Disputatio Usoris:LlywelynII

Salve, Llywelyn!

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

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

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

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

In paginis encyclopaedicis mos noster non est nomen dare, sed in paginis disputationis memento editis tuis nomen subscribere, litteris impressis --~~~~, quibus insertis nomen tuum et dies apparebit. Quamquam vero in paginis ipsis nisi lingua Latina uti non licet, in paginis disputationum qualibet lingua scribi solet. Quodsi quid interrogare velis, vel Taberna vel pagina disputationis mea tibi patebit. Ave! Spero te "Vicipaedianum" fieri velle!-- Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:46, 29 Ianuarii 2013 (UTC)

Great

It's great if you're adding pages about sites in Roman Britain. Not sure if you've noticed the existing pages about Roman roads (you'll find the relevant ones under Categoria:Britannia Romana): you'll want to link them in when starting a page for a place mentioned on one of these. If you knew already, ignore me! Also, you can add the "Coord" template to any place whose location is known. Keep in mind our lower limit for a stub: text of at least 200 characters.

Our existing template for indicating that a reference is in English is {{Ling|Anglice}}. Any language can be indicated by varying the parameter, and it is possible to chain them if a site is in more than one language, thus: {{Ling|Anglice|Francogallice|Latine}}. I notice that you suggested a category for pages that have this template. I'm not sure what use that would be, but if you think it would be useful, you could suggest it e.g. at Disputatio Formulae:Ling. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:34, 18 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

I don't terribly mind adding them since the link from Wikisource apparently isn't noticeable here, but i. Formula:Antiquae viae Romanae is a better link, although ii. it'd be more helpful if they were labelled according to their traditional route numbers (Iter I, Iter II, &c.) and iii. Iter I—from Hadrian's Wall to "Praetorium"—doesn't seem to be listed, let alone given a page.LlywelynII (disputatio) 13:24, 18 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

I probably didn't write clearly. All I meant was, if a placename already occurs on one of those existing "Iter ..." pages, make a redirect from that form of the placename to your new page. You probably will do it anyway, you are making lots of redirects :)

It might well have been better to make the "Iter ..." pages correspond always exactly to the routes in the Itinerarium. I guess they could still be remodelled that way -- there are plenty left to do, in any case, including the one you mention. And they could then be numbered, as you suggest. If you care to revise and add to them, and improve Formula:Antiquae viae Romanae too, you're very welcome, obviously! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:59, 18 Decembris 2014 (UTC)

De nominibus Sinicis

Hi, LlywelynII. I'm glad you're adding information to pages on Chinese cities. Thanks especially for finding Latin names for Suzhou in Jiangsu, which no one else had. I noted a couple of details in one of your summaries which made me think a bit, and I'm not sure I agree with you on these ...

You say that "Catholic dioceses are not a source for Latin use of "Suzhou": it's an English source, using English". It is that, but it is also a very good source for Latin place name adjectives, and that's why we often cite it. To have a guide to such adjectives is likely to be handy for users of Vicipaedia. Still, you didn't delete the citation, so no problem!

You also say that "Pinyin is official in the PRC for all romanizations" and I guess that corresponds with your re-arranging of lemmas e.g. "Hancheum (Sinice 杭州), officialiter Hángzhōu". This seems to imply that the name 杭州 is not official, and that the pinyin accented form Hángzhōu is official. But surely 杭州 is official, isn't it? As to whether Hángzhōu or Hangzhou, or both, are also official, I defer to your knowledge. But bear in mind that our main purpose, not being an official source by a very long way (!), is to give Latin names and, alongside them, the most useful name in the relevant national language. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:22, 12 Iulii 2016 (UTC)

Pomponius Mela

Let me just remind you that when moving from one acceptable name to another (e.g. De Situ Orbis) our rule is to provide a source. Don't worry in this case, however. I'll find a couple now. I like the new name. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:34, 6 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Lovely collection of old editions at Internet Archive. Haven't found the editio princeps yet. ...

Yes! Gallica has it! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:18, 6 Februarii 2019 (UTC)

Sina

Hi, LlywelynII. Very much as with my comment above, if adding an additional lemma to a lead sentence, you need to ensure that a source is cited. In this case, I'm not sure whether "Sina" (singular) is or is not as good a Latin name for Siganum as the two names that are there already: so I reverted the addition. If convinced that it is good, all you need to do when adding it again is to attach a good reliable source in a footnote. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:31, 12 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)

In short: what source confirms that Sina is an alternate name here? Cite it in a footnote. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 12:46, 12 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby: & @IacobusAmor: eh, good on you for watching out for things but, if you actually dispute the addition, one of you need to remove it from Sina, where it already is listed as a synonym. If you don't dispute that being on "your" project, then you should also list it on the actual article. Cheers. — LlywelynII 17:13, 12 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)

Similarly, what's the point of having the fact needed tag when its existence just means someone's planning on reverting the edit anyway? Just to keep track of future reverts? Kinda obnoxious. — LlywelynII 17:18, 12 Aprilis 2024 (UTC)