Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 33

glossa

hic nexus non iam valet: http://athirdway.com/glossa/?s=gens Alex1011 (disputatio) 20:50, 3 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)

Bene, @Alex1011: et bonum annum tibi mitto! Sed in qua pagina nexum repperisti? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:36, 4 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)

In mea privata pagina ;-). Sed hac in pagina Vicipaedia:Lexica Latina interretialia multi nexus etiam non iam valent exempli gratia:

• http://archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm
• https://www.latin-dictionary.org/Latin-English-Online-Dictionary/N/1/temporaneus
• http://wredmond.home.texas.net/index.html
• https://upaep.mx//micrositios/glossarium/alittera.html

Et tibi bonum annum exopto! --Alex1011 (disputatio) 23:36, 4 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)

Partim refeci ope IABot Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 00:06, 5 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)

Internet Archive Bot

Hoc robotum, omnibus accessibile, corrigere potest nexus interretiales paginarum nostrarum (aut singularum, aut plurum eodem tempore). Si uti vultis, o amici, videte Vicipaedia:Taberna/Tabularium 32#InternetArchiveBot.

Nexus qui hodie deficiuntur, nisi automatice restitui possunt, ab hoc roboto formula {{Nexus deficitur}} rubricantur. Quo facto, quid facere possumus? Vide s.t.p. id quod apud Vicipaedia:Nexus deficitur scripsi. Auge, corrige, rescribe si necesse sit! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:56, 9 Ianuarii 2023 (UTC)

Global ban for PlanespotterA320/RespectCE

Per the Global bans policy, I'm informing the project of this request for comment: m:Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2) about banning a member from your community. Thank you.--Lemonaka (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Your wiki will be in read only soon

Brevissime verto, o amici. Legere poteris, sed recensere Vicipaediam non poteris, cras (die Mercurii, kalendis Martii) ab hora 14:00 UTC per unam fere horam. Eo tempore, qui incaute recensere conatur, edita sua perdere periculatur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:48, 28 Februarii 2023 (UTC)

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

All traffic will switch on 1 March. The test will start at 14:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

• You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 1 March 2023.
• If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

• Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
• We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
• GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

Trizek (WMF) (Disputatio) 21:24, 27 Februarii 2023 (UTC)

De nexibus intra paginam ad bibliographiam iunctis

Nexus intra paginas, a notis subiunctis ad citationes bibliographicas, iamdudum in Vicipaedia Anglica fieri possunt. Tales nexus internos ego, adiuvante UV, iam in Vicipaedia Latina feci: denuo methodum perfecimus et aliis -- qui hoc facere volunt -- proponere possum. Vicipaediani liberi sumus: si tales nexus facere nolis, abstine! In paginis brevibus haud utile est; in paginis longis, pluribus fontibus adhibitis et citatis, fortasse temptare vis.

De notis citationibusque huius generis loquor:

Structura duplicis helicis

Watson et Crick structuram duplicis helicis DNA proposuerunt.

Notae

Bibliographia

• J. D. Watson, F. H. C. Crick: Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid. In: Nature. 171, pp. 737–738, 25 Aprilis 1953, doi:10.1038/171737a0

Si tales notas eo modo ad bibliographiam iungere vis, nunc potes, gratiá formularum {{qc}} ("quaere citationem") in nota et {{ec}} ("ecce citatio") in bibliographia. Citationem plenam bibliographicam eo modo, quem praefers, scribere potes, si intra formulam {{ec}} includas. Citationem brevem ("id") in nota hoc modo "Watson & Crick (1953)", aut alio modo tibi utili, scribere potes, si eandem "id" in formulas {{qc}} et {{ec}} includas. Exemplum scripturae praebeo: haec scriptura eundem textum, quem in capsam supra positam vidisti, producit:

== Structura duplicis helicis ==
Watson et Crick structuram duplicis helicis DNA proposuerunt.<ref>{{qc|id=Watson & Crick (1953)}}</ref>

== Notae ==
<references />

== Bibliographia ==
* {{ec|id=Watson & Crick (1953)|c=J. D. Watson, F. H. C. Crick: ''Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid.'' In: ''Nature.'' 171, pp. 737–738, 25 Aprilis 1953, [[doi:10.1038/171737a0]]}}

Usque adhuc nexus ita factos oculis non vidimus, sed, quando UV Reference Tooltips apud nos introduxerit (id quod his diebus facere promittit), effectum plenum videbimus, mure super notas summoto ... Paginas longiores, talibus citationibus iam utentes, hic et hic videre potes. Si methodus tibi interest, tempta! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:24, 3 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Id nuper feci. --UV (disputatio) 22:17, 3 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Mutationes Anglice breviter describo: The improvement that UV has installed is visible on every page that has footnotes. Now, when you move the cursor over the footnote number in the text, (1) if the footnote is visible in your window, it will be highlighted; (2) if the footnote is not visible in your window, you will instead see a "tooltip" giving the text of the foonote.

If the link-to-bibliography method, that I mention above, is used on the page, there will be an additional effect. When you move the cursor into the tooltip box, and hover over the link ("Watson & Crick (1953)" in the example above) the full bibliographical reference either (1) will be highlighted, if currently visible in your window, or (2) will appear in a second tooltip box.

Latine: Effectus, quem UV nuper imposuit, videtur in omnibus paginis ubi exstant notae subiunctae. Si murem tuum super numerum notae in textu summoveas, aut (1) nota, si in tua fenestra iam visibilis sit, colore caeruleo sublineatur, aut (2) textus notae in capsam suggestionis monstratur.

Insuper, quando methodus nexuum internorum, quam supra proposui, in pagina adhibetur, mure in eam capsam summoto, citatio bibliographica plena aut (1) si in tua fenestra visibilis sit, sublineabitur; aut (2) in capsa altera monstrabitur. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:54, 4 Martii 2023 (UTC)

"Latinitas huius rei dubia est"

The grammar of many pages is far from perfect, however I noticed that when pages are marked with "Latinitas huius rei dubia est. Corrige si potes." it feels a bit like a turn-off for me – while pages that don't have that mark invite me to improve them if I can. It might have to do with the broken windows theory in my case, and maybe this is a very subjective thing, but I am curious, does this happen also to other editors? If yes, should we propose to use that template less often, or remove it as soon as the page is somewhat acceptable, even if it still contains mistakes? --Grufo (disputatio) 17:21, 25 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Ideally at this stage of the enterprise (when some articles are excellent and others are poor), to guide editors and warn readers, all pages might bear such indicators, of which the current system has seven levels, -1 being best and -7 being worst. You're complaining about the second level, marked {{Latinitas|-2}}. I've been known to mark my own articles at that level. The associated (verbal) descriptions have never been progressively organized: it's possible to read the description of level 3 (maxime dubia) as being more deprecatory than the description of level 4 (merely corrigenda). Rather than characterize the levels by means of words, leaving them as numbers, with universally added explanatory phrasing like ubi 1 optimus et 7 pessimus est, would be more logical and could be less offputting. ¶ Also, of course, experienced editors may disagree about levels (just as schoolteachers may disagree about grades), but the disagreements are usually slight; someone, for example, has occasionally reduced my estimates of level -5 to level -6. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:24, 25 Martii 2023 (UTC)

I often mark a page {{L-1}}, which is quickly done and produces a modest red spot: for me it means "something not right here". I sometimes mark a page {{Non latine}} (or 7) which means "this will be deleted in a week unless improved": that's a necessity. {{Latinitas|-6}} has the same effect. I very rarely apply the intervening categories from 2 to 5. They were designed nearly 20 years ago, when Vicipaedia looked a bit different! But if Iacobus finds them useful I'm happy. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:59, 25 Martii 2023 (UTC)

It's amusing to look back at our history (see Disputatio Vicipaediae:De Latinitate#Levels of latinitas and the rest of that page). When the system was designed, Rolandus proposed levels from -7 to +7 (and even more). He urged that we should mark the quality of pages that had no faults but showed a range of Latin skills. I sometimes wondered which classical authors would have come in at which level. Would Tacitus, Cicero or Caesar have achieved +7? Where would you put Pliny the elder, Pliny the younger? Would Cicero's letters have scored higher or lower than his orations? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:11, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Brevissime in usum Latinistarum recapitulo: an utiles sunt aestimationes Latinitatis, quibus aliqui paginas rubricant? Grufo se abhorrere ab his inscriptionibus confitetur; Iacobus eas saepe imponitur; ego interdum {{L-1}} (si infelicitates video), interdum {{Non latine}} inscribo (si paginam minime Latine scriptam esse censeo: hac formula paginam intra septem dies delendam minitor). Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:56, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

My proposal: How about we change the template in order to show a number (rating), a colour, maybe a text that becomes visible after clicking/hovering (but not otherwise), but without occupying so much space on top of a page and making the page look like a broken window? --Grufo (disputatio) 15:13, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Τhere is also {{Formula:Verba Latinizandа}} (example of use), we can replace with it the formulas above. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 16:30, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

But {{Verba Latinizanda}} can apply only to specific passages. I am very much in favour of using it for what it was designed for (thank you for mentioning it!), but we would still need a way to make {{Latinitas}} look a bit less aggressive, I think. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:52, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Are the red icons at {{Latinitas|-4}} and {{Latinitas|-5}} aggressive? So they report that things are bad, the window is broken. But yes, the design was made 20 years ago, you can update (both these and others). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:58, 28 Martii 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the icons to be less aggressive but retain their original meaning. If anyone does not like it, cancel editing, I will not argue. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 13:48, 1 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Re

I have just created the {{Re}} template. Feel free to try/improve it! --Grufo (disputatio) 15:06, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

@Grufo:: Usum formulae {{Re}} non intellego. An potes exemplum praebere? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:39, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Dalby dixit «An potes exemplum praebere?»: You are seeing an example in this very moment! --Grufo (disputatio) 18:53, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

«This very moment»nihil mihi respondisti! Optime! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:13, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: I have edited your comment (I hope you will forgive me) to show you something I just added to the template :-) --Grufo (disputatio) 19:24, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Etiam melius. There's nothing to «forgive»nihil! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:52, 26 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Massae astronomicae

I have created the new {{Massae astronomicae}} template (or alternatively {{Massa astronomica}}) – you can already see it applied at Planeta pulsaris. The name “Massae astronomicae” however is quite verbose, and I was wondering whether it is the case to create a shortcut template as {{MA}} (i.e. a redirect) – unless the “MA” wording is reserved for later uses. What do you think? --Grufo (disputatio) 17:07, 28 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Massa Solis or Massa solaris?

Before I create a dedicated page for all the other units required by the {{Massae astronomicae}} template (I already started), should these be called “Massa Solis”, “Massa Telluris”, “Massa Lunae”, etc., or instead “Massa solaris”, “Massa terrestris”, “Massa lunaris”, etc.? --Grufo (disputatio) 18:53, 28 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Scholium

I have just created the {{Scholium}} template to help improving the grammar or other problematic aspects in pages that require it. As the name suggests, the template allows to annotate problematic words or sentences, like this sentence hereHere you are! You are reading my comment!, for example. Although designed to correct things, I believe the template can find other, more neutral, uses as well. If you have better ideas concerning style and functionality, please feel free to edit the {{Scholium/style.css}} stylesheet or the template itself. --Grufo (disputatio) 00:45, 30 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Multas ago gratias tibi, utilitatis magnae esse videtur ut accuratius errores signentur! - Giorno2 (disputatio) 13:15, 30 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Gratias ago et ego. NB: quando in textu paginarum encyclopaedicarum utimur (id quod saepe faciam!) oportebit commentum nostrum Latine scribere: sermonem enim communem editoribus lectoribusque est Latinum. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:49, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Ita profecto! --Grufo (disputatio) 16:26, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Colores

Originally I had chosen rgba(243, 243, 190, .95) as colour for the background, i.e. this colour. But it didn't feel Wikipedian enough, so I switched to this colour, i.e. rgba(239, 231, 216, .95). I still feel a better colour can be found though… --Grufo (disputatio) 16:27, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Pagina delenda

I was putting order to some of our Formulae administrationis Vicipaediae, and so while I was working on Formula:Verba latinizanda I created by mistake the page Verba latinizanda (without “Formula:”), which I blanked afterwards. How can I ask for the deletion of Verba latinizanda? --Grufo (disputatio) 14:28, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Illis verbis postulavi[sti]! Pro tempore non delevi sed redirectionem restitui, quia paginae 47 hoc tempore eam paginam quaerunt. Rationem huius rei nescio: fortasse memoria systematis nostri tardius renovata est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:40, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Quando in dubio sumus, semper melius est redirectiones breviter retinere quam statim delere. Sed, ne timeas, delebo! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:42, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Whoops! I am really sorry for the mess! Although I believe that what you see as 47 inclusions of the page are actually inclusions of Formula:Verba latinizanda (i.e. if we deleted the page without “Formula:” nothing bad would happen). That is my guess at least. --Grufo (disputatio) 15:43, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Ita, fortasse. Nihil frangitur! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:51, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

The problem was that Formula:Verba Latinizanda was erroneously redirecting to Verba latinizanda. I have now fixed Formula:Verba Latinizanda so that it now redirects to Formula:Verba latinizanda. Thereafter, it was safe to delete Verba latinizanda, and I have now deleted this page. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:47, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! --Grufo (disputatio) 22:07, 31 Martii 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Verba prima et Formula:Titulus primus

I have been putting order in some of the administration templates, and I have to say that it took me a while to understand what {{Verba prima}} and {{Titulus primus}} were meant for (I had to read this discussion from 2012 to find out). I would like to rename them to {{Verba barbara desiderata}} and {{Titulus barbarus desideratus}} (including the text displayed) if there are no objections. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:48, 2 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Both were in the articles 1 time, I corrected. I don't know if it's worth renaming, but why not. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 07:53, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Harum formularum omnino oblitus sum! Emendationes propositas laudo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:06, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Moved :-) --Grufo (disputatio) 13:41, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Convertimus!

I need help in translating the following three titles:

• Tidal force
• Tidal locking
• Spaghettification

My ideas are:

Latine	Anglice
Vis aestualis Vocabulum “aestualis” haud classicum est, sed vide Short, E.; George, A. (2013). A Primer of Botanical Latin with Vocabulary. Cambridge University Press. p. 313. ISBN 9781107328860 .	Tidal force
Clausura aestualis	Tidal locking
SpagificatioVide disp. Spacellificatio Cfr. spacellos.	Spaghettification

I would really appreciate any suggestion. --Grufo (disputatio) 01:51, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Our greatest difficulty is providing technical terms in Latin in a field that has never been discussed in Latin. We have to write for an expert and also for a Latinist who knows nothing of the field, and we must not make things up.

I would accept aestualis because it is recorded in later Latin, the meaning of the word is obvious and its derivation obvious. (After all, Romans didn't often encounter tides.)

I assume you've invented "spagificatio": if so, we can't do that. It is unwise even to build on "spagelli" for a technical term because there's really no consensus about that term. It's not only whether celestial mechanics have been discussed in Latin: recent forms of pasta have also not been discussed in Latin. Result: the Latinist would not grasp this word. Actually the English speakers are to blame for inventing spaghettification in the first place :) I think we're really talking about a sucking or constraining force, or a bit of both, aren't we? "Vis constringendi" may be a poor initial attempt, but that is the route we have to try to follow, I think. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:31, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Or "filandi"? That term is actually used about cheese, which is as good a thing as pasta in its way. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:32, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Propono "Deformatio gravitatialis cosmica" vel "Deformatio gravitatialis extrema". Non consentio cum "aestualis", qua re effectus cosmicus est, non litoralis. Itaque "tidal force" = "vis gravitatis variabilis". Propono "tidal locking" = "rotatio coordinata". --Dioskorides (disputatio) 10:39, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Certe, effectus cosmicus est. "Gravitatialis", si neologismus sit, accipere non possumus; Aut "gravitatis" aut "gravitationis", casum genetivum verborum iam alibi repertorum, laete acciperim! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:09, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for your feedback. We definitely need an adjective to stick to vis, tidal forces appear in a lot of phenomena and they are treated as “forces”. Maybe if we are lucky we can find the term in Latin books from the XVII and XVIII centuries, although I am not sure the phenomenon was already treated as a force back then, since it was clear that it was a secondary effect. As for clausura aestualis, I was thinking that a better alternative could be impedimentum aestuale, but I am still hoping to find better solutions (I believe a clausura was actually a lock, a clasp, while we need the action of locking, blocking). Rotatio coordinata sounds possible to me right now, but we will have to make sure that tidal locking always means a coordinated rotation. As for the pasta, spaghettification is not just a deformation (tidal force is already that), it is an extreme deformation, to the point that matter becomes like spaghetti. If we want to make it a bit more classical we could use spacificatio (with -c- instead of -g-), from spacus, which is where spaghetto ultimately comes from (so to Cicero spacificatio could sound more or less like “twinification”). The reason why we should stick to pasta is that our nightmares will not end with spaghettification; we will also have to deal with nuclear pasta at some point. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:13, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Dioskorides dixit «Non consentio cum "aestualis", qua re effectus cosmicus est, non litoralis»: It seems that a reference to the sea is not a problem in Italian, where the tidal forces of a black hole or a neutron star are called forze di marea, or forze mareali (marea means tide, from mare), nor in French, nor in Spanish. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:05, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Scripsit Ioannes Keplerus in "Astronomia Nova" : "tidal force" = "virtus tractoriae, quae [...] prolectat aquas" (fere media in pagina). --Dioskorides (disputatio) 14:51, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Apud Isaacum Newtonum (Principia naturalis, Liber III, Propositio XXIV, Theorema XIX) verbum compositum pro Anglice : "tidal force" reperire non possum. --Dioskorides (disputatio) 15:52, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Dioskorides. The problem is that we might never find tidal forces treated as “forces” (with their own formulas) in texts written in Latin, because it is a modern habit. Ideally we might find something in someone writing at least a century after Kepler (a lot of things were not yet well defined at his time). If I am not wrong Herschel and Gauss wrote in Latin too. But it is quite likely that we will have to find ourselves the adjective to put near vis. Aestualis still looks like the best candidate to me (for a Romance language speaker it will sound even less referring to the sea than the word used in their own language). --Grufo (disputatio) 16:01, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

E citatione Dioscoridis nostri didici vis et virtus hoc contextu fere synonyma esse. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:42, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Suadeo "aestum, aestualem" haud reicienda esse. Non de aqua tantum, sed etiam de igne, et in variis metaphoris "aestus" a scriptoribus classicis adhibitus est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:46, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

According to Cassell's, both Cicero and Horace used the adjective aestuosus. Why not prefer a genuine classical word to a later one? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:04, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

"Aestualis" est verbum post-classicum, non fictum, et contextibus utilibus adhibetur (de aestubus e.g. marinis). "Aestuosus" certe classicus est, sed contextibus minus utilibus adhibetur (de agitatione, de calore) ... igitur incertus sum! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:27, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

«E citatione Dioscoridis nostri didici vis et virtus hoc contextu fere synonyma esse»: Yes, I noticed that too. I like virtus, the only problem is that we need a standard nomenclature, and so we will have to decide accordingly for vis/virtus magnetica, vis/virtus electrica, etc. I believe many pages already use vis for all these cases.

«Non de aqua tantum, sed etiam de igne, et in variis metaphoris "aestus" a scriptoribus classicis adhibitus est»: By looking at the miriad of meanings of aestuo (derived from aestus), it seems that the original meaning was “being agitated” (hence to burn, but also to create waves) – so, not necessarily related to water (I like the reference to water in an astronomical context by the way). --Grufo (disputatio) 16:58, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

I have created a first stub of vis aestualis. For “tidal looking” I have used “rotatio synchrona” in the text – but also “rotatio coordinata”, as suggested by Dioskorides, should be fine. We will still need to find a solution concerning spaghettification. For now the page is minimal; please feel free to correct/expand it. --Grufo (disputatio) 22:48, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the article "Monstrum vermiculatum volatile" offers clues. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 23:04, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the problem with vermiculatus is that it evokes a worm, not pasta (by the way, it does not even mean “filiform”, it means “worm-eaten” – I believe something is wrong in the very latinization pasta vermiculata for meaning spaghetti, spagelli/spacelli would be by far better I think; but this is for another time). Spacus on the other hand means “twine” and sounds close enough to spaghetti. My two cents. --Grufo (disputatio) 23:20, 3 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

«I believe something is wrong in the very latinization pasta vermiculata»: It's an obvious calque from the English vermiculate, itself an obvious reflex of Latin vermiculatus. According to Merriam-Webster, its primary meaning in English is 'vermiform'—so vermiform pasta must be the intended sense. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 17:13, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

If vermiculatus is a possibility then we should discuss

• whether it must be the preferred possibility (instead of spacelli), especially considering that vermicelli – “little worms” – are another type of pasta with its own traditional recipes
• what word we will use for spaghettification

--Grufo (disputatio) 17:49, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

For spaghettification, try the phrase effectus collyricus. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 20:14, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Good suggestion! Note that on the German wiki an alternative lemma is Spaghetti-Effekt. "Spaghetti effect" and "noodle effect" seem to have been used in English too. I suggested effectus spaciformis just below. One could surely begin with a term of this kind. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:38, 5 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

De verbo "vermiculatus" tibi consentio. Gratias tibi ago propter novos fontes de nominibus Latinis spaghettorum repertos :) Utilitatem conceptus spacorum concedo.

Vocabula (etiam composita) creare Vicipaedianis haud permittitur ... sed vocabulum "spaciformis" iam a botanistis adhibitum repperi. Cf. species Brachystegia spaciformis. (Cf. etiam (p. 188 apud Google Books) ubi "spatiformis" pluries legitur ... sed quo sensu?) An hoc nomen adiectivum utile esse potest? "Effectus spaciformis"? "Deformatio spaciformis"? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:42, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Dalby dixit «Vocabula (etiam composita) creare Vicipaedianis haud permittitur»: I believe there are different degrees of novelty. If a phenomenon is productive in a language, is that a new word? Is using a diminutive creating a new word? Is using a productive suffix derived from facio forbidden? In front of total absence of sources I believe it makes more sense to create a blatantly justified new word (possibly after a discussion) and add {{Convertimus}} to it, rather than using words that do exist but we already know don't capture the sense so well.

En passant, in some Italian dialects (e.g. in Rome) instead of spaghetti they often say spaghi for the pasta (plural of spago, which is the Italian word for twine, Lat. spacus). That just shows how important is to keep the word spacus (spacelli) in Latin as well for the pasta; no other word captures the idea. --Grufo (disputatio) 12:51, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

The question is, if Latin is exclusively a dead language, or if it has the ability to express modern things. In the post-ancient period it had this power, until to the early 19th century, it has been a somehow vivid language at least in science. But what is today, dead language or dead and present language? --Dioskorides (disputatio) 14:36, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

If Latin were a dead language I believe Vicipaedia would not exist. It is however a language whose vitality is strongly controlled by very educated speakers and writers. Yet, linguistic registers must be guaranteed in Latin too.

By the way, going back to spaghettification, currently the page uses spacificatio (i.e. “being made like spacus”). However I believe now, after finding several sources for spacelli, that it should use spacellificatio (i.e. “being made like spacelli”). The reason is simple: if we have to invent a new word, better be as precise and faithful as possible. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:39, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

[Edit conflict:] Sorry, but that's a totally different question. Latin's alive here now. English is alive on the English Wikipedia. But if you make a pagename on the English Wikipedia out of a word you just made up, your pagename won't be accepted by other Wikipedians. It's the same here.

Da veniam: quaestionem aliam ponis. Respondeo: lingua Latina hic vivit. Lingua Anglica vivit apud Vicipaediam Anglicam. At si titulum paginae Anglicae e vocabulo a te ficto creas, titulus tuus ab aliis editoribus non accipietur. Itidem apud nos. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:43, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: But so, what is your proposal for spaghettification? What do you think about spacellificatio? --Grufo (disputatio) 16:47, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

@Grufo: I thought you'd never ask :)

1. What other languages most often do in the first place is not to invent a word but to borrow a foreign word. So I would do that, heading the article Spaghettification (assuming that I borrow from English or French). I would then follow it, in the first sentence, with words such as "vocabulum Anglicum (ut qui Latine diceret spacellificatio)". I thibnk that form is just fine.
2. In writing the text of the article I would quietly begin to use my new Latin word in place of the the English one. If I do it that way readers will understand me and they may not even notice, and, hey presto, I have introduced a new word into our vocabulary, incidentally proving that Latin is a living language.
3. If I really love my new word I would publish it somehow in a source that could just possibly be cited as reliable -- an aside or a footnote in a blog, possibly? whatever might suggest itself -- and then come back to my article and rename it, citing the source. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:53, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the overall approach, but concerning «what other languages most often do in the first place is not to invent a word» we must consider that in all languages in which -ficatio(n) is a productive suffix the word “spaghettification” has been automatically naturalized (this is what I meant when I talked about different degrees of novelty). Latin is one of these languages, so the choice would eventually be between spaghettificatio and spacellificatio (I am talking about a page title here)… --Grufo (disputatio) 18:05, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Note the comments by Iacobus and me above: -ificatio is not the only choice. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:38, 5 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both. I will come up with some page in a way or another. In the meanwhile I have opened a discussion about the Latin name for spaghetti. --Grufo (disputatio) 14:16, 5 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Fnd

I have created a new template, {{Fnd}} (or alternatively {{Fons nominis desideratur}}), which is the more aggressive version of {{FD ref}}. Rule of thumb:

• You think the Latin name is correct but a source is still needed: use {{FD ref}}
• You have strong doubts about a Latin name unless shown otherwise: use {{Fnd}}

--Grufo (disputatio) 15:55, 4 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

How to connect a page to other languages when the Wikidata is protected

Sometimes I want to connect a page to other languages but the Wikidata is protected. For instance, I just created the page Universale Rerum Locatrum, which I would like to connect to wikidata:Q42253 but I am not allowed to do so. What can I do? --Grufo (disputatio) 16:31, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Nescio cur obstructus es. Ego rem nuper temptavi et sine mora adnectare potui. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:34, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! The same problem arises if I try to connect massa Solis to wikidata:Q180892. And maybe there were also other cases I don't remember anymore… --Grufo (disputatio) 17:49, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

De hac re nihil antea audivi. Quando temptas, quid vides? An relationem erroris?

NB: Si ante paginam tuam creatam temptas, certe non potebis. Debes paginam creare, divulgare, deinde ad Vicidata ire.

Sunt varii modi. Ego per paginam barbaram (e.g. Anglicam, Francogallicam) ad Vicidata eo: ibi nomen paginae novae Latinae ad pedem enumerationis iam visibilis addo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:02, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

If you go to wikidata:Q180892 you will see a lock (top-right corner). It means that people cannot edit the wikidata page. I don't know if there is a way to do the same directly from the English page, I searched more than once but I never found it. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:06, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Recte dicis. Tales protectiones nunquam observavi. An es novus usor Vicidatorum? Politiam d:Wikidata:Protection policy hic repperi. Vide etiam d:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Other rights#Requests for the confirmed right. Ergo ... aut (a) per istam paginam statum "usoris confirmati" postula, aut (b) usorem aliquem veterem editiones pro te facere pete (NB: ego certe sum usor vetus Vicidatorum!) aut (c) modo antediluviano nexum interwiki ad paginam barbaram (e.g. Anglicam) pede paginae novae tuae inseris (sic: [[en:Spaghetti]]), unde automata cito reperiunt et in Vicidata inserunt. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 18:25, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew. I have submitted a request for permissions now :-) --Grufo (disputatio) 22:42, 6 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Myrias

@Grufo, I see that you've marked the new article "Universale Rerum Locatrum" with the formula {{Myrias|Technologia}}, but I'm not finding that topic among the list of 10,000 topics that all wikis should contain. (After adding a new article drawn from that list, contributors should change the English name there to the Latin name.) If it's not on the list, the Myrias marker is an error, which should be removed from the text. Please add to Vicipaedia as many new pages from that list as you can! Such additions will raise our rank among the wikis! IacobusAmor (disputatio) 02:46, 7 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Hi IacobusAmor, sorry, my bad. Sometimes I use as a model for the footer of a new page the footer of another related page, and this time I forgot to remove that line. But thank you for explaining what that line means! --Grufo (disputatio) 12:18, 7 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Denuo paginae delendae

Still putting order in the administration templates… Now I managed to give a coherent name to the three templates designed to mark Latin words without a source. Now they are called {{Fnd}}, {{Fndref}} and {{Fndvox}}. However while putting order I have created two pages, Formula:Fontes nominis desiderati and Formula:Fontes nominis desiderati/doc that now I would like to delete. Could anyone do that? They existed for very short, so no page links to them. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:54, 7 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Factum! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 19:42, 7 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! P.S. I know it looks like I am making a mess, but I do have a plan! :-) --Grufo (disputatio) 20:10, 7 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: Okay, I have put a bit of order now, but along the way I have accumulated some relicts. Could you please erase these pages as well? They are all /doc pages that refer to previous names, and they are all blank pages – but be careful not to erase their parent page without /doc in the name (thank you!).

• Formula:FD ref/doc
• Formula:Fontes desiderati/doc
• Formula:Fons?/doc
• Formula:Citatio desiderata/doc
• Formula:Obscura/doc
• Formula:Titulus primus/doc
• Formula:Verba prima/doc

--Grufo (disputatio) 23:30, 7 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Factumst. Ne timeas: facile est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:23, 8 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you a lot, Andrew! --Grufo (disputatio) 09:22, 8 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Formulae novae aut recensae

Okay, I have done the harder part of renaming and standardizing our “scholiastic” templates (but not only them). In the following list are either new templates or templates that I have tried to improve with new functionalities (you can have a partial preview of them also at Vicipaedia:Index formularum):

• {{Cc}}
• {{Cdref}}
• {{Cdvox}}
• {{Citatio desiderata}}
• {{Convertimus}}
• {{Diff}}
• {{Dubsig}}
• {{Expungo}}
• {{Fndref}}
• {{Fndvox}}
• {{Fons abortus}}
• {{Fons nominis desideratus}}
• {{Fons verificandus}}
• {{Luminositas solaris}}
• {{Massae astronomicae}}
• {{Ndref}}
• {{Ndvox}}
• {{Nexus perpetuus}}
• {{Nomen desideratum}}
• {{Pm}}
• {{Re}}
• {{Recessus}}
• {{Radii astronomici}}
• {{Scholium}}
• {{Titulus barbarus desideratus}}
• {{Verba barbara desiderata}}
• {{Verba latinizanda}}
• {{Verba obscura}}
• {{Verba verificanda}}
• {{Verba vicificanda}}

If you have any feedback, idea, suggestion, please do let me know! --Grufo (disputatio) 09:40, 8 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Persona

I noticed that recently these three categories have been created:

• Categoria:Personae Divinae Comoediae (Inferno)
• Categoria:Personae Divinae Comoediae (Purgatorio)
• Categoria:Personae Divinae Comoediae (Paradiso)

Then I realized that there are many “Personae ...” categories in this project. The problem is that, at least as long as the Roman Empire was alive, the term persona meant “mask, character, personage, role” – not “person”.

The three categories above are even more confusing because the Divine Comedy does have characters (since it is literature), and yet these three categories are obviously not to be interpreted as “characters in the Divine Comedy” but as “characters that were not only characters (i.e. were real humans, persons)”. I believe an ancient Roman would have named these three categories Homines Divinae Comoediae (i.e. “real people”) – but that doesn't mean we would have to do the same – or we can very well have a category for all the characters, independently if they were real or not.

Long story short: How do we deal with the word persona here on Vicipaedia? --Grufo (disputatio) 18:53, 8 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Mea mente, "personae" hoc contextu recte scribitur: eodem modo Xerxes homo fuit, sed persona est Persarum Aeschyli.

NB: Editor anonymus fortasse Tabernam nostram legere non solet, sed melius erit de labore eius in lingua communi nostra Latina, non Anglice, scribere. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:01, 8 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Video nunc editorem anonymum etiam pleras fabulas mythologicas in categorias insevisse: Myrrhae (#1), Ulixis (#2), Minotauri (#3), Capanei (#4), Minois (#5), Chironis (#6), Charontis (#7), Cerberi (#8), Luciferi (#9). Et dubia mea dissoluta sunt. --Grufo (disputatio) 22:28, 8 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Good morning,

I just read your message and I would like to say that in the Divine Comedy there are many characters from the Bible and classical mythology along with real-life people: for example, in the first bolgia of Malebolge, Dante encounters Venedico Caccianemico, a Bononian politician who lived at the end of the 13th century, along with Jason, the mythological hero. In the next bolgia, he encounters Alessio Interminelli, another Italian historical character from his time, as well as Thais from the Eunuch, a play written by Publius Terence Afer.

I tried to add the category because many of these characters are well known thanks to the Comedy (the page image for Cerberus, for example, is based on his appearance in the sixth canto of Inferno) Then what should we do? Thank you and happy Easter!

P.S. I added only the major characters from the poem, but other historical figures such as Attila and Sextus Pompey are briefly mentioned to be punished in Hell, and I could not add the category for one major character since his page is protected (he appears in the XXVIIIth canto of Inferno with his chest wide-opened). 2.42.134.240 07:29, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Duae (vel plures) versiones Latinae Divinae Comoediae exstant, quarum una nunc in Vicifonte est, partes poematis in categoriis Latine (non Italiane) indicare possumus: Inferna, Purgatorium, Paradisus. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 07:58, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Optime! 2.42.134.240 08:05, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

2.42.134.240 dixit «I tried to add the category because many of these characters are well known thanks to the Comedy»: Sorry, when I wrote I had seen only your recent edits in which you were adding only real people, so I was wondering whether you were using the word persona meaning “person”. But then I realized that you weren't, since you were in fact adding all kind of characters to the category, both real and fictitious, so there is no issue at all (and thank you for your contributions by the way). --Grufo (disputatio) 16:09, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

UV et UVbot categorias moverunt, gratias eis agimus! Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:38, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page

I just discovered the {{Creanda}} template and I find it very useful. However I noticed that the requests for new pages are added to an unfindable category named Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page. It is unlikely that anyone will ever click on a category with such a name, so I would like to rename it to Categoria:Paginae novas paginas petentes (and update the {{Creanda}} template accordingly). --Grufo (disputatio) 19:35, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

1. Per naturam categoriarum Mediawiki, paginas non iam creatas ad categorias addere non possumus. Sed, si indicem talium paginarum perlegere vis, potes ad Formula:Creanda ire et "Nexus ad paginam" imprimere.
2. Iam exstat pagina specialis "Paginae desideratae".
3. Categoria quam vidisti "errorem" temporarium refert, quam UVbot interdum automatice corrigit. Aliis editoribus re vera non interest. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:31, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

1. We can't add pages that don't exist to a category. MediaWiki doesn't allow that. If you want, you can see them all listed at Nexus ad paginam when you go to "Formuila:Creanda".
2. There is already a special page "paginae desideratae" which lists all redlinks including these.
3. The category that you saw is a list of pages that have been created since the "Creanda" template was used. Editors don't need to worry about it: UVbot works through it and replaces the "Creanda" formula with a link, which will be blue. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:40, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

   Many templates automatically add the pages that invoke them to some hidden category (e.g., if you use {{Convertimus}} the page will automatically be added to Categoria:Appellationes conversae). The same does {{Creanda}}, but its category is called Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page. So my question is: Is it OK if I update the template in order to use Categoria:Paginae paginas novas petentes instead, as reference category? All the pages that have included the template in the past will be update automatically. --Grufo (disputatio) 20:46, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

I repeat: MediaWiki does not allow adding pages that don't exist to a category. Since the category you're talking about is for houasekeeping, is temporary, and contains only pages that already do exist, I'll leave the bot controller to comment on whether it needs to be renamed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:52, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

But there will not be pages that don't exist! There will existing pages that asks for new pages (e.g., Cavalcans dei Cavalcanti asks to create Dis, so our category will list Cavalcans dei Cavalcanti, but not Dis). I am basically asking for nothing else than renaming Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page to Categoria:Paginae paginas novas petentes (but wait, don't do it yet, I want to update the template first). --Grufo (disputatio) 20:57, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

{{creanda}} does not add all the pages where it is used to Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page. When {{creanda}} is used as intended to refer to a page that has not yet been created, it does not add any category. If, however, {{creanda}} is used unnecessarily (because the target page does not need to be created any more, as the target page has already been created), then {{creanda}} adds the page where it is used unnecessarily to the error category Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 20:58, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Alright, thank you, UV. So my questions now become two:

1. Would it make sense to rename Categoria:Pages using Template:Ill for an existing page to something else more understandable? Something like the Latin translation of “Pages asking for the creation of pages that already exist”, i.e. Categoria:Paginae creationem paginarum iam exsistentium petentes.
2. Would it make sense to add the page to Categoria:Paginae novas paginas petentes if the page requested does not exist yet? In this way we can have a filter compared to “Nexus ad paginam” applied to the template.

Addition I will prepare a draft for how I intend to edit the template and I will post it here. --Grufo (disputatio) 21:09, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

As to question 1: Good idea to rename this to Latin, provided that we can find a good Latin name (to me, the name you just proposed seems fine).

As to question 2: I do not see the usefulness of such a category. These pages can be found anytime by going to [1]. Readers might get startled and might ask what kind of problem with the current page this category indicates, while in fact there is no problem at all with the current page. Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 21:22, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

But if people go to Nexus ad paginam they will find also the pages that asks for new pages that in the meanwhile have been already created. Imagine a user feels like in the mood of creating missing pages, Categoria:Paginae novas paginas petentes would provide a useful list of suggestions, while Nexus ad paginam would yield a list mixed with pages asking for already created pages. My two cents. --Grufo (disputatio) 21:34, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand that you would use Categoria:Paginae novas paginas petentes only for occurrences where the target page does not exist (yet). In that case, no objection against creating such a (hidden) category. --UV (disputatio) 21:47, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Exactly! And what do you think about the superscript ^{[formulam {{Creanda}} remove]} that I have added to the code below (if a page already exists)? --Grufo (disputatio) 21:50, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Addition Instead of the superscript I am thinking now that something less aggressive could be found (e.g. dashed underline, tooltip, etc.). I will think a bit about the best solution. --Grufo (disputatio) 22:04, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

@UV: Basically this was my idea for the new template's source code (it is just a draft). The new version also adds ^{[formulam {{Creanda}} remove]} when a page has been already created.

<includeonly>{{#if:{{{lt|{{{4|}}}}}}|[[{{{3|{{{2}}}}}}|{{{lt|{{{4}}}}}}]]|[[{{{3|{{{2}}}}}}]]}}{{#ifexist:{{{3|{{{2}}}}}}|[[Categoria:Paginae creationem paginarum iam exsistentium petentes]]&#8239;<sup>[<span style="font-style: italic; color: teal;">formulam <code><nowiki>{{Creanda}}</nowiki></code> remove</span>]</sup>|[[Categoria:Paginae novas paginas petentes]]&#8239;{{#if:{{{nobold|}}}|<span style="font-weight:normal">}}<sup><small>[[:{{{1}}}:{{{2|{{{3}}}}}}|[<span title="&quot;{{{2|{{{3}}}}}}&quot; ({{#language:{{{1}}}}})">{{{1}}}</span>]]]</small></sup>{{#if:{{{nobold|}}}|</span>}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{documentatio}}</noinclude>

What do you think? If anyone has better suggestions for the two category names Paginae novas paginas petentes and Paginae creationem paginarum iam exsistentium petentes, please do speak. --Grufo 21:42, 9 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the template. In the end I have opted for a simple exclamation mark if the page already exists, accompanied by a tooltip. Here it is how it looks like.

• Asking for the creation of an unexisting page:

  Valeria Trierweiler^(fr)

  ↳ The page (i.e. this page, the Taberna) will be listed in Categoria:Paginae novas paginas petentes

• Asking for the creation of an existing page:

  Gaius Iulius Caesar

  ↳ The page (i.e. this page, the Taberna) will be listed in Categoria:Paginae creationem iam exsistentium paginarum petentes

If you have better/shorter names for the two categories above, or if you don't like the idea of the exclamation mark, please let me know! --Grufo (disputatio) 02:20, 10 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Si pagina iam exsistit (nisi fallor) UVbot formulam removet et eodem tempore nexum internum substituit. Inconsulte ergo lectoribus suadebimus ut formulam removeant, nisi etiam suadeamus ut nexum internum creent. Commutatio autem inter formulam existentem et nexum internum futurum, si editores humani faciunt, errores introducere potest. Incertus igitur sum, an utile erit usores suadere ad laborem, quod UVbot satis rapide et sine errore iam perficit. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:26, 25 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know about the incessant work of UVbot. Then I guess the exclamation mark is not needed? @UV: What is your opinion? --Grufo (disputatio) 17:40, 25 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

In my view, we should not show this exclamation mark to readers, but we should show it to those editors who are interested in seeing this exclamation mark. So I would propose to replace this exclamation mark by an empty span with a certain class, e.g. <span class="creata"></span>. This will not be visible to ordinary readers, but editors interested in seeing an exclamation mark (or something else) here could add a line of CSS to their Special:MyPage/common.css or enable a gadget in order to see an exclamation mark (or something else).

Arguments against showing the exclamation mark to ordinary readers: A page containing {{creanda}} unnecessarily (because the target page already exists) is not a big problem and does not need to be urgently fixed. There is no need to alert readers of Vicipaedia to this.

Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:13, 25 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea. Done (#1, #2). --Grufo (disputatio) 14:41, 26 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Since I am interested in seeing the exclamation mark, I have added the following line to my Special:MyPage/common.css:

span.iam-creata::after { content:"[!]"; padding-left:1px; font-size:.75em; vertical-align:super; color:red; font-style:italic; font-weight:bold; }

This worked fine for me and looks like this: Gaius Iulius Caesar[!]. Anyone else may of course copy the above line to their Special:MyPage/common.css (or, in doing so, adapt the line to choose a different/less obtrusive styling). If anyone prefers enabling a gadget to editing their Special:MyPage/common.css, I could also create a gadget for this (with any one styling that most of us who would like to enable the gadget are comfortable with). Greetings, --UV (disputatio) 22:13, 26 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, UV. I added your code to the documentation of {{Creanda}}. --Grufo (disputatio) 22:26, 26 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Bene fecistis! Ego etiam hanc rem ad paginam meam common.css addidi. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:37, 27 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Auxilium nostrum peto; de "New Latin" aut "Neo-Latin"

Salvete omnes! At en:New Latin I have asked if the page can be moved to en:Neo-Latin, to be consistent with conventional English language academic usage regarding this period of Latin usage (which some of you may say we are still in). Unfortuntely so far I have had little response, I suspect because people don't understand the position. If any of you feel like expressing an opinion, I would be most grateful. JimKillock (disputatio) 11:22, 15 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Hoping some of you can help @Andrew Dalby @Demetrius Talpa @IacobusAmor - the conversation has stalled with not much sensible input, as most people don't really understand the terminology, I suspect. JimKillock (disputatio) 20:04, 21 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Mmm... and I don't know what's better in English. In Russian, I would rather be for "novo-" (i.e. new), and not for "neo". Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 21:04, 21 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

It isn't about what is best as a new translation, so much as what is the accepted term, I would say. All the recent literature uses the term "Neo-Latin". See en:Neo-Latin studies for instance. The WP policy is to use the most commonly known term, with various caveats. I've never yet found Latin of Petrarch to present referred to as "New Latin" outside of a dictionary, but there are dozens of articles, foundations and books for "Neo-Latin". JimKillock (disputatio) 06:57, 24 Aprilis 2023 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Piermark/House of Yahweh/HoY

Apologies for writing in English. If this is not the proper place to post, please move it somewhere more appropriate. Please help translate to your language There is an on-going discussion about a proposal that Piermark/House of Yahweh/HoY be globally banned from editing all Wikimedia projects. You are invited to participate at Requests for comment/Global ban for Piermark on Meta-Wiki. Thank you! U.T. (disputatio) 12:36, 4 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Inclinatio generalis Vicipaediae

Pars accepta a: Disputatio Vicipaediae:Inclinatio generalis § Inclinatio generalis Vicipaediae – Locus opportunior --Grufo

Inclinatio generalis Vicipaediae (Anglice systemic bias) est inclinatio ad parte latinitate et Romae. Multam historiam Romanam scribunt Vicipaediani, sed non multa de re publica populari Sinarum. (Placita usoris RadioactiveBoulevardier)

Fortasse tibi utile erit paginas Vicipaedicas plures perlegere, aut, si vis, indicem mutationum recentium. Istos Vicipaedianos, qui de historia Romana hoc tempore scribunt, non cognosco! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 08:53, 4 Maii 2023 (UTC)

In taberna aptius scribi? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:38, 4 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Sic est. Sine dubio, res Romanae et Europaeae hic melius descriptae sunt, quam Sericae et Africanae. Sed: a) huiusmodi vitium in omnibus Vicipaediis inveniri potest b) aliqui participes id corrigere temptabant et aliquae paginae de Sinis iam compositae sunt c) corrigas et ipse, scribas Latine de Sinis. Fontes Latini de Sinis pauciores sunt, sed non absunt (e.g., Martinii libri). Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 19:48, 4 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Interdictio perpetua usoris "Gypsy and Mexican 11"

I believe that [this user's edit] should be a one way ticket to a permanent ban. --Grufo (disputatio) 01:50, 19 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Nomen hora 02:26 obstructum est: vide paginam de conlationibus usoris. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 07:48, 19 Maii 2023 (UTC)

De Latinitate et exspectationibus

Inter omnes constat, saeculorum decursu varia Latine scripta in lucem edita esse, et quidem diverso gradu Latinitatis. Quot opera, tot genera linguae Latinae adhibitae. Vicipaedia haec, iure et merito, normas praescribit, quibus articuli hic scripti obtemperent. Quae normae ad linguam spectatae, ut censeo, caliginosae, et ita perplexe definitae sunt. Quando notio classica neologismo antehabeatur? Quando circumscribatur? Quando licet, ut terminos fictos aut prius aliter adhibitos pro vocabulis mancis adhibeamus? Quaestiones tantum nonnullae quibus respondere non possumus. Quae cum ita sint, recensiones Latinitatis interdum arbitrariae potius quam obiectivae esse videntur. Martinus Vester (disputatio) 12:55, 21 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Si breviter, duo genera dicendi in Latinitate adsunt: humanisticum et Ciceronianum unum, scholasticum et scientificum alterum. In encyclopaediam ambo includenda sunt, neutrum prohibere possumus, ergo in paginis suis in multis casibus scriptor ipse facultatem eligendi habet. Quoad recensiones Latinitatis ("latinitas|-5 etc.), ipse eas pono, cum non stylisticas variationes, sed grammaticos errores vel verba manifeste fictilia video; denique, et eae recensiones a quodam participe positae, in casu quoque disputari possunt. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 10:22, 22 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Anglice conference

I wanted to create the Latin page of en:conference, but I could not choose which word to use among conferentia_(en), collatio_(en), congressus_(en), concilium_(en), coetus_(en), concursus_(en), contio_(en), conventio_(en), conventus_(en). Any suggestion? --Grufo (disputatio) 16:54, 23 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Ok, just found out that the Vatican uses Conferentia Episcopalis for “Episcopal Conference”. So conferentia be it. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:16, 24 Maii 2023 (UTC)

De genere pumilionis

We might have a problem with the following pages:

• Pumilio fusca
• Pumilio alba
• Pumilio flava
• Pumilio rubra

…Pumilio_(en) is masculine! --Grufo (disputatio) 18:46, 28 Maii 2023 (UTC)

Ok, solved already. It is both masculine and feminine (see Lucretius, De rerum natura, IV, 1162, "parvula, pumilio, chariton mia"). I ought to update the wiktionary page. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:54, 28 Maii 2023 (UTC)

There wasn't really a problem: we already discussed this term, including its gender, at Disputatio:Pumilio alba. As an aside, why anyone would rely on wiktionary I can't imagine, but, of course, it's a good idea to improve it :) Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:09, 4 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I even participated in that discussion, but my memory betrayed me! Wiktionary can be great for the simplicity of clicking on a link in the references (which is exactly what I did to find that reference to Lucretius in Lewis&Short – I know, you had mentioned that quotation too…). --Grufo (disputatio) 17:44, 4 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

If it has some references now, that's a plus! I knew it when it had few or none. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:05, 5 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Most words have at least a link to Lewis&Short and Gaffiot. Sometimes there is also Du Cange. Rarely there are more sources. The typical references of a lemma look like this: mercator § References. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:05, 5 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

"Supermassive black hole"

I wonder what Latin term we can use for “supermassive black hole” (d:Q40392). Some pages already mention “foramen nigrum supermassivum”, but “massivus” is not a Latin adjective. Personally I would opt for “foramen nigrum gravissimum”. --Grufo (disputatio) 02:31, 1 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Either massivum or gravissimum would be ok but gravissimum would be more classical. Regardless it should match the neuter gender of the noun it modifies.-- Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 04:13, 1 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Of course, typo fixed :) --Grufo (disputatio) 04:24, 1 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

I am leaning towards “foramen nigrum supergrave” now. Rationale:

• It is better not to use superlatives in names, because superlatives need to preserve their grammatical function (e.g. “Ex his foramen nigrum gravissimum est Cygnus X-1” must be able to be translated as “The heavieast black hole among these is Cygnus X-1” and not as “The supermassive black hole among these is Cygnus X-1”)
• Massivus is not a Latin adjective, gravis is
• Super is a good prefix for something that has a threshold (> 100 000 M_☉)

--Grufo (disputatio) 00:41, 4 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

For English 'massive', Traupman (2007) gives Latin solidus and ingens. Cassell's (1968) gives "solidus (= dense), magnus (= great), gravis (= heavy)." Ainsworth's (1837) allows only one choice: "Massive, or massy, Solidus." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:36, 4 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

So (if unusually great mass is the point) persolidum foramen nigrum? or foramen nigrum inusitate solidum? or foramen nigrum solidum praeter solitum? Or (if size is the point) permagnum foramen nigrum? or ingens foramen nigrum? IacobusAmor (disputatio) 11:46, 4 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Size and mass are directly proportional, so they are both big and heavy. But the conventional thresholds are tied to the mass. To be precise:

• 3–100 M_☉: We have a stellar black hole – Lat.: foramen nigrum stellare (?)
• 100–100000 M_☉: We have an intermediate-mass black hole – Lat.: foramen nigrum intermediumVide adiectivum apud Lewis & Short: “that is between, intermediate (ante - class. and late Lat), Varr. R. R. 3, 5, 11; Paul. Nol. Carm. 26, 637.” (?)
• > 100000 M_☉: We have a supermassive black hole – Lat.: ?

As you correctly said, solidus means “dense”. It might apparently look like a good adjective for describing black holes, but the problem is that black holes' density decreases with their mass, and so in theory a very very large black hole could be less dense than thin air (and consequently a very solidum black hole would be the smallest possible one!). So I would say that it is better to exclude this adjective, as it would create a lot of confusion. Magnus and ingens are more related to the size I think – they would picture the object somehow, but would not be rigorous definitions. Another adjective that might possibly fit is potens (i.e. with a lot of gravitational pull), but it would fail at reminding us that the huge gravity is only a consequence of its mass, like English “massive” does. And so we are left only with gravis. Alternatively, there would still be the possibility of using supermassivus as a neologism. Very very rarely we do encounter the adjective massivus in scientific Latin. See pseudoheliodiscus massivus and canis massivus Britannicus (I did not find much else).

I might be reconsidering supermassivum after all; for the ancients mass and weight were basically synonyms, but today we must make a distinction (one is measured in kilograms and the other one in newtons and depends on where you measure it), and I was realizing that we do not have a classical adjective for “massive”. So it might be worth to “invent” one after all. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:38, 4 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Massa and by derivation massivus, etc. are scientific latin. Massa is the scientific latin term for scientific english mass in the sense used in physics which is pertinent here. It is unclear to me how the densities of supermassive blackholes compare. You would also have to know the volume (calculated from the event horizon?) which I think grows with the mass.---Rafaelgarcia (disputatio) 00:25, 5 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

The density of a black hole (any black hole) is given by:

$\rho ={\frac {3c^{6}}{32\pi G^{6}M^{2}}}$

So, as the mass ($M$) increases the density ($\rho$) quadratically decreases. As mentioned in en:Schwarzschild radius#Other uses, a black hole with a radius of 2.67 UA would have the density of water. Or, to put it in a different way, a blob of water with a radius of 2.67 UA would become a black hole. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:50, 5 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Formula:Latinitas, Categoria:L +1, asteroids

I happened to visit Categoria:L +1 (assigned automatically when {{Latinitas|1}} or {{L1}} are added to the page) and realized that it is full of pages about asteroids. These pages were all created by either Robert.Baruch.Bot or Robert.Baruch with the {{L1}} template from the beginning. It is impossible to check all of them, but a recurring grammar mistake, for example, is that of using distans + space in ablative instead of accusative (e.g. “distans igitur a sole ... unitatibus [astronomicis] 1.89” instead of “distans igitur a sole ... unitates astronomicas 1.89”). Leaving aside the opportunity of ranking the pages that we ourselves create, I was thinking, should we not imagine a mechanism where the ranking of a page is assigned only after at least two or three editors have expressed their vote? We could imagine for instance a {{Latinitas 2.0}} template that uses the following syntax:

{{Latinitas 2.0|Grufo: -1|ExampleUser: -3|OtherUser: 1}}

The templates calculates the average vote given by the three users (i.e. -1) and then calls {{L-1}} accordingly. If only one editor has expressed their vote the template remains silent waiting for at least one more vote (or two more?). --Grufo (disputatio) 19:58, 14 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Ille textus de asteroidibus non a roboto compositus est. A tribus fere Vicipaedianis perlectus, correctus, probatus est. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:22, 14 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Non de illis paginis hic dissero, sed eae occasionem meditationis generalis mihi dederunt (etiamsi spatium “distandi” forma accusativi dandum sit); non tantum ad iudicium aptius et a pluribus usoribus moderatum proferendum, sed etiam ad participationem simpliciorem efficiendam (quid facias hodie si cum iudicio alicuius usoris de latinitate non concordes? incipisne disputationem de gradu latinitatis paginae?). At meum est tantummodo propositum. --Grufo (disputatio) 21:09, 14 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Distare cum ablativo esse potest, — Livius maria pari ferme intervallo distantia, apud Forcellini I 1d, vel in allis lexicis. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 18:02, 15 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Demetrius. Apparently you are right, but it seems pretty rare (some dictionaries don't even mention it) and maybe slightly problematic too, because you can express in ablative the place from which something is distant. For instance, “Foro nimium distare Carinas” (Hor. Ep. I, 7, 48), i.e. “the Carinae being too far from the Forum”: if instead of nimium you had tribus pedibus it would not be clear if the Carinae are distant “three feet from the Forum” or instead “a Forum from the three feet”. --Grufo (disputatio) 09:38, 16 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Sed si de asteroidibus, non de Carinis loquimur ... Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:51, 16 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that the bare ablative can almost always serve in the sense of "in/with regard to" (as in the cited example from Horace), but when we want to specify something in numbers (like a distance), the accusative of measure is better; so in the cited formula, not least because the ablative has already been used up (so to speak) for the sun (a sole), a less confusing style might involve changing the wording as recommended by Grufo. ¶ Maybe a better order, more closely connecting the number with the word distans, would be "A sole igitur ... unitates astronomicas 1.89 distans." IacobusAmor (disputatio) 16:19, 16 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Grufoni Iacoboque gratias ago. Si locutionem in his paginis de asteroidibus (fere 10,000!) mutare formulasque Latinitatis in eisdem paginis emendare consentimus, fortasse apud rectorem roboti quemdam edita automatica postulare possumus.

1. An volumus formulam Latinitatis eo modo, quem Grufo urget, mutare, nominibus iudicum additis?

2. Paginis encyclopaedicis inceptorum Vicimediorum sine editorum nomine a principio divulgatis, an melius erit (iterum per robotum) formulas Latinitatis in paginas disputationis respectivas (ubi nomina editorum dari solent) movere?

If we agree to change the wording in these asteroid pages (about 10,000 of them!), and also to make a change to the Latinitas formula, we could perhaps ask a bot owner to do the two jobs automatically at the same time.

1. Do we want to change the Latinitas formula as Grufo suggests, including the names of the judges?

2. Since encylopedia pages on Wikimedia projects have always been published without editors' names, do we want -- again with a bot's help -- to move the formulae to the talk page in each case, on which editors' names normally appear? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:28, 16 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

1. Formulam Latinitatis immutatam permanere praefero. Non puto rationem a Grufone propositam tantum meliorem quantum difficiliorem fore.
2. Distantiae asteroidum a sole in casu accusativo clariores exprimerentur. Rogemus ergo "rectorem roboti quendam" de hoc desiderio! Bis-Taurinus (disputatio) 23:03, 16 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

I'm not against accusative. - In most cases, we can find out from the editing history, who graded the Latin. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 15:49, 17 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Cum Demetrio bis consentio. Re vera praefero, tamquam iudex Latinitatis, nomen meum ex historia paginae reperiri sinere; "+1", "-3" vel sim. in summarium scribere soleo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:03, 17 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Cum Demetrio bis quoque consentio. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 18:47, 17 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

---

Prima adumbratio formulae. Novam formulam {{Urna Latinitatis}} scripsi, in paginas disputationum inserendam. Nova formula non est substituenda in locum {{Latinitas}}, sed duae formulae aestimationem Latinitatis meliorem facere possunt: formula {{Latinitas}} (in pagina) responsum formulae disputationis {{Urna Latinitatis}} accipiet. Est tantummmodo adumbratio, at vos peto ut eam exploretis. --Grufo (disputatio) 17:58, 17 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Apud Disputatio:Acidum et Disputatio:Nationale Admonitorium Concilium pro Aëronautica prima experimenta formulae inveniri possunt. --Grufo (disputatio) 18:49, 17 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Formula {{Urna Latinitatis}}, sicut in "Disputatio:Spacellificatio" videtur, nuntium falsum dat. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:10, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Sumptio: Formula est adhuc adumbratio. Nihilominus, normam propositam scripseram, secundum quam qui est solus auctor paginae et solus iudex Latinitatis responsum in paginam transcribere non potest. Ergo, etiamsi formula in Disputatio:Spacellificatio petat ut formula {{L1}} paginae addatur, ego eam addere non possum. At tu potes, quia alius iudex es. Si {{L1}} paginae "Spacellificationis" addis meam aestimationem de Latinitate confirmabis. Aliter, tuam discordantem aestimationem in formulam {{Urna Latinitatis}} (apud paginam disputationis) inserere potes. Quid arbitraris de hoc mechanismo? --Grufo (disputatio) 19:41, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Deletiones propositae accumulatae

Apud Categoria:Deletiones propositae sunt plures deletiones propositae deletionem exspectantes. --Grufo (disputatio) 13:24, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Deletiones propositas peregi, una excepta. Categoria:Contributiones Propositae usque adhuc plures categorias continet. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:05, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago, Andrew. «Usque adhuc plures categorias continet»: Ignoro cur fiat. Nulla pagina vel formula categoriam "Contributiones Propositae" invocat. Formula {{Unienda}} et eius redirectionem {{Contribuenda}} purgare conatus sum, at nullum effectum obtinui. @UV: Scisne tu?_{Demum solvi (vide infra) --Grufo} --Grufo (disputatio) 16:17, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

• Addendum 1. Cum quamquam paginam in categoria Contributiones Propositae cum “null edit” recenseam, eadem ad categoriam “Uniones paginarum propositae” movetur. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:23, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)
• Addendum 2. Categoria:Contributiones Propositae est nunc vacua. --Grufo (disputatio) 16:33, 19 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Auxilium cum Vicidata

Movi paginam Prospectus Montanus (California), sed formula Capsa urbis Vicidata nunc non operat. Censeo paginam https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q486860#sitelinks-wikipedia corrigendam esse. Pagina autem dimidiam protectionem habet, non mihi licet recensere. Quaeso, si possitis, adiuvate. Ornil (disputatio) 04:09, 28 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Nexum rectum in Vicidatis addidi. Nescio, cur hoc automatice non factum sit. Demetrius Talpa (disputatio) 09:30, 28 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Gratias tibi ago. Nunc formula operat. Ornil (disputatio) 15:39, 28 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Categorization/terminology of Computer Scientist

We currently have Categoria:Computatores which links to the English category for computer scientists, but has people like Zuckerberg and Jobs in it, who may be reasonably described as computatores (as in people involved in computing), but not computer scientists. Furthermore, it looks like we use informatica for computer science, and some pages use the term informaticus for computer scientists. I am thinking of creating a category Informatici and putting all academic folks there, to match Categoria:Physici, etc. However, what should we do about other "computer people"? Perhaps we can keep computatores as a super-category of informatici to include software engineers, computing execs, and the like, but I am not sure I like the name, since e.g. accountants can also be reasonably described as computatores in Latin. Should we perhaps not even have this category (I think English wikipedia doesn't), or call it something else? What are your thoughts? Ornil (disputatio) 17:37, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the interwiki link is wrong. Humans working as computers have played an important role in society for centuries, and most importantly that is what our Computator page tells us. Categoria:Computatores should therefore be linked to d:Q8527120 (i.e. English Category:Human computers), while English “computer scientist” could be Latin scientista computatralis. I am also noticing now that we have an absurd page named Computatrum humanum, which in my opinion should be merged with Computator (before machines were invented a computer could just be a human). --Grufo (disputatio) 18:26, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

In modern Romance languages this profession is generally called something like "informatici", e.g. es:Categoría:Informáticos or fr:Catégorie:Informaticien, see also wikidata interwiki list. So I am less inclined to use a calque from English. Ornil (disputatio) 18:55, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that in Romance languages Informatici are anything ranging from a computer technician to a computer scientist (more or less like what you could express with English “IT people”), so it depends on what kind of granularity we want to achieve; my take is that if we want to differentiate the role of a scientist from that of a computer technician we need more than one word. --Grufo (disputatio) 19:33, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

I assume we don't want to really create a very different category structure from what all the other wikis use. But we do get to pick which meaning to use for neo-latin terms. So, since "computer scientists" are almost universally translated as "informatici" in other languages, we should go with it, and then deal with corner cases as needed. Zuckerberg in Spanish is listed under "programmadores" and "empresarios", but not "informaticos", so we can do the same. Italian and French do list him in the equivalent of "informatici", but we don't have to. Ornil (disputatio) 20:12, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

The Spanish Wikipedia is the only one that differentiates using informático teórico for computer scientist, which already rules out a computer technician. And indeed Spanish is the only language that calls Alan Turing – the computer scientist par excellence – an informático teórico. On the other hand you can hardly call Turing an informatico in Italian or an informaticien in French; indeed both Wiki pages say that he laid the foundation of informatique/informatica but they imply that he himself was not an informaticien/informatico. And the reason is that, since he did not have yet a computer, he was not an “IT person” enough for being an informatico/informaticien – because that is what informatique/informatica actually means. So “computer scientist” and informaticien can be quite distant in their meaning. I am still for using scientista computatralis / peritus scientiae computatralis for “computer scientist”, and informaticus for “IT person”. --Grufo (disputatio) 20:31, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

The French wiki is cleverly using fr:Catégorie:Personnalité_de_l'informatique to side-step the issue (and probably to be gender-neutral?), and perhaps we could do something like that, or like the Spanish, informaticus theoreticus (not sure that's good in Latin)? In any case we are in agreement that computatores is bad. I'd like to get feedback from other folks too. Ornil (disputatio) 22:35, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

«In any case we are in agreement that computatores is bad»: Definitely bad for translating Category:Computer scientists, perfect instead for translating Category:Human computers.

«Perhaps we could do something like that, or like the Spanish, informaticus theoreticus (not sure that's good in Latin)?»: While other people answer, can you also explain what does not convince you of scientista computatralis / peritus scientiae computatralis? We already use that nomenclature at our Alanus Mathison Turing page. --Grufo (disputatio) 23:07, 30 Iunii 2023 (UTC)

Mostly I don't like privileging English terminology, when it seems an outlier internationally speaking. And scientista computatralis is almost unpronounceable. Also, as a computer scientist myself, I think it's a singularly inapt term for the profession, since computer science isn't a science and does not study computers, so propagating that to other languages seems undesirable to me. The various versions of "informatica", while also imperfect feel more accurate. Ornil (disputatio) 00:19, 1 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

The reason the English wikipedia deserves its place of privilege is that it's the result of far, far, far more human computing power than any other wiki (at one time, than all the other wikis put together, but that situation must have changed by now). Despite its lapses and infelicities, it's the world's best guess of what a wiki-styled encyclopedia should be. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 01:47, 1 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

This terminology does not only exist in Wikipedia, it's what the field is called in various languages, so I don't think that this principle should apply to the vocabulary we use. If you tell me that the categorization system of enwiki is what we should follow, that I am willing to buy. However, our article on the subject is called informatica (like in most languages) and not scientia computatralis (or similar), so I'd rather be consistent, and call its practitioners something derived from the field. Ornil (disputatio) 02:08, 1 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

«The subject is called informatica»: I do not agree. Something is definitely called informatica but does not completely overlap with what in English is called “computer science” (although for its largest part does). Example: in English en:Theory of computation is a branch of computer science, but in Italian it:Teoria della computazione is not a branch of informatica, but of mathematics instead. “Computer science” is somewhat wider than informatica, or between mathematics and informatica. The way I think about informatica is more or less like “applied computer science” (definitely not “theoretical computer science” – for that Italian might prefer teoria della computazione, or sometimes informatica teorica – so you need to specify that it is theoretical). The terms informatica and computer science have also different histories: the first one is tied to Dreyfus, the second one is tied to Turing and others. --Grufo (disputatio) 03:10, 1 Iulii 2023 (UTC)

Our article is called informatica, I am not making a claim about the subject. If you want to rename it, it's fine, but if not, we should be consistent with the name for those who practice it. Ornil (disputatio) 04:08, 1 Iulii 2023 (UTC)