus, -uum f pl (dies). Hae tantum apud Perseum inveni. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 19:29, 10 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

::Gratias tibi Amahoney.
::[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 02:32, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC).

== O programmatores benefici ==
If a kind programmer has time, the "Formula:Infobox monarch" and the formulas for the cuneiform of Old Persian, as seen in commentario [[Cyrus II (rex Persarum)‎]], need localizing or replacing. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:37, 15 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:I've created Formula:PersicaCuneiformis, taking the full name of the English formula ("OldPers" was a redirect). As for the infobox, do we not already have one for monarchs someplace? I don't actually know: the first such page I looked at didn't have an infobox, but it may exist someplace -- worth looking before re-inventing the wheel. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 16:01, 15 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::We have discussed and agreed not to do large complicated infoboxes for people. We stick with [[Formula:Data hominis]], if you want to use it. The other stuff should go into the text. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 16:36, 15 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:::No such agreement was unanimous, of course. Failing to keep up with technical innovations in the big wikis has its dangers. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:15, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::::Well, of course, you can raise it again whenever you like! But big person infoboxes are not a technical innovation, and they are not adopted by most of the big wikis. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:46, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

=== Fasciculi .ogg ===
In [[Franciscus Petrus Schubert]], necesse est nobis reficere rem "Listen" appellatam, ut fasciculi .ogg coniuncti intra singulam capsam una sint. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:15, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:Exstat formula "Audire" quam potes videre in paginis [[Opera]] et [[Musica classica]] -- e formula "Listen" Latine abhinc 10 menses verti. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 13:28, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::OK, I'll fix it then. The box, however, isn't printing as prettily as it is in the English wiki. :/ [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:39, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:::Nope. It doesn't work. Unlike the previous boxes, this kind lacks a header that would unite under a single title multiple items, such as the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, etc. of a single mass. Also, does "filename" have to be changed to "fasciculus"? The fewer impediments to automatic importation of such things, the better! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:07, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::::First of all, I'm delighted to see [[Franciscus Petrus Schubert|Schubert]] get his due; that page was on my own mental list after the mathematical ones, but you've done much more with it than I would have. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 12:21, 17 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:::::I'm just following the policy of working up from the bottom. After a month of this, the ''least'' of the 1000 pages should begin to look a lot more respectable! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 12:53, 17 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::::As for the formula, the parameters are in Latin, not English, because this is after all the ''Latin'' Vicipaedia. I didn't include all the features of the English ''Listen'' template, but I did support multiple files, unlike the versions in French (Modèle:Son) and German (Vorlage:Bild mit Audio). Perhaps try something like "titulus1=Missa 2 in G, D. 167, Kyrie," "titulus2=Gloria," etc. and see how that looks. And both you and everyone else should feel free to enhance the template, which comes in two pieces, the main "Formula:Audire" and "Formula:Audire/basis" which does the actual work (there's also "Formula:Audire/doc" for the documentation). [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 12:21, 17 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:::::I see that poor old Schubert needs about 2000 more characters, so I'll have to go back to him and try this when I get a chance. (Others are free to jump in, of course.) Meanwhile, on to the Bronze Age! Esperantica contunda est! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 12:53, 17 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

== More opportunities for you to access free research databases ==
The quest to get editors free access to the sources they need is gaining momentum.
* '''[[w:en:Wikipedia:Credo|Credo Reference]]''' provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are '''125''' full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up [[w:en:Wikipedia:Credo#Sign-up sheet|here]].
* '''[[w:en:Wikipedia:HighBeam|HighBeam Research]]''' has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are '''250''' full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up [[w:en:Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications|here]].
* '''[[w:en:Wikipedia:Questia|Questia]]''' is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be '''1000''' full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up [[w:en:Wikipedia:Questia#Apply here: Round 1|here]].
You might also be interested in the idea to create a central '''Wikipedia Library''' where approved editors would have access to ''all'' participating resource donors. Add your feedback to the [[m:Wikimedia Fellowships/Project Ideas/The Wikipedia Library|Community Fellowship proposal]]. Apologies for the English message ([http://translate.google.com/ translate here]). Go sign up :) --[[w:en:User:Ocaasi|Ocaasi]] ([[w:en:User talk:Ocaasi|talk]]) 02:18, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 0232 -->

== De paginis en:wiki lente expositis ==

An alii hanc rem observant? Mihi videtur paginas en:wiki lentissime nunc expositas; igitur, si versionem non-Latinam cuiusque paginae legere volo, praefero e.g. Francogallicam aut Theodiscam quia celerius exponuntur. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:56, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:Ego quoque paginas extra WP Anglicam praefero; :simple saepius brevissimam paginam habet. Et si volo paginam vertere (id quod non tam saepe facio quam alii, ut mihi videtur), paginam :simple vel Francogallicam vel Hispanicam elego. Quare de hac re loqueris, o Andrew? Possumus sermonem et structuram nostrarum paginarum admeliorare? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 14:12, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::Iacobus noster (fortuito) mihi in mentem hanc quaestionem inseruit. Fortasse tu, fortasse Robert, fortasse UV, dicere possunt an multiplicitas formularum et imaginum, quae praesertim in paginis Anglicis inscribuntur, tempus expositionis extendit.
::Quod ad utilitatem pertinet, Vicipaediam Theodiscam (quamquam eam linguam haud bene intellego) propter diligentiam et accurationem perlego, Francogallicam etiam atque Italianam ... sed et Anglicam ob numerositatem paginarum ... Ego, sicut tu, rarius ex aliis Vicipaediis textum converto, sed saepissime res singulas, nexus utiles, etc. ibi quaero. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 16:04, 16 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

== ''Okey'' Latine ==
Salve. Verbum Anglicum ''okey'', qui quoque in multis aliis linguis est, solitum verbum est in multis linguis, fortasse quia bonum responsum est. Quid appellatus est Latine, sive versio Latina? Quae dicunt vostros fontes?

In lexico meo stat verba duo: 'bene (quidem)' et 'probe'. Et e amici ''sheet'' e Italia e magistro accepit stat 'va bene'.

[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 01:23, 17 Augusti 2012 (UTC).
:Non certus sum, sed mihi videtur esse:Age, Licet, Bene, Sic, Ita et Probe.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 07:50, 17 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::Vide etiam [[okay]]. --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Alex1011|disputatio]]) 14:49, 28 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:::Macte Alex! Nesciebam hanc rem fuisse et laetus lego!--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 23:13, 28 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

== De magistratu ==
Revidete, s.v.p., id quod [[Vicipaedia:Petitio magistratus|hic]] Rafael et ego proposuimus ... [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:45, 17 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

== De magistratibus quiescentibus ==
We currently have a relatively large number of inactive [[Vicipaedia:Magistratus|admins]], see [http://toolserver.org/~misza13/cgi-bin/inactive.py?wiki=lawiki_p&weeks=26 this list]. In order to reduce the risk of an admin account to be compromised (as has happened on en.wikipedia on at least one occasion), I would like to propose a rule according to which admin rights would be temporarily revoked from inactive admin accounts until this admin returns to la.wikipedia and wishes to resume admin activity.

Such a rule might look like this:
: When a magistratus shows no activity at all (= no contributions and no log entries) on la.wikipedia for a period of one year, and does not resume activity (= at least one edit or one log entry) within one month after being notified both on the admin's user talk page and (provided that e-mails from other users are enabled in the admin's [[Specialis:Preferences|preferences]]) via the [[Specialis:Litteras electronicas usori mittere|Litteras electronicas usori mittere]] feature, any user may request that this admin's admin rights shall pe temporarily revoked. Admin rights that have been temporarily revoked shall be re-granted upon this admin's simple request (= no new vote necessary).

Thoughts? Objections? --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 22:22, 18 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:I think this is a good idea for two reasons -- neither of them very pressing, I admit. 1. It is a security risk to have inactive, unwatched admin accounts. 2. It is useful for users who are looking for help from an admin to find a list that includes only active admin accounts and not long-inactive ones.
:For these two reasons I agree with the proposal: after announcing our intention to those affected, we should "temporarily revoke" admin rights from long-inactive accounts. I also agree that we should reinstate them as soon as the user concerned requests it. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:46, 20 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::A good idea, but make the revocation ''automatic'' after a set period. How long should that period be? In a world as wired as ours, thirteen months (one year of silence plus one month after notification) is almost an eternity. How about ''four'' months of inactivity plus ''forty-eight hours'' after notification? Since the powers of magistracy could be restored instantly on request, no harm would be done by speeding up the process, and the asserted risk would be lessened. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 10:54, 20 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::: I'm with Iacobus here. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 14:51, 20 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::::Hoc consilium mihi est OK, sed nescio an in automaticum facere possint quia inverventio atriensis (steward) nostri necesse est ut status usoris mutetur. Magistratus ipsi non possunt id mutare.--[[Usor:Rafaelgarcia|Rafaelgarcia]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Rafaelgarcia|disputatio]]) 15:18, 20 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::::: Thank you for responding. I have now added a rule to that end to [[Vicipaedia:Magistratus]]. Per Iacobus, Neander and Rafael, I made the period of inactivity shorter than initially proposed (six months of inactivity plus one month after notification). Feel free to discuss (and modify) further. Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 11:16, 14 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== Lingua Bavarica ==

Potestne linguis aliis - sc. in pagina prima - ''bavarica'' quoque (i. e. ''Boarisch'') adscisci? Qua re transgressio in Wikipaediam bavaricam facilior esset; ut spero: non soli mihi. - [[Usor:Bavarese|Bavarese]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Bavarese|disputatio]]) 11:44, 20 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

== Quae categoria? ==
Salve. Partes ab aedificiis, ut [[maenianum]] (''balcony''), [[podium]], et cetera, in quam categoriam sive subcategoriam ponant?

[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 02:39, 24 Augusti 2012 (UTC).

== De huius situs nomine ==
Salve. Cur est diphtongus 'ae' in nomine situs 'Vicipaedia Latina' simul scripta, contra autem separata? Sit fortasse agenda Neolatinam?

[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 01:25, 27 Augusti 2012 (UTC).
:Nomen situs est, ut dicis, ''Vicipaedia,'' sed in signo in superiore parte paginum habemus quasi imaginem, ubi ''ae'' in ligatura sunt, et ''A'' est maiuscula littera etiam in fine -- ut pulchrum sit signum! In paginis ipsis autem ''ae'' litteras separatas scripsimus (quia haec est regula nostra), sed si quis mavult formam ''æ'' videre, sub titulo qui est ''Praeferentiae meae'' potest iubere omnes ''a e'' litteras per ligaturam scribi. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 18:41, 27 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

== About links from footnotes to bibliography ==
Iacobus has just imported a bibliography from en:wiki to the article [[Stanley Kubrick]]. This provides evidence of a feature I've never seen on Wikipedia before, permitting wikilinks from footnotes to bibliography while not using citation templates in the bibliography. (Iacobus hasn't imported any footnotes here, but this, quite clearly, is what the feature is for.) As such it could be very useful in long articles, and I was about to try to invent such a thing myself: I'm very happy that someone has done it already. But:
# Very minor point: these lines that are headed with a "cite span" in the [[Stanley Kubrick]] article appear in italics, though not italicized in en:wiki. Does anyone who understands spans (I don't, and I don't even know where to learn) know how to switch this formatting from italic to roman?
# Potential major point: the only sentence I can find about this method in en:wiki, at [[:en:Template:Harvard citation documentation#Possible issues]], says coldly "remove the cite span (these are deprecated)". No doubt this is why I've never seen cite spans before, but why should this simple method be deprecated over there, and does that matter to us?
I should add that I find citation templates on open wikis a vast waste of time and source of errors, and that's why I don't use them; I also think sentient beings can do better things with a long bibliography than to put it in alphabetical order; and those are the reasons why this neat trick, independent of the citation template system, interests me. So, thank you, Iacobe! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:50, 30 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, I noticed the italicization and wasted time trying to get rid of it. If the cite-spans are deprecated, we could remove them, but then the footnotes (to come, someday, one might hope) won't link right. As you can tell, I'm forging ahead boldly in view of the end of the month (since my time is more limited in September), hoping we can sort out infelicities later. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 16:24, 30 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::Absolutely. It may be that I can answer my own question. I now find a sentence that says "[cite span] may not be compatible with HTML 5" (which would be why it's deprecated) and another sentence that shows me two simple templates I can use to achieve the same effect. So I'll try them in the Kubrick article when I've done [[Lutetia]] :) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 16:27, 30 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::: [http://la.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Kubrick&diff=prev&oldid=2142171 Ok this way?] Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 19:59, 30 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::::Perfect for the formatting. And, yes, I just tested, this works as a link method from text to bibliography (or, I suppose, from any part of a page to any other part of the page). Very nice and quite simple to use. I will try using it fully on a long page, and then see what others think about it. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:52, 31 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::::UV, my test suggests that a ''separate'' close isn't needed: better than <nowiki><span id="Iacobus2000"> ... </span></nowiki> is to open and close the span id all-in-one <nowiki><span id="Iacobus2000" /></nowiki>. It still seems to set up the necessary anchor. Can you see any objection to that? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 12:27, 31 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::::: No objection at all, this method as well perfectly sets up the anchor. The difference is merely in semantics: <nowiki><span id="Iacobus2000" /></nowiki> means that the anchor has its place in one particular zero-dimension point in the page (i. e. "between the two adjacent letters/characters"), while <nowiki><span id="Iacobus2000"> ... </span></nowiki> means that the anchor is associated with whatever comes between the opening and the closing tag. This might be useful for some future uses (e. g. it would not be difficult to write a gadget that displays the contents of the span tag in a tooltip when a mouse hovers over the link that links there) but since there is currently no such application, it is currently probably simpler just to write <nowiki><span id="Iacobus2000" /></nowiki>. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 13:25, 31 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

== SPANish fiesta:Its about style ==
Hi! To Andrew and anyone interested these are a few tips and tutorials about SPAN. You can try them out at the sandbox.
Try cutting and pasting these:<nowiki>
<SPAN STYLE="background-color:yellow">Here's What You Get</SPAN>
<SPAN STYLE="background-color: #ffffcc">Here's What You Get</SPAN></nowiki>

Her's what you get:
<SPAN STYLE="background-color:yellow">Here's What You Get</SPAN><SPAN STYLE="background-color: #ffffcc">Here's What You Get</SPAN>
T
his is a simple and easy tutorial link.:http://www.htmlgoodies.com/tutorials/html_401/article.php/3479661/HTML-40-SPAN-Tag.htm
I hope that helps.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 03:08, 31 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
:Gratias plurimas tibi ago, Jondel! Iam scio id quod hodie legere debeo [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:54, 31 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
: Such formatting tricks are useful for special purposes but I would discourage from using them in ordinary articles, for the sake of uniformity of formatting. If everyone would use such formatting rules indiscriminately, Vicipaedia articles would have a wide range of different font faces, font sizes, font colours, margin widths, ... which would distract both contributors and readers from the text content. --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 13:25, 31 Augusti 2012 (UTC)
::Agreed -- let's not add yellow highlighting and Fraktur fonts to Vicipaedia! But I needed to know about this stuff for my general education ... [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 10:38, 1 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== Inceptus GibraltarpediA ==
{| class="toccolours" style="float: center; margin-left: 2em; margin-bottom: 1em; font-size: 85%; background:#cbf1f2; color:black; width:25em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5"
| style="text-align: left;" | 
[[Fasciculus:Gibraltar banner no english.jpg|center|600px|'Gibraltarpedia in an international and muli-cultural collaboration' '']]

Tuas collationes invitat inceptus '''GibraltarpediA''', urbs Vicipaedica orbis terrarum prima. Apud nos necesse sunt scriptores, photographi, interpretes aliique ad hanc urbem Vicipaedicam aedificandam quae Europam et Africam coniungere valebit. [[:la:Gibraltar|Gibraltarem]] regionesque [[:la:Marocum|Maroci]] et [[:la:Hispania|Hispaniae]] circumiacentes convertere volumus in terram virtualem rebus encyclopaedicis divitem quibus incolae et peregrini, [[:en:QRpedia|rubricis QR]] et [[:en:Near field communication|communicatione NFC]] utentes, facile accedant. 

Apud [[:en:Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA/Gibraltar Challenge/The Challenge|Certamen Multilingue Gibraltarense]] praemia contributoribus optimis tam editoribus quam photographis necnon cartographis [[:en:Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA/Gibraltar Challenge/Points|dabuntur]]. Vide s.t.p. quae plura in [[:en:Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA|prima inceptús pagina]] explicantur.
|-
| style="text-align: left; font-size: 85%;" | 
[[Fasciculus:Gibraltar Dashboard.png|center|600px|'Gibraltarpedia in an international and muli-cultural collaboration' '']]
|}
{{clear}}
Si male in sermonem nostrum converti, O amici, corrigete s.v.p. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:33, 31 Augusti 2012 (UTC)

:faciliter -> facile. --[[Usor:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|Martinus Poeta Juvenis]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|disputatio]]) 15:22, 3 Septembris 2012 (UTC) [Gratias -- correxi.]

== Max Weber's bib ==
It sneaked in at literally the last minute (23:59 GMT), gaining us 0.03 points in the standings in Meta. Typographically it's a mess, but don't anybody worry about that, cuz Ima fix it and make it all respectable-like, as soon as the morning coffee kicks in. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 12:28, 1 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h8pbFY3f54 Ta-daa!] [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:58, 1 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

:Amice Iacobe, in quo modo possibile est videre puncta per paginam? Et congratulationes omnibus sunt, nam Vicipaedia ''ordinem primum'' punctis additis cepit! Si hoc mense iterum ageremus, in numero tricesimo punctis haberemus, quae re esset, credo, felix. --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 21:39, 11 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

::Ut puncta videas, in "Praeferentiis tuis" (vide summam paginae partem), sub vocem "Gadgets," indice "Display the weighted length of an article..." et serva praeferentias. Tunc, dum paginam recenses, magnitudinem videbis infra capsam verborum. Si magnitudo < 10,000, pagina 1 punctum tulit; si 10,000 < magnitudo < 30,000, 4 puncta; si magnitudo > 30,000, 9 puncta. (Sed summa punctorum per 90 dividitur ut inter 0 et 100 sit: nostra 28 puncta [[:m:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles|apud Metam]] significat ergo 28 × 90 = 2520 puncta cruda (ut ita dicam). [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 21:54, 12 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

:::Gratias tibi ago. Ita +0.03 puncta ob laborem Iacobi significat 0.03 x 100 = 3 puncta cruda ob magnitudinem ab minusquam 10,000 ad plusquam 10,000. Et tres puncta cruda per 90 divida est 3/90 puncta ad nostra 28 puncta addita. Intellego! --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 23:56, 13 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== The date mentioned with year ==
Hello people.

How do we say the year mentioned with the date in Latin, like ''die 1 Ianuarii 2012''? Is it ''die primo Ianuarii duo milia duodecim'', or ''die primo Ianuarii secundo millesimo duodecimo''? I know that ''anno'' (which is ''in anno'' of ''annus'') is not mentioned in this phrase, but still I'm not sure.

[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 15:05, 3 Septembris 2012 (UTC).

:Scias oportet, benigne Donatelle, Romanos calendarium nimis aliter ac nos scripsisse; dies mensium ab illorum ''[[Kalendae|Kalendis]], [[Nonae|Nonis]]'' atque ''[[Idus|Idibus]]'' numerabatur. quod ad hodiernum Vicipaediaeque usum pertinet, res Anglorum mori similis esse videtur, qui haud eadem describunt quae revera pronuntiantur. 15 March 2011 ''the fifteenth of March two thousand eleven''. Lingua Latina sic pronuntiantur: seu Romano more, ''Idibus Martiis a.D. bis millesimo undecimo'', seu ut hodie ''die quindecima (mensis) Martii anno bis millesimo undecimo''. --[[Usor:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|Martinus Poeta Juvenis]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|disputatio]]) 15:54, 4 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::Nos Angli, mi Martine, aliter pronuntiamus: "the fifteenth of March two thousand ''and'' eleven". De Americanis nescio. De Latine loquentibus hodiernis, cum te omnino consentio! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 17:31, 4 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::Usitata appellatio [[Civitates Foederatae|Americana]]: "March fifteenth, twenty-eleven," vel "March fifteenth, two thousand eleven." [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 20:56, 4 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

::::Intelligo. Gratias tibi. :)
::::Sed in multis a commentationibus in Vicipaedia verbum 'anno' non dicit, ut exempli gratia in ''[[Ricardus Nixon]]'': "''(natus die 9 Ianuarii 1913; mortuus die 22 Aprilis 1994)''". Ita hodierno pronuntiatur ''die nono (mensis) Ianuarii anno millesimo nonagentesimo tertio decimo''?
::::[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 23:34, 4 Septembris 2012 (UTC).

:::::Gratias ago, benevole Andrea, qui exemplo confestim correcto me sublevavisti. Donatelle, hoc vocabulum 'anno' putabam ideo addicendum, quod Romani annos non eorum quantitate velut linguis pluribus nostris, sed per ordinem numeravere. Ad alterum: compendio sive abbreviatione illiusmodi utimur quibus locum parcamus neu aspectantium animam a summa paginae avertamus. Perlongae enim videantur, si datum omnino perscribatur.--[[Usor:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|Martinus Poeta Juvenis]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Martinus Poeta Juvenis|disputatio]]) 15:48, 5 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== a plant juice ==
I never expected that [[Laser]] is a plant juice! You never know what kind of Latin words you would encounter. I will fix up this ambiguities. However please feel free to do the adjustments.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 00:40, 6 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

Nunquam sperabam 'laser' sucus plantae fuisset! Quacumque verbum inveniendum nescitur. Posterior emendabo sed licet tibi vel aliquis emendare.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 02:42, 6 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== Request for Comment: Legal Fees Assistance Program ==
[[Fasciculus:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg|80px]]
''I apologize for addressing you in English. I would be grateful if you could translate this message into your language.''

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a [[:m:Request_for_comment/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program|request for comment]] on a [[:m:Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program|proposed program]] that could provide legal assistance to users in specific support roles who are named in a legal complaint as a defendant because of those roles. We wanted to be sure that your community was aware of this discussion and would have a chance to participate in [[:m:Request_for_comment/Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program|that discussion]]. 

If this page is not the best place to publicize this request for comment, please help spread the word to those who may be interested in participating. (If you'd like to help translating the "request for comment", program policy or other pages into your language and don't know how the translation system works, please come by my user talk page at [[:m:User talk:Mdennis (WMF)]]. I'll be happy to assist or to connect you with a volunteer who can assist.)
 
Thank you! --[[:m:User:Mdennis (WMF)|Mdennis (WMF)]]02:03, 6 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

<small>Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)</small><!-- EdwardsBot 0245 -->

== Categorizing Pacific islands ==
Vicipaedia and Wikipedia have three pertinent categories ([[:en:Category:Archipelagoes of the Pacific Ocean]], [[:en:Category:Islands of Oceania]], [[:en:Category:Islands of the Pacfic Ocean]]), and they're a mess. Locations that are single & remote, like [[Wake (insula)|Wake]], probably belong in a category distinct from that to be used for islands that form a geological cluster, like [[Insulae Marchionis]] (though even there we have a north group and a south group); and then we have political entities, like [[Kiribati]] and [[Vanuatu]] (the latter currently receiving the kind ministrations of our anonymously modernizing geographer), which consist of combinations of archipelagoes & lone islands. For the moment, Vicipaedia's categories for these things are being left to stand as they are, but don't think that their disarray hasn't been noticed! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:36, 9 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:If you have a good solution, and have the energy to apply it to existing pages, then please do. Any categories that become superfluous are easily deleted. Dont't worry too much about parallels on en:wiki (but you already knew I would say that!) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:10, 9 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== Wikidata is getting close to a first roll-out ==

[[Fasciculus:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg|80px|right]]
(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) 

As some of you might already have heard Wikimedia Deutschland is working on a new Wikimedia project. It is called [[m:Wikidata]]. The goal of Wikidata is to become a central data repository for the Wikipedias, its sister projects and the world. In the future it will hold data like the number of inhabitants of a country, the date of birth of a famous person or the length of a river. These can then be used in all Wikimedia projects and outside of them.

The project is divided into three phases and "we are getting close to roll-out the first phase". The phases are:
# language links in the Wikipedias (making it possible to store the links between the language editions of an article just once in Wikidata instead of in each linked article)
# infoboxes (making it possible to store the data that is currently in infoboxes in one central place and share the data)
# lists (making it possible to create lists and similar things based on queries to Wikidata so they update automatically when new data is added or modified)

It'd be great if you could join us, test the [http://wikidata-test.wikimedia.de demo version], provide feedback and take part in the development of Wikidata. You can find all the relevant information including an [[m:Wikidata/FAQ|FAQ]] and sign-up links for our on-wiki newsletter on [[m:Wikidata|the Wikidata page on Meta]]. 

For further discussions please use [[m:Talk:Wikidata|this talk page]] (if you are uncomfortable writing in English you can also write in your native language there) or point [[m:User_talk:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|me]] to the place where your discussion is happening so I can answer there.

--[[m:User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE)|Lydia Pintscher]] 13:27, 10 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

<small>Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)</small>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0248 -->

== domu? ==

In compluribus explanationibus sive urbes sive regiones pertinentibus lego: incolas aliquam linguam 'domu' loqui. Iste ablativus (?) vel locativus (?) mi non est notus. Estne fortasse?
- [[Usor:Bavarese|Bavarese]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Bavarese|disputatio]]) 11:12, 12 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:Casus ablativus est, quem apud Ciceronem et Iustinianum invenimus iuxta formam "domo." Casus locativus est "domī"; casus dativus saepius "domui," aliquando "domo." Hoc nomen cum et quarta et seconda declensione cohaeret. Vide apud Allen et Greenough, sectione 93. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 11:59, 12 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::Addo, loqui + ''alia lingua'' casu ablativo non ''aliam linguam''. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]] <sup>'''[[Disputatio Usoris:Ioscius|∞]]'''</sup> 18:10, 17 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== Urbs-Civitas? ==
Mi amici,

Sorry for my long absence during this summer. I should be back to normal contributing soon. I've been doing some more stuff on the Ancient Middle East, and in [[Periodus Iemdet Nasr]] I came accross the need to use "city-state". I've for the time being used "urbs-civitas", but both [[polis]] and [[civitas]] are alternatives which mean "cities which control their own autonomous territory", although they have very specific chronological meanings... what shall we use? Cheers!--[[User:Xaverius|<span style="color:blue;">Xave</span>]][[:eu:Lankide:Xaverius|<span style="color:green;">ri</span>]][[:eu:Lankide_eztabaida:Xaverius|<span style="color:red;">us</span>]] 12:20, 17 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:Te echamos de menos. Te caremus.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 12:51, 17 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::I think I've already deployed ''urbs-civitas'' somewhere. This isn't a case of ''[[dvandva]].'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:00, 17 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
== test wikipedia ==
There is an http://test.wikipedia.com where you can test all your templates etc. .--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 09:36, 18 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== Automatic declination of country names ==
For the taxonomy project, I'm pulling species data from the web, part of which is the countries the species is native to. So I get a list like this: Philippines, Mali, Papua New Guinea, Niger, Western Sahara. My program looks up the page on en:, looks for the la: interwiki link, and uses that for the Latin name. So now I have a list like this: Philippinae, Malium, Papua Nova Guinea, Niger, Sahara Occidentalis.

Now I have two choices: decline the names into the ablative so that I can form a sentence such as: ''In Philippinis, Malio, Papua Nova Guinea, Nigre, Sahara Occidentali habitat.'' Or, I can keep the names in the nominative and get perhaps a more awkward sentence such as: ''Philippinae, Malium, Papua Nova Guinea, Sahara Occidentalis sunt habitationes eius.''

While I can come up with a few heuristics for making a guess at the declination of a country name, it's not perfect, so I'm trying to find nominative solutions. Any suggestions? --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 13:42, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:Doesn't Vicipaedia have a list of countries somewhere? If so, you (or somebody else) could add a column for the ablative, which your program could take from there. An exhaustive list shouldn't have more than, say, 300 members, so it might be doable with not too much trouble. A problem would still occur when a given location isn't a country, as in ''Sahara Occidentalis'' cited above. ¶ As for the ablative: the usual phrase so far has often been "in X [[endemismus|endemicus/a/um/i/ae/a]]"—which requires the ablative for the location(s) here marked ''X.'' A workaround to save the nominative, albeit wordier, might be ".&thinsp;.&thinsp;.&thinsp;; inter locos ubi [[endemismus|endemicus/a/um/i/ae/a]] [[habitatio|habita(n)t]] est/sunt X." [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:20, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

::There's this: [[Nationes mundi]]. Wouldn't adding a column for declination be more of a wiktionary thing, though? In any case, I could just put the table into my program, since it's small enough. Or at least, put only the exceptions and tricky ones, which would reduce the table size even more. Thanks! --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 18:11, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::I agree, it's not a specially encyclopedic thing to add a column for the ablative in this table, but it seems you have a workround.
:::Notice that a few items in that listing (only a few) are redirects. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 18:26, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== Categoria:Iohannes Sebastianus Bach ==
Could this be changed to "Categoria:Ioannes Sebastianus Bach" (minus an aitch)? If not, what's the reason for not using Vicipaedia's preferred spelling of ''Ioannes''&thinsp;? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 15:40, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:Ah, I see that "Categoria:Ioannes Sebastianus Bach" was deleted in 2010. Generally, the spelling in reference works should be consistent. At the moment, poor JSB's categories are inconsistent. Similarly those of ''Io(h)annes Vermeer, Io(h)annes Singer Sargent,'' etc. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 16:15, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::At a guess (I haven't checked the history) [[:Categoria:Ioannes Sebastianus Bach]] was deleted in 2010 because the creator created it without noticing that [[:Categoria:Iohannes Sebastianus Bach]] already existed; then, after noticing, saw no evident reason for a move. That's how it often happens, anyway.
::[Note: -- the "preferred spelling", as you call it, is the one I now tend to choose, and you too perhaps, but it hasn't been preferred by all or for any great length of time. It looks as if the Bach page was moved to this spelling by you this very day ... :) But if you are working towards consistency, I, for one, favour it.]
::At any time any category can be moved to a preferred name by creating the new category, changing all existing pages to the new category, and then placing the {{fn|Delenda}} formula on the old one. Or, if the category has more than a few members, it is quicker to list the required change at [[Vicipaedia:Automata/Category move requests]]: UVbot will then obediently do the work for us. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 18:17, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::I see the old category has only two members. So all you have to do (assuming no one objects to your spelling change -- I don't) is to create the new category, move those two remaining members to it, mark the old category for deletion, and correct an interwiki link, e.g. on en:wiki. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 20:34, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::::OK, when time becomes available. I've already done that so as to change "Opera ISB" to "Compositiones ISB." (For certain people, ''opera'' would be a supercategory whose members would separately cover works in several genres: compositions, books, paintings, etc.) [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 21:39, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::::"Opera" is better for the reason you give -- it's more inclusive, and that's usually handy for categories. It also helpfully corresponds to "Works", "Opera", "Oeuvres" etc. in many categories in other wikipedias. But I'm not about to argue over it in this one case. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:02, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
I have historically treated Ioannes and Iohannes as equally valid spellings, preferring the attested form for a particular entry (where there is one, and it's reasonably consistent, e.g. both of the sources I cited for Boccacius use ''Iohannes'' with an h). Where it's not attested I've generally used the rule of thumb that an H should be included if it's present in the vernacular name (e.g. John, Johann, יחנן) and ommitted if it's not (e.g. Jean, Giovanni, Sian). I'm sure you'll find this rule horrid, but the fact is, in the history of Latin both forms are amply attested, and it really doesn't make sense to me to try to level them. --[[Usor:Iustinus|Iustinus]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Iustinus|disputatio]]) 00:39, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:History repeats itself, I guess: [[Disputatio:Iohannes Keplerus]] --[[Usor:Iustinus|Iustinus]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Iustinus|disputatio]]) 00:41, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::I choose Ioannes where the sources allow me to do so, and I like consistency, but I admit, as my librarian colleagues used to say to one another (with Oscar Wilde?) that "consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative". [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:48, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."—[http://www.bartleby.com/100/420.47.html Ralph Waldo Emerson]. Keyword: ''foolish.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 12:23, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::Arguably both Iacobus and I are guilty here ;) --[[Usor:Iustinus|Iustinus]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Iustinus|disputatio]]) 20:03, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::Evidently Vicipaedians haven't agreed a preference on Io(h)annes, so it will be wrong to undertake moves of existing pages until there has been time for discussion -- especially with categories, which are complicated to move. Better to discuss here, I suggest, since many pages and many categories would be affected. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:48, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::I honestly thought it was more or less decided. Certainly in the specific case of ''io(h)annes'' I thought it was discussed ad infinitum and that we actually had agreed that ''ioannes'' was to be the preferred form if unattested, but that if a name is attested it could be with however many Hs, Ns, or anything else. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]] <sup>'''[[Disputatio Usoris:Ioscius|∞]]'''</sup> 11:02, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::::I think there is a big difference between adding an ''h'' and subtracting an ''n''. As I wrote (and would like to think I "showed") at [[Disputatio:Iohannes Boccacius#Iohannes vs. Ioannes]], both forms are well attested, and have a strong historical basis & tradition. Ioanes with one n is far more likely to be either a simple orthographical error, or an improperly rendered Ioãnes. --[[Usor:Iustinus|Iustinus]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Iustinus|disputatio]]) 20:03, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::::Well, maybe it was discussed, but I can't remember it. Any idea where, Iosci? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:12, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::::Looks like ''Ioannes'' vs. ''Iohannes'' has been discussed many times: I did a quick search in the Vicipaedia and Disputatio namespaces and found four dozen hits. The major discussion seems to be at [[Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 14#Praenomina hominum|Taberna 2010]], with bits of it in the Disputatio pages for pretty much everyone whose name is Io(h)annes, John, Seán, etc. I agree that when a particular person's name is attested in exactly one Latin form, there's no problem. But I bet there are lots of cases of variant Latinizations of vernacular names -- perhaps even by the person concerned himself. In those cases, I don't think it matters which one we use in the body of the article so long as we have redirects to allow users to find the name either way. I'm not sure it's worth the effort to rename existing pages to standardize our use; going forward, I like Iustinus's rule of thumb about keeping ''h'' if the person's preferred vernacular form has it and otherwise dropping it. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 12:25, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Well, I'm glad *someone* likes that rule of thumb ;) --[[Usor:Iustinus|Iustinus]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Iustinus|disputatio]]) 20:03, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::::::I think our ''general'' practice has been to prefer Latinized names adopted by the subjects, if they did; if not, by their contemporaries; if not, by later authors. Hence I was taken to task recently for wanting to change [[Disputatio:Willelmus Tyrensis|Willelmus Tyrensis]] to Guillelmus: he seems to have used the former version himself. We ought to know, and I don't, how this applies to Io(h)annes Sebastianus Bach, with whom the discussion began: did he sign or was he published in Latin at all?
:::::::Thanks for solving that in the case of William of Tyre... I didn't like not knowing which form to use for him.
:::::::As for Bach, as I recall, years ago when I first looked I found a Latin source, but it turned out to be a different Iohannes Sebastianus Bach... or am I thinking of Beethoven? Anyway, if I noted it in Wikipedia I can't seem to find it now. --[[Usor:Iustinus|Iustinus]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Iustinus|disputatio]]) 20:03, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::::::::I know he ''taught'' Latin, as it was one of his duties in Leipzig, at least before employing someone to to do so for him, so I would be surprised if there weren't at least ''something'' out there with his Johann Hancock on it in Latin. Looking into it. -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]] <sup>'''[[Disputatio Usoris:Ioscius|∞]]'''</sup> 20:05, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::::::For categories (I create a lot of them) I tend to lean slightly towards consistency and a standard form where that seems possible, because you can't have redirects in category namespace, so the more predictable they are, the better. For that reason I would not have objected to the change in the category name to [[:Categoria:Ioannes Sebastianus Bach]]. But I may be going beyond consensus in this!
::::::In main namespace I agree with Anne that consistency doesn't matter so much because redirects are easy. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:28, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Since no one has objected to Iacobus's category move to [[:Categoria:Ioannes Sebastianus Bach]], which was holding fire, I will now complete it and delete the old category: OK? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 15:34, 27 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== Commentarius [[Barocus]] et Categoria:Barocus ==
What masculine noun is being assumed for this adjective? The usual nouns that come to mind for historical periods are ''aetas'' (feminine), ''aevum'' (neuter), ''tempus'' (neuter), and ''spatium temporis'' (neuter); and for styles, ''ars'' (feminine) and ''genus'' (neuter). ¶ If the masculine-looking word is a Latin back-formation ex Italico ''barocco,'' it could be of interest that the Merriam-Webster (English) dictionary suggests that that word, in turn, is "perhaps from ''barocca'' 'rocky, mountainous country'" (which naturally implies the feminine gender). I had a mind to start fixing the topics promiscuously sorted in Categoria:Barocus (see the new category "Musica Baroca"), but that shouldn't be attempted until the name is sorted out. (As with JSB above). ¶ If people have 18th- or 19th-century attestations for the period & style in question as a masculine noun ''barocus,'' let's see them! [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 16:37, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:Could the assumed noun be ''modus''&thinsp;? If so, why would that be the obvious noun? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 16:40, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::The creators of the page and category are no longer active Vicipaedians. I suggest you propose a better term. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 20:30, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::Ah, videmus Irenaeum sic explicavisse: "movit Barocum ad Barocus: In lingua Germanica et aliquibus Slavonicis linguis velut Serbica, quarum proprium est, ut genus masculinum neutrumque diiudicent, huius aetatis nomen masculini generis est. Quarum exemplum linguam Latinam sequi oportere)." Quid putant alii usores? [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 21:44, 23 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::::In lingua Theodisca verbum vel masculini vel neutri generis est (der Barock, das Barock), ut libet, item in lingua Cecha. Aliter aliis in linguis (m./f./n.). - Etymologia verbi incerta est: Plurimi verbum lusitanicum "pérola barocca" (margarita imperfecte rotunda) originem ducunt, Benedetto Croce (Storia della Età barocca in Italia, 1929) terminum technicum artis logicae profert (barocco esse verbum artificiale ad quarti modi secundam figuram syllogismi memorandam confectam; ex quo significationem "obliquus", "intortus" exstitisse), pars verbum a pictore Barociano Federigo Barroci, alii ab architecto Giacomo Barozzi (= Vignola) repetunt. Denique etiam verbum Italicum parrucca (capillamentum) profertur. (Fons: Emrich Wilhelm, Deutsche Literatur der Barockzeit, Königstein 1981, p. 14s.); Verbum Theodiscum "Barock", quod quidem scio, a Iacobo Burckhardt saeculo undevicesimo medio in historiam artis introductum est, unde in alias linguas emanavit.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 16:03, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== proelia ==

Notavi mores tres apud nos:

* proelium apud Labacum
* proelium Labaci
* proelium Labacense

interdum etiam 

* proelium pro Labaco
* proelium ad Labacum
* proelium iuxta Labacum

Rogo vos, amici docti, quale proelium sit quali praeferendum? -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]] <sup>'''[[Disputatio Usoris:Ioscius|∞]]'''</sup> 21:45, 24 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:Pacem praefero :) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:25, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::Labacum quoque putem ;] -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]] <sup>'''[[Disputatio Usoris:Ioscius|∞]]'''</sup> 10:36, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::Apud Caesarem invenio "proelium ad Dyrrachium factum" (BC 3.79.4), "proelium Dyrrachinum" (BC 3.80.2 et saep.), "proelium factum in Thessalia" (BC 3.101.7), sed non invenio "proelium apud Dyrrachium." [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 14:31, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::::Cato (ab Aulo Gellio citatus) "proelium ... pro"; Suetonius "navale proelium circa Tiberim"; Cornelius Nepos et Sallustius "proelium apud"; Cicero "Pharsalicum proelium"; Plinius "Proelium Actiacum", "Proelium ad Phliuntem", "proelium apud Marathona".
::::"Proelium iuxta" postclassicum esse videtur: Galfridus Monemutensis "proelium iuxta fluuium Sturam", et similiter in aliis fontibus recentioribus ... "Proelium iuxta" saepe scripsi ego: fortasse in "proelium ad" sive "proelium apud" automatice mutare oportet. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 16:08, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::::Mea opinione "Proelium" + adiectivum est usus classicus. --[[Usor:Alex1011|Alex1011]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Alex1011|disputatio]]) 16:11, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
Respondentibus omnibus gratias ago. Modi proeliorum nominandi varii videantur esse. Proelia habeo animo dua:
# ''[[:en:Case White]]'' et ''Battle of the Neretva'' - Germanice ''Fall weiss'' et ''[[:de:Schlacht an der Neretva]]'' - Serbocroatice ''[[:sh:Bitka na Neretvi]]''
# ''[[:en:Case Black]]'' et ''Battle of the Sutjeska'' - Germanice ''Fall black'' et ''[[:de:Schlacht an der Sutjeska]]'' - Serbocroatice ''[[:sh:Bitka na Sutjesci]]''
Quomodo ergo Latine? [[Proelium apud Naronem]], [[Proelium apud Sutiescam]]? -- [[Usor:Ioscius|Ioscius]] <sup>'''[[Disputatio Usoris:Ioscius|∞]]'''</sup> 21:48, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:Cum Alex consentio, sed interdum difficile est adiectivum idoneum reperire. Igitur, sicut Caesar, si possumus, "Proelium Dyrrachinum". Si hoc impossibile sit, tum, cum Caesare aliisque auctoribus classicis, "Proelium ad/apud/circa/in/pro X factum". Non possumus singulam versionem verbi Anglici "of" constituere ... et nisi fallor, Latinitatis causa, oportet participium inserere. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 09:14, 17 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

== De titulis nostris in linguis (et scripturis?) non-Latinis ==
This question arises twice today. I've just started a page about a Church Slavonic text, [[Житїе Иларїѡна епископа Мегленскаго]], translatable as "Vita Hilarionis episcopi Moglaenensis", but not known in Latin. LilyKitty has started one about the opera [[Domina Macbeth districti Mtsenscensis‎‎]], which (unless that Latin title has been published) ought to be moved to its vernacular name, because our rules are that books appear under the original title, unless previously translated. The same question arises when we write a page about a foreign word, phrase or idiom. If the original language is written in a non-Latin script, do we transliterate the page title or not?

I remember that Alexander has already asked this question (but I don't remember where). I'm fairly sure that no discussion followed. Whatever we do, we can of course give redirects from alternative choices, including a Latin translated form.

I think our page title should appear in the original language and script in such cases, because a transliterated title just looks foreign to ''everybody'' and a translated title breaches our general rule. So I would leave my page [[Житїе Иларїѡна епископа Мегленскаго]] as it is, and I would move LilyKitty's to [[Леди Макбет Мценского уезда]] (with all redirects). But that's just me. What do others think? [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 12:59, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:I agree, except when an attested Latin version is found (in authoritative modern sources, as at the Vatican, on Radio Finland, and in certain sitibus interretialibus), and then that should become the lemma. I'd have said I agree ''completely,'' except that such a plan opens the door to doing the same thing otherwise, as with the names of people & places. ;) ¶ In particular here, our article [[Districtus]] gives the genitive singular as ''districtus.'' [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:11, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::I agree with you: better not think of this as relevant to names of people and places! Essentially what I'm talking about are not "proper names". They are phrases and titles which happen to be expressed in a foreign language, but we need to explain and discuss them here. (You're right, that translation needs correcting anyway.) [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:19, 26 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== De municipiis in Vasconia ==
(partially following the comments above - but on toponyms)

Carus noster [[Disputatio Usoris:82.198.57.17|usor sine nomine]], permultas paginas de municipiis in Vasconia scripsit. Etiamsi facit paginas cum nomine latino seu latinizato (e.g. [[Guennes]]), tum eam creat in redirectione ad paginam nominis hispanici (e.g. [[Güeñes]]). Si latinizatio adest, non est versio latina praeferenda ut lemma paginae?--[[User:Xaverius|<span style="color:blue;">Xave</span>]][[:eu:Lankide:Xaverius|<span style="color:green;">ri</span>]][[:eu:Lankide_eztabaida:Xaverius|<span style="color:red;">us</span>]] 21:58, 25 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:Pro certo, Xaveri, nomen Latinum praeferendum est. Move, si potes! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 11:31, 26 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::The anonym is probably being helpful, having noticed that there are Latin names for these places. IP addresses can't move pages, so (unless we persuade them to get an account) one of us has to make the move. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:33, 29 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== Lingua operatica ==
An important fact about every opera is its original language, the language in which it was composed (and usually first performed). A category for this is wanted. What's its best wording in Latin? A sample from other wikis, using English as the example: da: Operaer på engelsk, cs: Opery v angličtině, de: Oper in englischer Sprache, en: English-language operas, es: Óperas en inglés, fi: Englanninkieliset oopperat, fr: Opéra en anglais, gl: Óperas en inglés, it: Opere liriche in lingua inglese, pt: Óperas em inglês, tr: Ingilizce operalar. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 10:33, 26 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:Good idea! On the linguistic side these would be subcategories of our relevant "works-by-language" categories, e.g. "[[:Categoria:Litterae Anglicae]]", "[[:Categoria:Litterae Italianae]]" etc. On the musical side, up to you!
:Possible forms might be "Categoria:Operae Anglicae" (brief, but too ambiguous perhaps) or "Categoria:Operae Anglice scriptae" (closer to explicitness) ... [or do we use "libellus" in this sense, "Categoria:Libelli Anglici"? or ":Categoria:Operae textu/libello Anglico munitae"? I'm just thinking aloud ...] [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 10:41, 26 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:: What's the declension of opera? I thought it was from opus (-eris, n.)? Or did opera (-ae, f.) become independent? --[[Usor:Robert.Baruch|Robert.Baruch]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Robert.Baruch|disputatio]]) 14:07, 27 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::::[Edit conflict.] Yes, obviously it's potentially confusing: ''opus, operis'' (n.) 'work', and ''opera, operae'' (f.) 'opera', but I don't think it's unexpected: IIRC, the history of the Romance languages shows examples of the natural conversion of ''other'' second-declension neuters into first-declension feminines, and we see that in English today (minus the gender) in the use of ''agenda'' and ''data'' as singular nouns; of course, in the case of artworks generally called ''opera,'' the conversion would be more recent, perhaps a back-formation consciously made. ¶ The basic organizational problem for an encyclopedia here is that "opera" is a notion needed to cover many genres (subgenres? sub-subgenres?) for which their composers and contemporaries used more particular terms, like ''azione sacra, burletta, commedia per musica, dramma giocoso, entr'acte, farsa, género chico, intermezzo, melodrama, Musikdrama, opéra-ballet, opera buffe'' (not the same thing as [[opera buffa]]&thinsp;!), ''[[opera comica]]'' (not the same thing as [[opéra comique]] and [[:en:Opéra-Comique|Opéra-Comique]]&thinsp;!), ''[[operetta]], pasticcio, romantische Oper, sainetillo, Savoy opera, [[Singspiel]], [[theatrum lyricum]], tragédie en musique, zarzuela, Zauberoper, Zeitoper.'' (Vide [[Index generum operarum]], commentarium iam imperfectum.) And terms that might look more Classically formed, like ''drama musicum'' and ''ludus musicus'' are too specific or vague to do the job. Someone invented [[:Categoria:Theatrum lyricum]] to cover all operas, but the problem there is that "lyric theater" is but a subcategoria rerum in [[cultura Occidentalis|cultura Occidentali]] "opera" appellatarum—and by that standard, many of the items reposing in that category aren't lyric-theater pieces at all. ¶ In general, Vicipaedia's categorization (and therefore conceptualization) of music-related articles remains a mess, which'll be sorted out someday, one hopes. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:58, 27 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:::''Opus, -eris'' (n.) and ''opera, -ae'' (f.) are independent words with some semantic overlapping. Here, the declension is supposed to be ''opera,-ae''. ¶ By the way, are there extra-Vicipaedian sources for ''opera'' 'drama melicum'? If there are, at least one exemplary source deserves mentioning. [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 14:20, 27 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== Advanced ==
Salve. Quid est ''advanced'' Latine? Quomodo dicis exempli gratia 'advanced technology'?
[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 16:49, 29 Septembris 2012 (UTC).
: Fortasse ''technologia progressiva'' aut ''technologia progressoria''. Quid dicunt alii? [[Usor:Neander|Neander]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Neander|disputatio]]) 17:47, 29 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:Antecessus? Technologia antecessa?--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 06:41, 2 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
::Credo secundum sensum id melius 'technologia alta' vel 'technologia sublimis' vel 'technologia elata' nuncupari.--[[Specialis:Conlationes/219.87.149.130|219.87.149.130]] 07:21, 2 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
:::Neandro fere consentio: at quid simplicius de ''technologia progressa''? Etiam, cum ad technologiam adiectivum adhibeatur, et ''recentior'' mihi videtur.--[[Usor:Poecus|Poecus]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Poecus|disputatio]]) 17:09, 2 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
:::::The actual meaning of the adjective "advanced" in this sense is "in an advanced stage of development or elaboration". The trouble with progressus is that the parent verb is deponent so that progressus has an active meaning and means "advancing" or "progressing" and not "advanced" or "having advanced" in any sense. Progressorius and progressivus are better meaning "having to do with going forward" but I would think that it would denote some "enabling technology" rather than "technology in an advanced stage of development". Technologia alta or technologia alta scientia (alta scientia in ablative) works because it means "high tech" or "advanced technology" in the sense required. Whether it is possible to write a single word mapping onto the english word, I would not be sure of myself. If I look for a synonym for refined or developed, in the basic meaning of the adjective, then I get things like subtilis or elaboratus, which sound unsatisfactory because of other meanings and the unspecificity. SO my conclusion is perhaps the best thing is to render the adjective "advanced" with an ablative phrase like alta arte (with high art) or alta technologia (with high technology) or alta scientia (with high science).--[[Specialis:Conlationes/124.9.3.162|124.9.3.162]] 08:04, 6 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
::::En. 'recentior' refert tempus recentem. Opus est sensus quaedam de alta, sophisticata, cum multa functionis,robusta, non facile rumpere , etc. --[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 22:58, 2 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

== Suffixum aptum ex Graeco ''phon-'' ==
Given ''[[phonum]]'' and ''[[saxophonum]]'' and ''[[telephonum]]'' (with attestations), may we assume that the English word ''[[:en:euphonium|euphonium]]'' is badly formed and should have been ''euphonum''? I ask because of the pressing need for articles, links, and categories for aerophones, chordophones, electrophones, idiophones, lithophones, metallophones, membranophones, sousaphones, xylophones, and so forth—and one might hope that the Latin terms would be consistently formed. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 12:49, 30 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
:The ''Oxf. dict. of Eng. etymology'' deals with "euphonium" as an English word, based on "euphony" and adding the suffix -ium. Compare also English "euphonious" and contrast with "cacophonous" which doesn't have the -i-; so, yes, it is an odd form. A classical Greek noun *"to euphōnon" (whence your Latin *"euphonum") doesn't exist, could indeed be created (as the neuter of the adjective "euphōnos") but, bad luck, would probably have a more abstract meaning than a musical instrument.
:Its opposite "to kakophōnon" actually does exist, used in a commentary on Aristophanes' ''Knights'', and means "the cacophonous element or quality; the cacophony"). Perhaps someone should invent a musical instrument with ''that'' name. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 13:21, 30 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
::I believe euphonum with -um would mean "true sound" but euphonium with -ium means "instrument by which true sound is produced". Similarly, other instruments have the -ium ending like harmonium. In this case, the -ium ending means instrument, and is a separate ending from 'phon' meaning sound.--[[Specialis:Conlationes/124.9.8.66|124.9.8.66]] 06:39, 6 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

== Audire box ==
It seems not to be working right in [[Violoncellum]]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 13:06, 30 Septembris 2012 (UTC)
: I have now fixed the page [[Violoncellum]]. Greetings, --[[Usor:UV|UV]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:UV|disputatio]]) 20:19, 30 Septembris 2012 (UTC)

== Excelsior ==
Inter Vicipaedias locum [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias_by_sample_of_articles trigesimum secundum] mense Octobri retinemus. Hodie etiam paginam no. [[Vicipaedia Latina|80,000]] creavimus! [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 20:04, 3 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
:Euge! Mox 100,000? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 20:18, 3 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

::Bene est. :) Habet plus quam Graecam Vicipaediam (modernam) habet, et Graecam est vivior lingua. Cum plus commentationibus in futuro, fortasse lingua Latina vivior erit, et tum fortasse sit lingua Franca, aut patrius sermo.
::Numquam audis Latinam quando domu et foris inter populos es, sed praeter ecclesias Christianiae et scholas, etiam paulum viventis est in mundo virtuali ''Second Life'' si non sciebatis.
::Hoc opus, Vicipaedia Latina, optime est pro hac pulchra, sapiente philosoficaque lingua ad supervivere.
::[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 03:33, 4 Octobris 2012 (UTC).

== concerto / concert ==

Suntne, qui verba apta ad "concerto" et "concert" Latine vertendum sciant?--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 19:00, 4 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
:''Concentus'' inveni (iam autem nescio ubi, fortasse in Vicipaedia ipsa) ad "concerto" vertendum; de "concert" nescio. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 19:43, 4 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
::Gratias pro responsione. - Modo in DICCIONARIO AUXILIAR ESPAÑOL-LATINO (Jose Juan del Col) verba "concentus" (pro concierto et concert) et "acroama" (pro concert) inveni.--[[Usor:Utilo|Utilo]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Utilo|disputatio]]) 15:38, 5 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
:::"Acroama" amo, etiamsi graecum verbum est! Non miror verbum "concentus" duas significationes habere, et opus musicum et acroama, quod "concert" et "concerto" variationes eiusdem verbi videntur, necne? [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 15:55, 5 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
::::De Acroamate L&S vide hunc: [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=acroama ] "that which is heard with pleasure, a gratification to the ear"; et quoque fere idem ac "live performance" et "musical/poetic performance" et "lecture" dicit. Qua de causa acroama latius esse quam "concert". Possumus autem dare: conventum acroamaticum vel acroma musicale. --[[Specialis:Conlationes/66.171.178.34|66.171.178.34]] 03:06, 6 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

== The letter V ==
Hello folks. How do we know that the letter ''V'' in ancient Latin sounded like the English letter ''W''?

With the Latin dialect today, a sentence like for example "''Salve Metella. Iam hic? Cum ventum veni? Celeriter dicam!''" doesn't sound good with the ''w''-sound. The ''w''-sound doesn't "match" with the other sounds. Then maybe ancient Latin had another dialect? I know that we don't know for sure how ancient Latin, classical and vulgar, sounded like.

Try also to speak Italian (if you can) with ''w''-sound to help to expand the views. :)

Anybody who knows?

[[Usor:Donatello|Donatello]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Donatello|disputatio]]) 15:16, 5 Octobris 2012 (UTC).
:Actually, we know a whole lot about what ancient Latin sounded like. There's a book (in English) called ''Vox Latina,'' by W. S. Allen, that will give you the details. The principal evidence for the ''V'' sound is loan words into Greek, for example "Valerius" becomes Οὐαλήριος, clearly with the "w"-ish sound. The other kinds of evidence we have for the pronunciation of Latin include writings by native speakers (grammarians and so on, but also poets caricaturing funny accents, as in Catullus's poem 84), spelling errors in inscriptions, and loan words ''into'' Latin from elsewhere. For example, ''philosophia'' must have been pronounced with aspirate ''p<sup>h</sup>,'' as it was in Greek, not with the ''f'' sound we use for English "philosophy," because the Romans could perfectly well have written "filosofia" if that's how the word was supposed to sound.

:You don't have to ''like'' the ''W''-sound for ''V,'' and if you want to pronounce Latin as it was pronounced in the 7th century AD or the 14th rather than the 1st, that's a legitimate choice -- we all have to choose the pronunciation of a particular place and time. I grew up on the late-medieval-influenced ecclesiastical prononunciation, with fricatives for "v" and for "c" before front vowels. But when I started learning classical Latin in school, I adjusted with no difficulty, and now I think "wenit" and "kaelum" sound more natural. [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 15:53, 5 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
::It feels awkward for me to pronounce v as w. Veni, vedi, vici as "Weenie wedi wiki".Ceasar=>Kaysar. Etc. back to the topic,this is another clue about the v pronounciation. Wine comes from the 'vine' of grapes. Coincidentaly, I noticed 'wish' sounds like 'vis'(wis)(false cognates).want sounds a bit like volunt. I dont know if 'went' is related to 'veniunt'(weniunt) or 'eunt'.--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 04:05, 6 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
:::To the linguist, the wine/vine duo in English -- mentioned by Jondel -- is excellent evidence of just the type that Donatello asked for. Because, historically, wine became known to speakers of Germanic languages (as a luxury export from the Mediterranean) long before they tried growing vines.
:::So, at the time when Germanic speakers first wanted a word for wine, they borrowed the archaic/classical Latin word "vīnum". The very close Germanic equivalent that they created was "wīnam". Notice the "w": they heard a Latin "w" sound and they reproduced it. From this early Germanic word descends English "wine".
:::But then, much later, in early medieval times, English speakers had a serious go at planting vines. They naturally borrowed the idea (and the vines) from their French neighbours. French by this time, like most other Romance languages, had turned the Latin "w" pronunciation into a "v". So the French were calling these things "vignes" (< Latin acc. pl. "vineas"). The English borrowed that French word as well as they could (they couldn't manage the "gn") and they called the plants "vines" ... As Anne says, all this sort of evidence is analysed in the books about early Latin pronunciation, such as Allen's. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:38, 6 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
::It is not sure at all whether the Latin V in the classical time was nearer to English "v" or "w". Yes, the Greek equivalent was "ου", but Greek had no "v" at the time -- "β" was pronounced "b" in the classical time, so that "ου" was the nearest sound in Greek also in the case the pronunciation was "v". On the other side, the pronunciation of V as English "v" can be found in most descendant languages of Latin (e.g. Italian, Portugese, Rumanian etc.), while no of them (AFAIK) has "w". --[[Usor:Mmh|Mmh]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Mmh|disputatio]]) 22:06, 8 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
::::Latin was spoken for thousands of years over various regions, each of which in each different era pronounced it differently (for instance, "[[betacismus|beati Hispani quibus vivere est bibere]]"). In fact, and going to Mmh's original argument, to me, /v/ is both useless and unnecessary, because /b/ serves perfectly the same purpose. Luckily, it is not for us to decide how Latin was pronounced, neither is vicipaedia nostra the forum where to discuss it. Come to Oxford on the 8th of November, we're having a congress on "The Sounds of Latin" (Jesus College Conference Centre, on Ship st.; starting at 2.15pm).--[[User:Xaverius|<span style="color:blue;">Xave</span>]][[:eu:Lankide:Xaverius|<span style="color:green;">ri</span>]][[:eu:Lankide_eztabaida:Xaverius|<span style="color:red;">us</span>]] 23:14, 8 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
:::::Mmh and Xaverius are right that there was variation. Indeed, I suspect "v" may even have been pronounced as a bilabial fricative (like Irish ''mh'' in ''Samhain'') in some places or at some times. Sanskrit ''v'' (व) has the same range of variants. But the "standard" (dicey word!) "classical" (another one!) metropolitan Roman pronounciation -- let's say, what [[Cicero]] and his peers wanted their children to use, -- as best we can tell seems to have been like English "w." To Jondel's question, English 'went' is not related either to ''veniunt'' or to ''eunt''; it's a Germanic word with no obvious cognates in Latin. The English cognate of ''venio'' is 'come' (and Greek βαίνω and Sanskrit ''gacchati'' are also related); ''eunt'' (and the rest of ''eo, ire'') doesn't have obvious cognates in English (but it's cognate with εἶμι in Greek and ''i, eti'' in Sanskrit). [[Usor:Amahoney|A. Mahoney]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Amahoney|disputatio]]) 13:09, 9 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
::::::English ''went'' reflects PIE '''*wendh-''' 'to turn, wind, weave', as do ''wind, wentletrap, wander, wand, Vandal,'' and ''Andalusia.'' Classical Latin and English have retained PIE '''*w''' in ''vid-'' (in ''video'') and its cognate ''wit,'' reflecting PIE '''*weid-''' 'see'. The Romance languages and other Germanic languages together in the last two millennia seem to have shifted the '''*w''' to a fricative. Maybe the Latin initial [w] survived in some places or contexts for centuries after Cicero; it regularly became Spanish [b] or [β], but Late Latin ''Vandalicia'' 'Land of the Vandals' in Spanish lost its initial consonant—an understandable process if that consonant had formally been [w] and vulgar Iberian ears by that time had become insensitive to it. Or maybe Arabic influence was intervening there. Ask a certified linguist! ¶ In any event, it doesn't seem likely that Cicero's pun on the street seller's ''Cauneas'' 'Dried figs [for sale!]' and ''Cave ne eas'' 'Beware of going!' would have worked, had consonantal ''u'' been pronounced [v]. [[Usor:IacobusAmor|IacobusAmor]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:IacobusAmor|disputatio]]) 14:25, 9 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

== Horatio circle ==
Nota Bene:
Hi to Italian wikipedians. FYI, the [[Horatii]] article directly leads [[:it:Orazi e Curiazi]] but the English then Italian link leads to [[:it:Gens Horatia]].

Ave vicipediani italiani, adhunc nexus italianus rei [[Horatii]] ducit ad 
[[:it:Orazi e Curiazi]] sed via per Anglicam deinde Italiam ducit ad aliam rem [[:it:Gens Horatia]].--[[Usor:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Jondel|disputatio]]) 05:54, 12 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks. The misleading link was at en:wiki, so I've changed it. But really it's not something where interwiki perfection is attainable. You ''could'' deal with this topic under several headings. [[Usor:Andrew Dalby|Andrew Dalby]] ([[Disputatio Usoris:Andrew Dalby|disputatio]]) 08:36, 12 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

== Upcoming software changes - please report any problems ==

[[Fasciculus:Wikimedia_Foundation_RGB_logo_with_text.svg|80px|right]]
<div dir=ltr>
''(Apologies if this message isn't in your language. Please consider translating it)''

All Wikimedia wikis - including this one - will soon be upgraded with new and possibly disruptive code. This process starts today and finishes on October 24 (see the [[mw:MediaWiki_1.21/Roadmap|upgrade schedule]] & [[mw:MediaWiki 1.21/wmf2|code details]]).

Please watch for problems with:
* revision diffs
* templates
* CSS and JavaScript pages (like user scripts)
* bots
* PDF export
* images, video, and sound, especially scaling sizes
* the CologneBlue skin

If you notice any problems, please [[mw:How to report a bug|report problems]] at [[mw:Bugzilla|our defect tracker site]]. You can test for possible problems at [https://test2.wikipedia.org test2.wikipedia.org] and [https://mediawiki.org/ mediawiki.org], which have already been updated.

Thanks! With your help we can find problems fast and get them fixed faster.

[[mw:User:Sharihareswara (WMF)|Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Engineering Community Manager]] ([[mw:User talk:Sharihareswara (WMF)|talk]]) 03:03, 16 Octobris 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: For the regular, smaller MediaWiki updates every two weeks, please [[mw:MediaWiki_1.21/Roadmap|watch this schedule]].

<small>Distributed via [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]]. (Wrong page? [[m:Distribution list/Global message delivery|Fix here]].)</small>
</div>
<!-- EdwardsBot 0278 -->

== Fundraising localization: volunteers from outside the USA needed ==

''Please translate for your local community''

Hello All,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Fundraising team have begun our 'User Experience' project, with the goal of understanding the donation experience in different countries outside the USA and enhancing the localization of our donation pages. I am searching for volunteers to spend 30 minutes on a Skype chat with me, reviewing their own country's donation pages. It will be done on a 'usability' format (I will ask you to read the text and go through the donation flow) and will be asking your feedback in the meanwhile. 

The only pre-requisite is for the volunteer to actually live in the country and to have access to at least one donation method that we offer for that country (mainly credit/debit card, but also real-time banking like IDEAL, E-wallets, etc...) so we can do a live test and see if the donation goes through. ''All volunteers will be reimbursed of the donations that eventually succeed'' (and they will be low amounts, like 1-2 dollars)

By helping us you are actually helping thousands of people to support our mission of free knowledge across the world. Please sing up and help us with our 'User Experience' project! :)
If you are interested (or know of anyone who could be) please email ppena@wikimedia.org. All countries needed (excepting USA)!

Thanks!<br />
[[wmf:User:Ppena|Pats Pena]]<br />
Global Fundraising Operations Manager, Wikimedia Foundation

Sent using [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]], 17:08, 17 Octobris 2012 (UTC)
<!-- EdwardsBot 0280 -->

[[Categoria:Tabernae acta priora]]